Monday, 4 February 2013

Change that Jersey so desperately needs

I've spent a very large amount of time blogging and campaigning for electoral reform in Jersey and am about to spend even more time on it when the referendum campaign officially begins. But sometimes a criticism of this whole process is made (quite rightly I think), that it isn't the be all and end all and that there are still a great many things that need to be fixed in Jersey before we can have a fully democratic system that ensures the "demos kratos" of democracy is fully applied.

This could not be more accurate.

An outspoken former politician once told me that he wished me all the best with Reform Jersey's campaign and believed that we were arguing for something that was fundamentally right, but that the most important democratic change that Jersey needs is nothing to do with the system, but all to do with the political culture of Jersey. He said that even under the current electoral system, if the people of Jersey adopted a mature political culture that doesn't currently exist, the quality of Jerseys government and democracy would improve far more than a rearrangement of the electoral boundaries will achieve. He believed that this change in culture would only come about when Jersey faced a cataclysmic crisis (a huge hit to the finance industry, or something like that).

I suspect that much of that is right, though I would much prefer that we won the campaign for a fair electoral system and would hope that, from that, a better political culture would naturally develop in Jersey, without a crisis. And so for that reason I remain dedicated to the campaign for Option A.

But this point about Jersey peoples attitude to politics I think is something to really worry about. If people don't treat politics as something that is an acceptable thing to be involved in, it ultimately will impact negatively on democracy and we end up in a situation where we have a government that can't really claim to be founded upon the bedrock of popular consent.

And there isn't just a lack of people actively involved in politics in Jersey, there are actually people who make it their business to actively discourage people from exercising their right to express themselves (including several fake Twitter, Blogger and Facebook accounts specifically created to abuse and libel those involved in intelligent and sensible, but left wing or "anti-Establishment" political discussions. Do watch out for these, because they should not be taken seriously nor given any attention).


An example of this has been the recent tornado of online abuse that has been shamelessly fanned by the local media against American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman. I'm not going to defend or criticise Goodman here, nor analyse what she said in any detail, but make observations on the reaction to her interview going viral last week.

Whether you love or hate Goodman and what she is doing/ saying about Jersey, one thing that was interesting to note is just how unintelligent the majority of criticism against her was. I saw countless people on Twitter and Facebook posting the interview she did with Russia Today along with a pretty vacuous comment about how "everything she said was wrong".

When I could be bothered to challenge them to say something with a bit more substance, most couldn't, but when they proceeded to repeat that "everything she said was wrong", I would point them in the direction of Rico Sorda's posts and The Jersey Way recordings of States sessions that prove she was right when she mentioned about a Jersey blogger being gagged by the government. (You can argue the rights or wrongs of that, but it is a fact that it has happened). This was enough to convince many people that they had been unfairly dismissive of her, and that (at least) one thing she had said was actually true.

So, a foreign journalist had actually made one particular observation about Jersey that is provably true, yet the instinct of the average Jersey person was to totally dismiss her without any sort of constructive thinking or even spending a few moments on Google. Bit ironic considering one criticism was that we are "insular" as an island.

This relates to a point I've made a few times before that I make again - Patriotism in the final refuge of the scoundrel, and defending Jersey uncritically is actually bad for the island because it is an excuse to brush things under the carpet instead of paying attention to thought-out criticism and acting upon it. Jersey has a habit of trying to demonise those outside the island, to distract the populace from the islands own internal failings. (I wrote about one example here)

Some commentators made legitimate and intelligent criticisms of Goodman (Tony Bellow's blog being a good example), but we also had James Rondel's blog on the subject which demonstrated all of the things I have observed here.

I know and like James and respect him for being committed, articulate, sensible and often showing a lot of integrity (despite having huge ideological differences with him), but his blog demonstrated everything that is bad about Jersey politics. It contained not one single analysis of the accusations she made, and instead threw up all sorts of irrelevant criticisms of American politics. This is the worst of Jersey politics. The issues are ignored and the person is attacked for no reason other than that she had inconvenient and unpleasant things to say about Jersey.

This sort of way of engaging with Jersey politics has to stop. It is not healthy and does not make this island a better place.

What Jersey needs is a political culture that lets people speak their minds and provides forums for those who care about something in Jersey to actively get involved and engage with the political process, through more pressure groups and eventually political parties.

What does a young person who cares about the environment do in Jersey to get involved with the cause? Well not a lot really. There are one or two things, but nothing captivating.

Or even a young person who has suddenly become politically aware and has adopted an ideology (be it conservativism, socialism, etc) and wants to just be a part of a group that talks about these things and has various campaigns that they are involved in.

One thing that I am aware of is a group of Hautlieu students that are wanting to form a Students Association to be an official group made up of students and other interested people to advocate specifically for the interests of students in the island. So that will mean campaigning on higher education funding, how the education budget is allocated etc. But I really dread to think how these enthusiastic and well intentioned young people will suddenly realise that there are huge numbers of horrible people (that is a moderate description) in Jersey that will make it their business to rain on their parade and demoralise them into just giving up. Their tactic will be abuse, not reasoned argument.

A Golden Opportunity

This is all part of why I want to really utilise the upcoming referendum campaign to try and set a standard for politics in Jersey and show that debate is much better when it focuses on the issues, not the personalities, and that anyone can (and should!) get involved.

Many commentators seem to mistakenly believe that somehow this referendum is democratic.

As I argued in my second submission to the Electoral Commission, that is not the case because democracy is about so much more than voting on an arbitrary question. In fact Guernsey has an electoral system very similar to Option A, but they didn't have to bother with a referendum to achieve it because it was objectively more democratic than what they had before. No-one could claim that that process was undemocratic.

Referendums are simply tools used by politicians to get what they want. That's why they are not offered on questions that the executive knows they won't get the answer they want. In a Parliamentary democracy we elect people to make the decisions, not to put random and inconsistent issues to a public plebiscite.

The reason we are having the referendum in Jersey is because for decades the States have been unable to reform themselves, and if there is a clear public endorsement in a direct vote for a particular electoral system, it will become politically impossible for the States not to implement it (though they will still legally be able to ignore it). That is what it is about. It is just a tool being used as a convenient practical assistance to making progress, not for any ideological democratic reasons. But that isn't to denigrate it, in fact I think it's positive, because it will make sure that something is actually done.

A Second Question?

There is some talk at the moment about potentially using this referendum as an excuse to get a few other things out of the way too. Namely, the position of the Bailiff as President of the States Assembly. I opposed two questions on the electoral reform issue, because I saw them as being interlinked, however this I see as a standalone issue and am open to offering it my support for a second ballot question.

We have had two independent reports (Clothier and Carswell) that have said that the dual role of the Bailiff should end and that the States should elect a speaker. But no progress has been made (despite some politicians attempting to get the States to either endorse the reports findings, or put them to referendum), and so for the same reason we are having the electoral reform referendum, it may be a good idea to use this as an opportunity to get the inevitable over and done with.

Separation of Powers

As I briefly mentioned in my last post, the position of the Bailiff as the speaker of our Parliament is just not normal. In any other country, it would be considered a no-brainer that there should be a separation of powers. It is not right for the person who implements the law in the courts to also preside over the creation of the law in the Parliament.

Some argue that current system has never actually produced bad results and that all of our Bailiffs have carried out the role properly. That may or may not be true, but nevertheless, there is nothing to say that the next Bailiff may not carry out the role properly. There are no safeguards. We need a system by which the States (and by extension, the people) have the ability to get rid of a bad Speaker.

One of my favourite Tony Benn quotes is - "If one meets a powerful person, ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."

That last question would be the hardest to answer if we keep the Bailiff as President of the States.

If a Bailiff turned out to be a poor Speaker, but was an excellent judge, what could the States do? By sacking him, we would lose an excellent judge, by keeping him, we would have a States that isn't being managed well. If the roles are separated, that no longer becomes an issue. (Note that that is almost identical to one of my reasons for abolishing the dual role of the Constables). And sacking a speaker is much less controversial than sacking the civic head of the island.

As usual, some have come out with all sorts of strange arguments for the status quo. One incredible argument I heard was that we shouldn't change the system because any alternative would be more expensive! Nonsense. States Members already get a wage, so electing one of them to be the speaker would not mean adding a wage to anyone. In fact, it would mean we have a head of the judiciary that can do that job full time (thus meaning value for money from his current wage) and a speaker that can do it full time (meaning less money needing to be spent on assistants etc). If your concern for public spending restraint trumps your desire for democracy, separating the roles should still appeal to you.

Another point I would make is that on the face of it, the role of Bailiff (and the other law officers) appears to attract only men into the position. If the speaker came from the ranks of the States we would be much more likely to have female representation, which is an area that I think Jersey has a lot of work to do.

Further to that, law is a career that is stereotypically viewed as being mostly pursued by the wealthy. This is increasingly becoming less of the case, but many of the top jobs still go to those from wealthy backgrounds, simply because to train to become a barrister takes a year and it is done totally unpaid, so you need to have significant financial means already to be able to enable yourself to get to that point. Whereas training to be a solicitor is done under a paid training contract. So for years to come, if Jersey's Speaker is the top judge, it is far less likely for us to get someone from a background other than from the privileged ranks. The House of Commons previous speaker was a working class, Glaswegian, former manual worker and he did a great job.

Now, of course I'm not starting a class or gender war and saying I don't want rich men in the States, but I want the role to be able to be occupied by any Jersey person who possesses the skill to carry it out, not aided or inhibited by their background.

21st Century Jersey

The final point to make in favour of ending the dual role of the Bailiff is this - If Jersey wishes to be taken seriously across the world and wants to project an image of this island being a modern, dynamic and forward thinking jurisdiction, we cannot get bogged down in silly traditions that are universally decried as being undemocratic.

When I have spoken to lecturers, fellow students and visiting lawyers at university about Jersey and how our top judge is also Speaker of the Parliament, they genuinely raise their eyebrows in disbelief. I am not even vaguely exaggerating when I say that. To any non-Jersey person, it is just a weird (in a bad way) concept. The question I'm asked is "why on Earth would you give those two jobs to the same person?". I can't answer with "tradition" because I'll just get laughed at.

When I took part in the Commonwealth Youth Parliament in 2011, I was lucky enough to get to ask John Bercow MP, the Speaker of the House of Commons, a question about what it means to be a Speaker. Naturally I jumped at the chance to ask him what he thought about Jerseys system and if he thought it was acceptable, and I recall his words being something along the lines of "it sounds totally inappropriate".

I've even heard some Jersey lawyers who some would regard as being "Establishment" that say the dual role isn't acceptable and really ought to change.

Things like this (and the dual role of the Constables) are things that Jersey people really should be embarrassed by, not proud of, and will have a hard time trying to justify it to foreign politicians and businesspeople who will look at these things in a curious and negative way, not in an endearing way as many Jersey folk attached to their culture and tradition may do.

It is for all of these reasons that a part of me thinks that a referendum would be totally unnecessary, as it could (and should) just be done by the States without the need for all this hassle. But if that isn't an option and a referendum is what it takes to get it done, I say bring it on!


P.S. To any readers that are interested in being a part of the campaign for Option A, no matter how big or small a role you want, please send me a message with your email address (or email us at and we will make sure you are invited to the next meeting.


  1. Sam, you will have to address these concerns in your campaign for option A. I agree A is numerically the only one presented that works, but there are non-numeric issues too.

    I have not made submission

  2. Sam

    As you may know, I have no problem with keeping the Bailiff as
    Speaker, if that was all he was, but virtually no one seems to be looking at what is not a power of the Speakership, but one that seems entirely seperate and one that I want removed at all costs.

    This is the power of the Bailiff to veto propositions. What concerns me is that an elected Speaker might simply take on the powers of the Bailiff, and this one in particular. You might like to address this in another blog; it comes up in Carswell, but virtually everyone seems to ignore it. Yet it is arguably of more importance.

    1. Tony,

      The fact that Stuart Syvret was suspended by the speaker of the House over Cantrade and had to appeal to the Chief Justice (both of whom happened to be Phil Ballache) for reinstatement is more than sufficient to say that the two roles should be separated.

  3. Hi, the subject of Leah Goodman and the reaction she received is something that really does show up the worst in some people. I have said it before and will say it again until I am proven wrong, which looks unlikely, when it comes to Jerseys reputation and how people defend it the ones who go all out on the attack and make personal remarks and hate filled comments, not to mention those setting up hate filled websites are the worst people to have defending the reputation of Jersey.

    They make us look like ignorant, selfish, backward thinking nasty vindictive people who will stop at nothing when a critisism is received. These people are unfortunately lacking in common sense when they just cannot see the irony in doing exactly what many criticise us for. Fortunately, they are a minority, unfortunately they do anything to get their voice heard and very immaturely believe he who shouts loudest is correct!

    These hate campaigns are an embarassment to Jersey and I think it is high time our government did something about them if they are serious about our reputation.

  4. I believe that you are well intentioned, but do worry that, despite being transparent on your blog introduction, that you often attempt to disguise left wing / statist dogma as an argument for ‘greater’ democracy, as if the 2 are the same thing. (Or a more capitalist/right-wing approach is exclusively ‘undemocratic’) Some of your comments do in fact appear to reveal a worryingly dictatorial streak, dealing in absolutes where things ‘must’ be done or not done, however I am sure that, as you have the confidence to post extensively on Jersey issues, you will understand if somebody questions certain aspects of your approach, such as certain comments in this posting.

    'there are actually people who make it their business to actively discourage people from exercising their right to express themselves' - Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is exactly what you are proposing by saying that ' This sort of way of engaging with Jersey politics has to stop'. Just because people can't engage at a level you find 'intelligent', do you really wish to stop them expressing their opinions ?

    'Twitter, Blogger and Facebook accounts specifically created to abuse and libel those involved in intelligent and sensible, but left wing or "anti-Establishment" political discussions' - I don't believe that many of these sites are created to abuse and libel. I think they are hijacked by idiots who do nothing but paste abuse, but the intent behind many is to simply expose the nonsense spouted by many similarly abusive left wing blogs. Indeed sites I have seen you post on could be accused of similar tactics to those you would have your readers ignore. (It is also interesting that you are sensitive to libel, given the very reason why the politician I believe you are quoting in the posting is currently experiencing such difficulties).

    'I'm not going to defend or criticise Goodman here, nor analyse what she said in any detail .... one thing that was interesting to note is just how unintelligent the majority of criticism against her was' - Again, just because some idiots posted vile nonsense, you are willing to dismiss other valid criticism ? She made basic 'provable' factual errors in the interview, which I note you choose not to acknowledge.

    1. I'm always grateful for comments on how I can improve my approach, but I'll deal with this paragraph by paragraph.

      1. I've always tried my best in the reform debates to make sure that I am specifically not arguing from a left-wing point of view. It's not about left v right, and I specifically in this blog made references to things I have heard from right wingers (John Bercow for example) to make that point. So I don't really agree that I'm somehow being dogmatic from a leftwing point of view. I am a left-winger, but that doesn't feature one iota in this particular debate.

      2. No, I'm arguing for people being more tolerant, not banning anyone from saying anything. I'm talking about a culture where people feel able to express their views without being abusive. You seem to be missing the point. I'm talking about others who have a problem with people expressing their views and come out specifically to silence them.

      3. The ones I have seen are undoubtedly fakes (you can tell by going on the profiles and seeing when they were created and how they interact with each other etc) and have been created by one or a few people purposely to abuse people. I'm sorry but I've paid enough attention to note that not a single reasonable comment has even been made by these people, it has purely just been abuse. I know because a lot of it has been directed at me. They don't make intelligent contributions like yours, they just insult. The purpose is to discourage people from expressing their points of view.

      4. I did praise Tony Bellows blog didn't I? I haven't dismissed any valid criticism. My point was that there wasn't much of it in the first place to dismiss.

  5. 'a Jersey blogger being gagged by the government.' - This 'fact' is propaganda of the highest order and I am very surprised that you would see fit to paint it as 'fact'. The person to whom you are referring has been prevented from slandering and insulting certain people who have all been victims of his vitriol in the past, not, as you will see from his ability to post on his own and other sites, 'gagged'.

    'So, a foreign journalist had actually made one particular observation about Jersey that is provably true, yet the instinct of the average Jersey person was to totally dismiss her without any sort of constructive thinking' - Again, the 'gagging' is not 'provably' true at all. I am also surprised that you wish to dismiss all criticism of the journalist concerned based upon the 'fact' that she had made one particular 'correct' observation ?

    'It contained not one single analysis of the accusations she made' - So much of Goodman's interview was subjective vitriol that there was little 'analysis' that could be undertaken on such subjects as 'diamonds, champagne lounges and yachts'. However, I think you will find that a fairly substantial discussion of some of her comments was actually made through the use of comparative analysis. Let’s try - 'Forgetting the factual errors which led to the assertion of Jersey being a, ‘9 by 4 mile Island’ which can only be accessed, ‘by flying’'. Perhaps you might spend a little more time reappraising the comments on the site concerned to see if it did indeed fail to analyse any of the accusations ?

    'This sort of way of engaging with Jersey politics has to stop' - No, nothing 'has to stop', simply because of your decree. What can stop is that you can stop reading, or taking any notice of it. Unless you favour the politically driven silencing of dissent, no matter how idiotic ?

    'there are huge numbers of horrible people (that is a moderate description) in Jersey that will make it their business to rain on their parade and demoralise them into just giving up. Their tactic will be abuse, not reasoned argument' - Totally agreed. I look forward to the closure of Voice For Children, Jersey Evening Propaganda, Bald Truth Blog, Stuart Syvret and many others (some of whom you have contributed to) during your website pogrom, as all have attempted to insult, belittle and denigrate others without provable foundation, in the past.

    'If Jersey wishes to be taken seriously across the world and wants to project an image of this island being a modern, dynamic and forward thinking jurisdiction' - It already is. You do not grow a substantial finance, legal, accountancy, patent management and myriad other industries without this type of reputation, so let's not pretend that your suggested changes are a requisite for this to occur.

    'Things like this (and the dual role of the Constables) are things that Jersey people really should be embarrassed by' - Yes our heritage, like many other jurisdictions, has thrown up some quirks. Telling Jersey people they should be embarrassed by their island's customs, simply because you do not agree with those customs, is hugely insulting. The presence of the constables in the States, given that they are subject to democratic elections in their parishes, would appear to be no more or less democratic than the presence of Deputies, who are voted in by a similar process.

    I hope that you will view this as criticism of your approach, rather than playing the man instead of the ball. You are obviously a decent person, and I can certainly sympathise with some of your views, however I think certain aspects of this posting were at best inaccurate, and at worst, disingenuous.

    1. 1. Regardless of the subject matter, it's a super-injunction that hasn't had a corresponding civil defamation trial. I call that gagging.

      2. I have never said I want to dismiss all criticism. I want to criticise the people that say "not a single thing she said was true" because I think (you disagree, fair enough) that that isn't the case. All of these people when challenged, suddenly backtrack over what they originally said.

      3. Strawman. I never said Goodmans interview was or was not filled with subjective vitriol. As it happens, I think the line about champagne and yachts was an incredibly misguided thing to say.

      4. Again, it totally misses my point. If someone wants to write a blog that spouts all sort of bile I may despise, fine, I won't read it or engage with it. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who specifically seek out others to abuse them and discourage them from taking part in discussions. If people are constantly seeking you out to abuse you, it is difficult to ignore. Especially in a public forum where you can't choose what is published. You might not agree, but I think it's bad for democracy that the BBC, Channel TV and the JEP don't moderate their forums properly, because plenty of sensible and well mannered people (from all sides of the spectrum) might wish to use them as a great place for informed discussions, but can't because some twat hiding behind 4 fake facebook profiles comes on to hurl abuse at them whenever they say anything.

      5. If anyone libels someone, I have no problem with them being taken to court for defamation. But I think you'll find that actually the vast majority of what is posted on VFC and RS is copied and pasted from various reports and hansard. So, your criticism that they denigrate others without provable foundation I put in the same league as those criticising Goodman for not saying a single true word.

      6. Disagree. We have an antiquated government system and it causes unnecessary bewilderment.

      7. You call it a "quirk" I call it an impediment to an effective democracy in Jersey. I bore the hell out of my friends in the UK because of how often I brag about how wonderful Jersey is. I brag about the beaches, the weather, the nightlife, the milk, our £1 notes, the French place names etc. But I'm sorry, I find undemocratic institutions to be embarrassing. When talking to American and other European friends I get embarrassed because of the Monarchy too, so it's not exclusively a Jersey thing. But your comments on the Constables there don't even vaguely represent the reality I see. You criticised me for dealing in absolutes, but I'm sorry, but principles like malapportionment and equal suffrage are universally and internationally accepted as being fundamental to an effective democratic system, and the Constables constituencies is incompatible with it. So to call that system democratic is objectively wrong. As I've said in this blog, just because you have a referendum, or even an election, does not make something democratic. There are broader principles.

    2. 1) unless i am mistaken, you have argued for representation to more closely mirror population concentration. This would mean a substantial increase in St helier representation, an area where left wing politicians have generally faired better than elsewhere. If it is a coincidence that a left leaning blogger is striving for something that would potentially result in an increased left wing representation, but purely as an accidental byproduct of increased 'democracy', then i apologise as i have totally misunderstood your motives. Alternatively, you could cease insulting my intelligence.

    3. Hang on, you are saying it is a 'Super-Injunction' so you know? because I was told this is a porky pie only made up to create idol gossip.

    4. Anonymous 4 February 2013 12:04 -

      Well, technically I am mainly arguing for increased representation for St Clement, because St Clement is technically more underrepresented than St Helier is, and I don't think there are leftists representing St Clement.

      But there are also right wingers representing St Helier (Baker, Bryans) and people like Ozouf, Le Sueur, Maclean all started in St Helier.

      Plus, St Mary (the most over represented Parish), had Daniel Wimberley as their last Deputy, so to be perfectly honest, I don't see a pattern and have no idea which side of politics the changes will benefit. Hopefully it'll benefit ALL of them because all of a sudden, every politician will be legitimate.

      Also, I'm backing a reform package that was created by Senator Bailhache, who certainly isn't a leftwinger.

    5. Anonymous5 February 2013 02:49

      The words "super-injunction" doesn't actually have a legal meaning, it's more of a colloquial phrase. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what the details are? They're being kept under wraps quite nicely.

  6. 2) once again, i apologise for misinterpreting your comment that Engaging with a certain type of jersey politics 'had to stop'. I thought you were telling people how to think or act, not arguing for greater tolerance.

    3) i did admit that idiots have posted purely offensive nonsense on blogs/twitter etc. But i dont believe james rondel's or the wreckers blog fall into that category. If people are being idiots, ignore them. By admitting they affect you, you are merely empowering them.
    I notice you have ignored my point about the libel carried out by the politician you quote as supporting Reform.
    I would also be keen to hear your thoughts on the jerseypropaganda blog, which seems to regularly taunt and threaten people, but whose owner many leftist blogs seem happy to publish comments from.

    4) my comment of your dimissing valid criticism was wrong and i apologise.

    1. James Rondel is certainly not one of the idiots I'm referring to, but the wreckers blog absolutely is. I do try and ignore them, but I'm more concerned for people who think a real person is abusing and insulting them.

      If the politician we are talking about has genuinely libelled someone, as I said, they should be taken to court for defamation. Then it will be up to the court whether he was justified or not. That is the most appropriate way for it to be sorted in my opinion.

      On the jerseypropaganda blog. Honestly, I am not a fan. In particular, as a law student, I'll tell you that every single post on it about this nonsense "common law" stuff is totally ridiculous. He also talks about how taxation isn't legitimate, parking fines aren't binding etc etc, and it's just wrong. I could do a whole blog post explaining why, but I think I'd be wasting my time.

      That being said, I do find it useful to see the scans of JEP articles that it uploads, simply because I'm not always in Jersey to see them for myself. And I also found it useful to see the troll special which revealed certain people have been claiming I'm preparing to break the law. Maybe I have a defamation case?

    2. I couldn't agree more about the Jersey Propaganda blog.
      It peddles out hatred against so many people, it's hypocritical and this legal advice it peddles out from a basic legal perspective is utter nonsense because anybody trying to fob off the Magistrates court with it will just be in contempt.

    3. And it would appear I'm now in the ranks of those being hated.

      Apparently I'm "brainwashed" because I'm formally educated in a subject and have an academic view that differs from his.

      Statute law is binding on all people, it does not require consent and the state has the right to tax it's citizens. If you don't accept that right, then you also can't accept property rights (because they are provided and applied by the state), so I can technically go into your house and nick everything.

      Yes, miscarriages of justice occur, yes there are some serious problems with the legal system and industry in Jersey, but that doesn't mean the concepts of law are invalid. That's just mad.

  7. You cover many areas here but the saddest has to be your prediction of the new student group. Sad, because it is so likely to end in the manner which you suggest.
    IMO, I'd like to see- a cultural shift in Jersey politics, a higher level of debate, total transparency and a fresh political arrangement fit for the 21st Century. Option 'A' is the best fit for that, provided the Troy rule is not breeched.