Sunday, 3 August 2014

Press Release - UK Justice Minister Visit to Jersey

Note - Since the time of writing, States Members have been offered a group meeting with the Justice Minister. Such a meeting falls well short of what is desirable and is essentially just a token gesture. It is formatted in such a way so no concerns can be brought up in a constructive way in confidence.

Press Release – For Immediate Release

Deputy Criticises Exclusion of States Members from UK Justice Minister Visit

Deputy Sam Mézec has raised concerns about the accessibility of UK government ministers to ordinary States Members when they visit the Island on official business.

On 4th August, the United Kingdom Minister for Justice, Lord Faulks, will be visiting Jersey to discuss, amongst other things, the progress made following a UK Justice Select Committee report into the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Dependencies.

Deputy Mézec said “there are 51 States Members, not all of whom are members of the Council of Ministers, who have a variety of views on issues of good governance in Jersey and we are side-lined from meeting UK government representatives when they visit Jersey.”

States Members were only informed of Lord Faulks visit to Jersey a matter of days before it is due to take place and Deputy Mézec said that they were not offered the opportunity to discuss matters that might concern them to do with the issues the Minister is here to investigate.

It is standard practice in most jurisdictions that when a foreign government representative makes an official visit, he or she will also make an effort to meet representatives of opposition parties, so as to not just hear a one-sided story. The Lieutenant-Governor, Bailiff and Chief Minister all have a self-interest in leaving the Justice Minister with the impression that they are doing a fantastic job, despite that not being the view of many Jersey residents and politicians.

One issue that some States Members have concerns with is the dual role of the Bailiff, which some members believe is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Lord Faulks will be meeting with the Bailiff when he visits, who has a self-interest in arguing that his role is human rights compliant, but the Minister will not be offered a chance to meet elected members of the States who will offer an alternative view on something that the UK government is legally obliged to consider.”

Deputy Mike Higgins, who is not a member of the Council of Ministers, made an important written submission to the Justice Select Committee which made a number of criticisms of the Jersey government, but has not been invited to meet the Justice Minister when he visits.

This is just another occasion of the government of Jersey subverting democratic good practice to side-line those who have alternative points of view to them. It is not good for democracy and it is not good for Jersey” said Deputy Mézec.

This will be Lord Faulks first visit to Jersey since becoming Justice Minister. It follows a visit last year by the Justice Select Committee, who were met with an expensive reception at the Atlantic Hotel by the Bailiff and senior ministers which caused a minor controversy at the time.

Deputy Mézec has written and asked that some members (including Reform Jersey member Deputy Montfort Tadier and Deputy Mike Higgins who is not a member of Reform Jersey) are invited to meet the Minister, to offer their concerns. No meeting has yet been offered at the time of writing.

For further comment or to arrange an interview, please contact Deputy Mézec on 07797 811130 or


  1. will it be possible to give Lord Faulks a written statement about your concerns signed by all concerned sitting polticians or would you be physically prevented from doing so.

    1. Excellent Suggestion, and may one also add another for you Deputy Mezec.

      Don't wait for the arrival of Lord Faulks QC; contact him before he gets here...

      Contact details:

      Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy Lord Edward Faulks QC
      House of Lords,
      SW1A 0PW

      Tel: 020 7219 5353
      Fax: 020 7219 5979

      Or, more likely, he may be contacted at his chambers:

      Lord Edward Faulks QC
      1 Chancery Lane
      Greater London
      WC2A 1LF

      Tel:08456 634 6666

      Fax:(0845) 634 6667



  2. As usual they treat you guys as rubbish I have said it before and I will say it again, what you need to do in a group is when questions are asked in the states and you don't get answers leave the chamber and bring the meeting to a halt as numbers would be to low to continue, stay out for 10 minutes as a start, show them you mean business.

  3. Sidelined? No, like all governments, visitors meet the governing party/parties, not the entire House. Also, who made you the opposition? Just because you say you are the opposition doesn't make it so.

    Also the report was about the relationship, the UK Justice Minister has no power over Jersey.

    "The Lieutenant-Governor, Bailiff and Chief Minister all have a self-interest in leaving the Justice Minister with the impression that they are doing a fantastic job, despite that not being the view of many Jersey residents and politicians."- I don't know anyone in Jersey who thinks that...

    1. Oh dear, wrong on all counts I'm afraid.

      Firstly, I think you'll find that on official visits foreign government representatives do try and meet with opposition parties. There's not much more to add to that point other than that you're just wrong.

      When did I say we are "the" opposition? If you'd read the press release carefully, you'd see that my primary aim has been to get Deputy Higgins a meeting.

      Also, if we aren't the opposition, kindly tell us who is? Unless you think there is no opposition at all?

      I think you'll find that the UK Justice Minister has under his brief the good governance of Jersey. That is just simply a fact. The UK retains the power to legislate for Jersey (without our permission if necessary) and can intervene if they need to. So they do have power..

      Lastly, if you don't know anyone in Jersey that realises the heads of certain offices have a self interest in maintaining their position in it and their reputation, might I suggest you acquaint yourself with more people?

    2. Quite a derogatory reply. No need for that. (I am not the original poster btw, just thought that that aspect warranted comment). Anyway:

      While I do agree in principle with giving access, there are some issues. Firstly, it is up to Lord Faulks. If he had genuine concerns and true interest he would have requested an audience with the likes of Deputy Higgins. Secondly, if SOJ did take initiative on basis of fair representation all 51 would have to be given opportunities. That just become impractical, if all were inclined to take up the offer. Even if only 30 did, however, it has the potential to be a disorientating medley of views, which would undermine it's efficacy. Ultimately, the UK justice minister, clearly views this as a nice lunch to get through. Maybe focus on resolving the issues you want to express on a localised level. At least that has the potential to get somewhere.

      Also, it is not the UK justice minister who has the power to legislate without consent. It has to be through Orders in council, which I believe SOJ legislated had to now obligatorily be referred to them, back in 2000s at some point (?). It's all really a hodge podge of regulations which mean's that power is extremely limited. Furthermore, in the modern age, I doubt the UK would exercise it if it doesn't have direct benefits for them.

      The concept of self-interest to promote the image of the island is also an argument that is a dead end. You forget how many people work in a finance industry who understand the necessary method of presenting a manicured image for the benefit of the whole. Telling someone he/she should acquaint himself/ herself with more people is disparaging. I work in an office were about 90% of people there refer to you as "that moron Mezec." Now I don;t agree with that and alternately at the coffee shop I visit I'd say about 60% are quite avid supporters. May all seem innocuous but it highlights that this is an island of kaleidoscopic views. To say someone needs more acquaintances because he expressed a differing view from your own is ignorant and arrogant.

      One final thing; please don't start portraying yourself as "opposition". It develops a serious problem which is made more acute by party politics. Whereby you represent yourself as the solution to peoples concerns. Yet, there is also the inexorable truth that people are never fully happy with their government. If RJ get a majority, then suddenly someone else who doesn;t have to deal with the practicalities and difficulties of governance can exploit peoples grievances about you. They will become the opposition, with a freedom to undermine you and pontificate about improving upon the status quo. So will begin the cyclical fluctuation of parties, where politicized backstabbing and slander rules, and people aren't voting for you but simply against the last ones in.

      Many Thanks

      John Le B

    3. No more or less derogatory than the comment preceding it.

      "Firstly, it is up to Lord Faulks."

      Actually this visit is being timetabled by the Jersey side of it. But how would someone know they need to arrange a meeting with someone if they don't know the things that they don't know? It's not a very logical position.

      "Secondly, if SOJ did take initiative on basis of fair representation all 51 would have to be given opportunities."

      No, simply representatives from the opposition factions. Whether it is recognised on paper or not, there are factions in the States Assembly. I happen to be a member of the only one that is honest about it.

      "Maybe focus on resolving the issues you want to express on a localised level. At least that has the potential to get somewhere"

      The fact that it has no potential to get anywhere is exactly why complaining at a localised level is futile. If you have a problem with the way the Royal Court and States Assembly operate, it isn't good enough to say appeal it to the exact institutions you are complaining about.

      "Also, it is not the UK justice minister who has the power to legislate without consent. It has to be through Orders in council, which I believe SOJ legislated had to now obligatorily be referred to them, back in 2000s at some point (?). It's all really a hodge podge of regulations which mean's that power is extremely limited. Furthermore, in the modern age, I doubt the UK would exercise it if it doesn't have direct benefits for them."

      Whether the States of Jersey accepts it or not, the UK parliament does retain the right to legislate for Jersey. The Order is Council business is more convention to the UK anyway. There have been occasions of the Royal Court actually implementing UK legislation that was not approved via Order in Council before.

      Also, you forget one very important example - Sark.

      When the situation in a British territory becomes too embarrassing the UK can and will act. We are British citizens and it is the UK governments legal responsibility to ensure our basic rights are respected, not the Jersey government.

    4. "The concept of self-interest to promote the image of the island is also an argument that is a dead end. You forget how many people work in a finance industry who understand the necessary method of presenting a manicured image for the benefit of the whole."

      Call me old fashioned, but I believe that peoples rights should feature in the equation somewhere.

      It may well be bad for the image of the island for the world to know we don't have a human rights compliant justice system by virtue of the dual role of the Bailiff etc. My radical solution to that would be to fix our system, rather than trying to hide it from others.

      Surely my approach makes more sense?

      "I work in an office were about 90% of people there refer to you as "that moron Mezec.""

      Come off it. 90% of those in your office haven't got a clue who I am, let alone able to attribute moronic views to me (apart from those you've selectively presented them, of course)

      "To say someone needs more acquaintances because he expressed a differing view from your own is ignorant and arrogant."

      Thankfully that wasn't even close to what I said.

      Whether his friends agreed with me or not didn't come into it.

      He said he knew nobody that held a different view to his. I'm sorry, but if you only associate with people who share the same views as you, your life must be pretty dull.

      "One final thing; please don't start portraying yourself as "opposition"."


      I am not a member of the government, I do not share it's values and I will not work with them when they are making the island worse. I oppose them.

      You might be happy with a backwards democratic system that keeps one clique permanently in power and think that somehow that is better than the party system that exists in virtually every other democracy in the world, but some of us are trying to move the island forwards.

    5. Sam

      I wasn't criticising your intent to draw human rights into the equation, I was highlighting the difficulty in the task of doing so. (Please re-read my comments). Still, I believed while your intent is noble it still requires a measured approach. That is true of all politics,it requires guile, compromise, ability to bargain, co-operate and basically win favour of people you may not like or endorse. (Since you seem so reactionary I wish to clarify that that comment is not directed at you, just my opinion).

      You do make a good point about my "localised" comment so I will concede to that. However, the fact you are stating only you are honest about the "factions" of the states is a little myopic. Who are you to place definitions upon, and demarcations between, politicians. Could you please list the different "factions" in your view?

      Undoubtedly there is some collegiality and shared ideology but does that mean they should be ipso facto called a collective party? It's not about being honest, perhaps there are politicians who have similar strategy but prefer the opportunity to be independent and not become hindered by party lines. You yourself say that Reform Jersey shall vote together on "important" issues. You have to accept as the party augments and develops the very definition of "important" will be debated and come under internal scrutiny. Some may just wish to avoid that. It gives you no right to slap someone with a label saying "You are part of this party because that's how I perceive it."

      And let's not begin to earnestly try and compare Sark to Jersey. UK still hasn't done much about the almost dictatorial rule the Barclays implement.


    6. (Continued)

      Also, the other commentator, was disagreeing with your quote on how "many" Island residents are of the opinion forth. You suggested he should get more acquaintances. Thereby explicitly implying that if he knew a broader selection of people he would support that statement, and ergo suggesting that your view point is the accepted truth. So yes, your retort was a disparaging remark towards his viewpoint and directly attributable to the fact he disagreed with you. Basically stating that he/she is wrong.

      Now, penultimately, onto democracy. I accept there are many flaws in Jersey's system but I would like to highlight two things:

      Firstly, addressing your comment "that keeps one clique permanently in power." Jersey, for one, still does have democracy (whether you agree or disagree with it's variation). Also, doesn't Reform Jersey (which is certainly not representative of the Island population) want an overall majority. A one party rule, whereby you could entirely dictate Jersey's policy. You cannot claim one yet undertake the other. Plus, claiming that the current is a system which leaves the perpetuation of clique ruled power an inevitability is discrediting the integrity and intelligence of voters who have supported them.

      Secondly; Oh my ...every other democracy has party politics. Well, lets look how functional many of their government and political environments are shall we? The UK is a shambles and lets not get started on the US (which in terms of structure, outside of college votes, has a remarkably democratic system). Party politics is not the solution to everything. There was in fact a very recent, lengthy, academic study about how it is quite detrimental to democracy.

      Finally, I feel bad because my tone in this response has been quite abrasive. However, I just feel unbelievably frustrated by the way you engage with others and myself. "Oh come off it", "They don't know who I am", "let alone able to attribute moronic views to me (apart from those you've selectively presented them, of course)". Well most of them seem quite well versed when debating me, because I'm defending you. Yet your assumptions, terrible attitude, and the way you've misconstrued my remarks have made me, as a very soon to be constituent, question why I am even thinking about supporting you. Yet you seem to make a knack of misrepresenting. For example, I wasn't saying you weren't in a way opposed to current government policy, I was highlighting the pitfalls of such a claim. It can be reciprocated very cruelly. I already was beginning to become dubious on your credentials when colleagues showed me your Twitter a while back. Now I think I understand. You seem to support a democratic, tolerant, fair and representative long as it aligns to how you think.

      Well, discount me from the rota Deputy. You shall not receive my vote come October. Reply if you wish, but it is unlikely I will look at this thread again. It will just spiral into an eternal argument otherwise.

      John Le B

    7. Only one point worth making here - " Also, doesn't Reform Jersey (which is certainly not representative of the Island population) want an overall majority"

      No. Reform Jersey believes in a multi-party proportional representation system. This would almost certainly lead to coalition governments. The long term aim would be for Reform Jersey to be a senior coalition partner, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

      As for not voting for me, that's your entitlement. There will be plenty of candidates from Business As Usual Party for you to choose from.

    8. I am glad to hear your coalition plans Sam. That is a very mature attitude so I must concede to congratulating you on that. Be assiduous though, proportional representation and diverse political variation can lead to extreme problems. Just look at implosion of Weimar Republic.

      Also, please don't continue your line of "oh its your entitlement" to vote for "business as usual party." Once again, it belittles my democratic choice. That aspect of your attitude persistently niggles at me. I still won't be voting for you come October, but I don't doubt you will likely get in. Perhaps in the proceeding years you can change my stance. However, for now I stick by my opinion.

      Farewell Sam and good luck

      p.s. please begin to take on at least some constructive criticism, a good representative should never accept that he is the perfect politician. Maybe that's not your intention, but that is your portrayal.

      John Le B

  4. Lord Faulks should be actively seeking to meet Deputy Higgins whilst he is here. It is Lord Faulks who should be dictating who he should meet and not the other way round! If Deputy Higgins has written to him with some of his many, many concerns then he should be afforded the right to express himself in person. All States members should be given the opportunity to air their concerns in an open forum without the expensive wining and dining!

  5. Sam.

    So the UNELECTED Bailiff gets an audience with the "Justice" Minister as does the UNELECTED lieutenant Governor but ELECTED representatives are excluded unless they are part of "the party?"

    Here is an example of JERSEY "JUSTICE" and why, not only should politicians get an audience with the "justice" Minister, but so should the public.

  6. Is this the same type of 'Jersey Public' VFC who feel it is appropriate to post unsubstantiated, derogatory speculation about a person only a matter of days after their death ?

  7. Lord Faulks is Minister for justice, and justice is supposed to be for all, not for a few members of the unelected elite.

    This is a replay of when the justice select committee visited.

    Ex Deputy Pitman and Deputy Higgins visited unannounced and uninvited the Atlantic Hotel where members of the Justice Panel were being wined and dined.

    You are correct to be concerned Deputy Mezec, why have most of the rest of the house been silent.

    Time for a demonstration.

  8. 'I am not a member of the government' - Please explain this statement

    The States of Jersey is the parliament and government of the British Crown Dependency of Jersey. You are an elected member of the States of Jersey. How can you not be a member of the Government ?

    Could I also please use this opportunity to ask a number of other questions which have arisen from previous threads, or which answers have yet to be provided:

    1) With regards to Reform's new tax proposals, could you please confirm that rate of tax, earnings above which that rate will be charged, and extra revenue you have calculated will be raised by your proposals

    2) Will you please comment on Reform member Nick Le Cornu's recent Tweet regarding German cyclists in the islands and his use of the word 'ACTUNG' (sic)

    3) I notice that you have protected your Twitter Feed, and that confirmation by yourself is now required to view you feed. Is this a wise policy ahead of the elections, and what is the background to this decision ?


  9. The States of Jersey is a Parliament/ legislature. The Council of Ministers is an executive/ government.

    I am not a member of the Council of Ministers and have no legal authority to do anything further than be a legislator.

    1) No. As my last blog made perfectly clear, any specific proposals will be in our election manifesto.

    2) Achtung is German for 'attention'. If said as German cyclists are going past I would assume it means watch out for them. Not sure why that is important enough to deserve comment.

    3) Yes it is wise. The amount of abuse from trolls and aggravators I was receiving was becoming distracting. If someone isn't a troll or aggravator they can still see my twitter feed. No problem.

  10. Ok thanks for those answers.

    1) If the ability to legislate is one of the cornerstones of Government, and you retain the ability to legislate, surely you are part of our government ?

    2) When will you manifesto be available ?

    3) Won't restricting your twitter feed mean that people who might be interested in what you have to say will miss out on seeing it if they don't want to ask for confirmation ? Not everybody will want to commit in that way. Also do you not view restricting your feed as a partial victory for the trolls and aggravators as they have effectively restricted your ability to get the message across ?


    1. 1. Government is about holding executive power. I don't hold any executive power, only legislative power.

      In the Westminster parliamentary system, the government members are also members of the legislature, but not all members of the legislature are members of the government.

      2. Some point early in the election campaign.

      3. Maybe, but I suspect those people are in the minority and if my feed is private, will just bite the bullet and ask to follow. 99% of the time I'll accept. It's only when an account is blatantly a troll etc that I won't.

      Yes it probably is a partial victory for the trolls. It's sad, but they're terrible human beings and are just trying to distract me.

      I was also fairly fed up of the nutter Maureen Morgan constantly screenshotting my tweets to accuse me of being anti-semitic and other rubbish. By preventing her from seeing my Twitter, she might have to find other ways to spend her time, like going outside. So it's ultimately doing the trolls a favour I think.

    2. Few on my twitter, Sam, saying you have blocked them for expressing contravening views and arguing with you, including a close friend who I fully know is not a "troll". Care to explain? How true are these other comments? Would like clarity. Thankyou

    3. I don't block anyone for expressing contravening views, but I have blocked people for either lying about my position (to suit their agenda) or being incapable of expressing contravening views in a sensible way without resorting to name calling.

      If you can name me these people I can clarify why.

    4. Sir. I must take issue with you branding failed election candidate Maureen Morgan 'a nutter'. This is most unfair to nutters generally as many are harmless loons who do not bother others with nonsense like pretending to be a serious election candidate when really a time-wasting tarot card reader and hedge witch. Thank you.

  11. Agree with this Sam.

    Definitely do think you are part of government. You may not agree with overall strategy, but you are still an element of the governmental system.

    Also, yes, the twitter thing is unusual. Doesn't give impression of open political discussion. A part of a fair and equal public sphere is accepting the trolls, "aggravators" and critics. Often debating with them can reveal the substance behind your viewpoint and the integrity of your character!

    Plus, we need people to hear your ideas! Many on my twitter talking about principle of it though mainly. They don't agree with politician locking off like that, creates unfair but easily validated claims of censorship. Don't want that to blind peoples appreciation of your policy.

    Keep up the good work though!


    1. Please trust me when I say that I am not a member of the government.

      There is a difference between "government" and "the government".

      The three branches of "government" are -

      1. The legislature (i.e. the parliament)
      2. The executive (i.e. the cabinet, council of ministers etc, or "the government")
      3. The judiciary (i.e. the courts).

      So I am as much a member of the government as the islands Chief Magistrate is.

      I am a member of an institution that plays a governmental role, but I am not a member of the executive and therefore have no government powers or authority.

      Ministers are legally able to pass orders by themselves. I have no such power.

      There is a distinction.

    2. Mmm I think there is still disparity between our views. By definition you are a part of the government. You cannot impose your own distinction between "government" and "the government". That is a dangerous. Never mind it's dysfunction in a grammatical context. Does that mean that if RJ members attain ministerial positions they are to be considered wholly separate from the parliamentary aspect?

      I think you are trying too hard to make out like you are not a member of the government, it all seems very forced. But I respect that is your stance so we will just have to agree to disagree!

      Also, could I get a comment on the twitter issue? It seems like you intentionally avoided it.


    3. I'm sorry, but it seems like you've just disregarded what I have said. I have a law degree and studied public law. Everything I just said I can guarantee you is accurate. There is a distinction between the branches of "government" and "the government" (i.e. the executive). It isn't really an issue of disagreement, it's definition. I'm not forcing it, it's just what I got taught at uni.

      Ed Miliband is a member of the House of Commons but is not a member of the Government. It is the same distinction in Jersey.

      I haven't avoided commenting on Twitter, I just replied to another comment with exactly the same points and didn't feel like it was necessary to repeat myself.

  12. I would also be interested in knowing about the tax proposal. Look forward to full break down. Including the potential effects on house market, employment, VKA etc etc

    Please let us know when it's ready.

  13. Some persistent comments on this blog identify why the Education Dept. seriously needs to offer 'Gov & Politics A'Level. Having written to the Dept. 5 years ago on this subject, I still await a response. Of course it suits the establishment not to offer it because- the less politically motivated the population is, the easier it is to socially engineer the population.

    1. I think Hautlieu offers a politics A-level no? You definitely use to be able to take one at VCJ, JCG, De La Salle,and Beaulieu as well. If memory serves me well, at VCJ, you use to have to do it through one of the girls colleges. But the option was certainly facilitated. We received "Jersey Government" education pre-GCSEs. Trip to the States, local deputy speaker, etc etc

    2. Hautlieu didn't offer Politics A-Level when I was there and when I saw my former history teacher (who inspired me to be political) the other day, he didn't mention that they do it now.

      I'd be surprised if they did because I was in the last year group to do a full A-level in law.

    3. Well I was mistaken then. Pretty sure they did offer it at Vic, though, at least. Not exactly sure how many people took it up. There were a couple from my year who did Oxford PPE, so I presume they must of (?) Don't know though.

  14. How did this go?

    Heard Lord Faulks on the radio this morning - he seemed conspicuously apathetic. The basic of his jist from my perspective was "Jersey is an autonomous state and disagreement is a natural part of that."

    Did he seem disinterested?

  15. Why should anybody take your views of justice seriously when Reform Jersey can bee seen online supporting bloggers who illegally tape record personal phone calls?

    1. Have only published this for the hell of it because it's so unbelievable hypocritical.

      Not got anything to say about the person at the tax department who is leaking private information to Howarth? Or the police who haven't lifted a finger to help an ill woman who is being harassed, even when provided the direct evidence?

      You can tell a lot about someone by who they side with. I'll be siding with the victims here, because that is what I will always do.

    2. Your first two points are based on straw an arguments and your personal dislike for Sorda, so aren't worth responding to (or publishing).

      On your last point though, it is intriguing if (big if) what you're saying is true.

      Why do you think it is?

      Is it for my support for gay rights and my opposition to fundamentalism-inspired bigotry?

      Is it my support for a proportional democratic system and my opposition to gerrymandering?

      How about my support for a non-hypocritical foreign policy and my opposition to doing business with regimes that murder hundreds of children?

      My politics are exactly the same today as they were before I was elected. I'm wondering which of my policies it is you think has put off voters?

    3. So are we going to cut off all ties with US and UK then?

      I think something's gone wrong with your page by the way Sam. Whatever you were responding to isn't there. Might just be my computer but thought I'd let you know anyway.

    4. No it's fine, I decided not to publish it as it's a comment from a regular who musts posts antagonistic rubbish.

      As for cutting off ties with the UK and USA, I certainly think Jersey should be vocal about oppositing the terrible elements of their foreign policy.

      Not many know this, but in 2002 the States actually passed a motion saying it opposed the invasion of Iraq and the Bailiff was obliged to communicate that message to the UK Home Office on our behalf. I think we should do that sort of thing more often.

    5. Was it mine? Response doesn't seem to tally to the unpublished one's of mine?

  16. Are you certain that somebody at the tax office has been leaking information directly to Haworth ? I know that is what various people would like to believe, but I'm not sure that has been established, and seems to be quite an accusation for a States member, especially one with legal training, to make.

    It may be that information has been released to another party which has found its way into Haworth's hands, or indeed the information may have been inadvertently passed to Haworth by associates of Rico if he has been asked to pay the tax department a visit.

    Not defending his actions in any way, but you seem to have jumped a few legal steps here.

  17. Howarth has no right or ability to know what Rico puts on his tax returns, so he has either found out directly or indirectly from someone who does.

    It's either someone at the tax department or someone who has been told by someone at the tax department. Either way, it's a clear data protection breach as far as I can see and incredibly foolish of Howarth to admit he knew it.

    1. So just to be clear, because your initial statement was unequivocal. Do you still believe that somebody at the tax office has leaked information directly to Haworth ?

      If we are going to stop this lunatic, we need to make sure that the statements made are 100% accurate, especially if it is a States member making an accusation.

    2. I believe that someone, whether maliciously or carelessly has let information slip that they shouldn't have. That may or may not have been directly to Howarth.

      To be honest, I'm simply an observer and this subject is best left on Rico's blog as he knows far more about it than I do.

  18. It is not beyond reason, to believe, that somehow it inadvertently came from Rico though. Jersey is small . If he told someone of his tax troubles, then they told someone else and then someone else and so forth, it could get back to Haworth. Not saying that's what happened, just saying it's within the realm of possibility (however minute the margins).

    Also it still doesn't clarify who was harassing his wife. It's a horrible, cruel action but as to who undertook it is going to be difficult for even the police to ascertain. It seems like SOJP have been woefully complacent but perhaps we should wait or prompt them to explain themselves. Releasing that recording has muddied the waters considerably that's for sure.

    According Syvret, Pitman et al Haworth is just a 'Drunk loon' so how do we not know this wasn't just a load of old rambling?

    1. Agreed that it's possible. Nevertheless it's interesting to watch it as it progresses. Rico's recent posts have changed a few minds about him. Not mine though because I've always hugely respected Rico and the work he does.

    2. Anon@ 17:46 "Also it still doesn't clarify who was harassing his wife. It's a horrible, cruel action but as to who undertook it is going to be difficult for even the police to ascertain"

      Rubbish. Whoever did it operates by using the phone system, email and the internet. It really isn't that difficult to pin down who does what and when. Apart from anything else, the perpetrator has a very distinctive voice and vocal mannerisms which pretty much narrows the suspects down to one well known individual.

    3. I listened to the recordings, I wouldn't say he has a "distinctive" voice. Might just be my perception though.

      And anyway, is their hard evidence of this voice on the phone calls to his wife? I haven't seen any. Not saying that in an objecting or defensive manner by the way, just saying. I have no evidence to link Haworth to this harassment. I think it probably was, but connecting it requires substantiation. Also, if it was primarily by e-mail and whoever perpetrated it has any basic knowledge of computers, they could easily conceal or obscure their identity from investigators. Even just downloading Tor makes it immediately more difficult to ascertain someone's identity.

  19. So, you were asked abotu your taxation manifesto but failed to comment.

    Do you have a tax manifesto that you will tell us about?

    1. I did not fail to comment. I was very clear about the position.

  20. How can you endorse the secret recording of telephone calls?

    1. You are awfully nervous about that, yet suspiciously silent on the subject of a man with a history of death threats harassing an ill pregnant woman.

    2. Three comments in a row. Must be terrified.

      As I have always said, my politics is about standing with the victims and the marginalised.

      We have enough politicians who stand up for the oppressors. We don't need any more.

    3. Do you really not see the irony in siding with someone for sending emails to someone's employer to harm her career and then threatening to do exactly the same to me?

      Please, put your money where your mouth is and do it. But we know you won't because it would mean revealing your identity, and we all know how embarrassing that will be.

      Sorry to throw a cat amongst the pigeons with that one!

  21. I have heard you are getting frustrated with being challenged on several points. Namely issues to do with you wanting higher taxation for earners over £50k, and also about Tadier anti-finance industry approach last year.

    I have only heard form your friends about you intending to bring about tax increases for those over £50k, and it is starting to gather momentum. Would you please explain your tax position in detail, and whether you intend (if given power) would raise taxes AND social security on those earning over £50k?

    1. Neither I nor Reform Jersey have any policy that involves introducing a higher rate of tax at £50k.

      The people who told you that are not friends.

    2. So, what income level do you intend to add increased taxes too? Also, what about Social Security - what are your plans their in relation to rates people should pay based on income levels?

      Finally, do you take the view that an individual with private health insurance, and who do not use the 'system' as much and pay their own way should pay more in percentage AND value terms than other people who do use the system such as health, social services etc?

      Finally, do you believe the current 11K system would continue under your government?

  22. Just so you are aware, the questions above are gaining in interest of voters, and also your challengers are also ramping up the rhetoric. So far you are being very coy with your responses. What you don't say speaks VERY loud!

  23. Dear Sam,

    Lets talk about the failing economy and tax levied by the present Treasury Minister Phillip Ozouf. He say’s he cares about islanders, but obviously not their quality of life. The proof is in his actions and public money cheque book signing over the last eighteen months.

    A quick recap for your readers. He puts in place massive borrowing of £250 million for housing when the housing department could fund itself, if the treasury did not nick over £24 million of its rents each year.
    He is about to do away with mortgage relief ( including young families ).

    He has commissioned a new document of 112 pages, that will charge all property owners therefore people in living in accommodation ( including states ) a new property tax.

    Gave the CEO of JT, a company in desperate disarray a £118,000 bonus on top of a £200 plus wage packet.

    Gave the SoJ Development Company over £800,000 a year takings from the Esplanade car park charges, plus a soft loan of £13.5 million of taxpayers money to add to the £7 million they are sitting on for moving a perfectly good Esplanade car park to build his pet office block.

    Was one of this ministers that allowed over 150 new job positions in 2013, many of them senior in the public sector with an increasing wage and pension bill to be picked up by the tax payer while the private sector shrinks.

    Minister Phillip Ozouf told Jersey three years ago that Jerseys economy would grow by close to three per cent, he could have not been more wrong, but keeps on spending and now tells Jersey that we are heading for a black hole as tax receipts are down.

    It must be clear to anyone with intelligence that Reform Jersey would need to be very bad at figures and have no interest in the livings standards for the middle to lower earners, to make a mess worse than the present post holder and his assistant Deputy Eddie Noel who refuses to answer simple questions in the States assembly and be held to account.

    1. Yes I agree, Philip Ozouf must outline his policies as well, however I am interested in what the Reform Jersey party's policies are in specific detail before I vote. Of course, anyone can criticise when not in office, and I would like to vote against Ozouf, however I have no other options available.

      By default I know what Ozouf is like politically, and in Treasury, however whilst I might not like what he does what are my options? Will Reform Jersey be running enough Senatorial candidates to get some presence at this level? If so, then given the high possibility that they may get a Ministerial position, I would like to know their policies in this field so as to vote for them.

      I am currently aware that some current States members, and those not in the States but planning on running against current Reform Jersey members have already been to printers, with what I would regard as very emotive "scare" campaigns about their taxation and Social Security plans. I am concerned and just trying to get clarification on what his policies are.

      It is all well and good to turn around and say Ozouf hasn't outlined his, but I know what he is like - I want to know about the alternative - so far vacuous silence!

  24. I' m surprised more debate hasn't been made about Ozouf's ludicrous 0/10 tax policy.
    In a nutshell poor and middle classes are subsidizing the finance industry.
    Because of 0/10 we have an ever increasing GST.
    lets look at it companies pay no tax at all.
    Finanancial services do not pay GST,yet every year since its introduction we have sunk into the red.
    With the black hole getting deeper and deeper, instead of making the finance industry contribute more than nothing,he hits every one with a proposed increase in social security contributions next year,a property tax on tenants (about half the population and those that can least afford it),borrowing money for social housing !!,annual increase on alchohol and fags etc.
    Why should poor pensioners have to pay GST on their bread and milk yet financial services pay nothing.Maybe you could do a calculation with Mr.Ozouf about the value of financial services every year and how much we would gain if they paid GST.Even a lower GST say 1 or .5%.I'm sure it would be enough to prevent all these other tax increases.If he complains that if we tax them they will go somewhere else - where exactly,we're already at the bottom of the tax barrel and if they do go, good riddance if they're not prepared to contribute to the well being of the island they are using.

    1. Has this just become Senator Ozouf's blog?

      What is wrong abotu 0/10? Firstly companies owned by locals pay ZERO tax. Finance sector companies pay 10% tax. Finance industry are the ONLY one's who pay corporate tax, and Reform Jersey member Tadier wants it gone?!?!? MADNESS.

      Finance secotr doesn't pay GST, nor does any registered company. All companies, whether they are int he finance sector or not, as long as they are registered NOT ONE PAY's GST, if they do, the Tax Office writes them a cheque. I know, I have just received a cheque for a client who is in the construction sector, as they pay GST and get a cheque back for the amount.

      You need to understand the machinations of Jersey before you comment in future.

      Real Truthseeker

  25. Real truthseeker you don't half talk some shit.
    Maybe you could provide a link with Tadier stating he wants an end to the finance industry.
    Thought not.