Do you have faith?

Curiously, although there is an established Christian church and it is an integral part of our national institutions and government – so many people are reluctant to discuss this most fundamental matter.

Here, in this next interview in our series we talk with Paul Milbank, a missionary and verger in the St. Helier Town Church.

He is a young man starting out on a “career” in the church and has already decided to reject life in the Jersey Finance world.

Of course, the St. Helier Church sits close-by all the institutional buildings and offices of Jersey’s own government and administration and the courts of justice. It is where almost all “official” services take place and so many of the decisions and actions of those with power are blessed or sanctioned “in the name of God.”

But, do we really mean it? Do people generally wear their faith like an overcoat and take it off at work or when it feels uncomfortable?

We at the Voice want to explore such issues but we need your comments to ensure a dialogue. Or, are you in fear for some reason, about expressing your views here?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

FAITH or FINANCE – which is the better investment?

We at The Voice do not know how many people in Jersey regularly attend a church or participate in worship. Obviously, there are many thousands.


Yet, during a recent States debate, one member was reprimanded for referring to the Christian beliefs of another. How strange – especially since the Dean joined in the same debate and of course, all States sessions commence with The Lord’s Prayer.

We have suggested to the appropriate Scrutiny Panel that the “the Church” is such an important part of Jersey life that it should be considered as part of the Cultural Strategy of the Island. After all, what would Jersey be without its twelve Parish churches besides the multitude of other places of worship for all manner of denominations and beliefs?

Here we interview Richard Syvret, who was the founding Director-General of the Jersey Financial Services Commission and has a strong Christian faith.

We ask Mr. Syvret about the ethics of the finance industry, the potential conflicts for those with a faith and wonder what the future might bring to Jersey.

In subsequent blogs we propose to interview others with strong faiths or views but who are not part of the Island’s traditional, political framework.




Submitted by Thomas Wellard

Don Mitchell CBE QC – blog hero

Corruption-free Anguilla (linked HERE) has been the blog site of Don Mitchell since December 2006 but it looks likely to be closed down.


It is a great loss. The site was set up as “A discussion site for Good Governance and Corruption in Public Life issues in the British Overseas Territory of Anguilla…”

What is especially unusual is that the blogger is a much respected lawyer, and former Magistrate and Judge of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court circuit.  He is the equivalent of a Bailiff turned blogger.

Don Mitchell started as a lawyer in St. Kitts and worked extensively in the West Indies and has been based in Anguilla for many years in private and public practice.

He was awarded the CBE by the Queen in 2005 for his public services in the Eastern Caribbean and retired soon afterwards starting his extraordinary and brave blog site, twelve months later.

The vast range of his outpourings has been amazing and deserves to be studied and saved before they are removed from the net entirely. His writing is always well informed and his articles on human rights and constitutional issues are as relevant in Jersey as they are 3,000 miles away.

If you have never looked at Corruption-free Anguilla – DO SO NOW – whilst you still have the chance and bear in mind that even such a highly qualified lawyer as Don Mitchell can be forced off the internet by a complaint.

This is not the first time that Don has been threatened with legal action and it seems that the libel laws in the Caribbean are much more favourable to the complainant but, make no mistake, it can happen here too. All bloggers should realise that they run the risk of challenge even over simple and genuine mistakes.

Just a few months ago Gibraltar Vox (yes Voice) was closed after paying substantial damages as a result of a story posted re abuse allegations in a children’s home on the Rock.

In the UK there have been several cases where lobby/NGO groups have been taken to court and substantial damages awarded against them and the whole issue of blog-sites vulnerability is causing a great deal of concern to accredited and non-accredited journalists alike.

Proposition 100 in Jersey is our petty government’s latest attempt to target bloggers and to restrict free speech and expression. This will be discussed in the States in November and will no doubt receive approval because our so called representatives will fall for the lie that “bloggers” are immune to control or restraint.

In fact of course, we do not have a clue who is to be classed as an “accredited journalist” under the Proposition 100 rules. There is no list of journalists working in Jersey or any standard form of qualification or registration or process for discipline. Outside “journalists” can turn up here and undertake covert recordings at a local bank and nobody says a thing!

Bloggers like Don Mitchell or Team Voice would not dream of such conduct but our elected representatives in Jersey are seeking to control us – not the errant “accredited” media outlets that are regularly discredited at both local and national level.

We understand that Don Mitchell’s wife Margaret is from Jersey and that she is active in many Caribbean charities and good causes such as Animal Rescue and the Anguilla Soroptomists which has human rights and environmental sub-groups. We know too that Don has been teaching law in Anguilla and is a writer on Caribbean history and many other things but we have never met them and know else little about them.

However, we at Team Voice cannot watch the demise of this most important blog-site without expressing our profound regret and hope that any personal damage to Don and his wife is minimal and temporary.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

SCRUTINY DERIDES AGAIN….

Quite what motivated Senator Alan Breckon to try to reform the Scrutiny system is not at all clear. His proposals would have served only to make our government even more secretive and lacking in transparency so thank heavens they were defeated in the States.


But, has the experience woken up our so called representatives to the deep-seated malaise at the root of our government system and shall any more useful reforms be stimulated soon?

The Chief Minister’s support for Alan Breckon’s reforms should have sounded the warning bell that this was a dangerous plan. When Deputy Le Claire brown-nosed the CM’s tame utterances in a particularly fawning manner, the dubious escapade was fully exposed.
The attempted retreat back into the discredited ways of the long-gone Committee system was even too much for Senator Ozouf to support. He finally pressed the “abstain” button although 21 of our “reps” still voted for the madcap scheme.

Unfortunately, it’s not that scrutiny is proving so effective that the establishment is afraid of it. On the contrary, published scrutiny reports are already largely ignored even when they do offer usefully critical comments or suggest policy changes.

The 3 brief video clips here were all taken at Scrutiny meetings by Team Voice and they indicate just some of the problems. As the old sage would say “the medium is the message” – so don’t worry too much about the spoken recorded words here – it’s the failed process we want to focus upon.

Sadly, the general public has little idea of what goes on at Scrutiny meetings and don’t know where or when they take place or who participates in them. Very few people ever read a scrutiny report or the “Scrutiny Matters” glossy PR freebie that drops through letter boxes several times a year (£8,000 a time and likely to be cut under costs savings).

Yet, those States Members involved in the scrutiny system talk in glowing terms about “engaging the public” whereas we know that public participation is the very last thing that most of them want.

Our politicians are not so different from politicians elsewhere but they are a bit more extreme than some. They mostly want power for themselves and don’t plan to share it with the public. That is why there are no effective political parties in Jersey – our politicians simply refuse to be selected or mandated by a party membership. They are political prima-donnas although they prefer to describe themselves as “independents.” It’s the very same inability to share political power with the general public that makes scrutiny such an unfulfilled dream.
It is such a pity. If only our “reps” would encourage the public to sit in at the discussion table and join in with the government process - it could be so different – and at no extra cost either! The public is a repository of a great wealth of knowledge – why is our government so loath to have it expressed except at elections or under the most stifling and constrained circumstances?



These video clips commence with a recent Environment Scrutiny hearing chaired by Deputy Rondel where we were allowed to take opening pictures but not record the proceedings (relating to the sustainable transport policy) because witnesses Constable Jackson, Deputy Lewis and their team of civil servants, objected.

Thus, although we and the other media could help to make these scrutiny proceedings more accessible to the general public – permission was refused. Why?

The next clip shows the Minister for Home Affairs appearing before another Scrutiny hearing this week. Senator Le Marquand agreed that we could record him – as he usually does – and these are a few seconds from the proceedings, produced by us, as always, in accordance with all the scrutiny rules and protocols.
Yet, all the other witnesses – senior civil servants and police officers – at these topical and important discussions (on Succession Planning in the Police), refused to permit any recording.
How strange this is, whereas the hearings are supposed to be public? What are these public employees afraid of?

The third clip is from our archive and shows Minister for Education etc Deputy Reed appearing before a Scrutiny Panel with his Chief Officer. At that time we were able to freely record the whole proceedings, alongside the “accredited press” without hindrance but always in accordance with the appropriate rules and restraints.
Soon afterwards, for no apparent reason, the Chief Officer refused to allow any further recordings to be made and this is the policy that has subsequently been adopted by all civil servants and many politicians appearing at scrutiny public hearings.
Some Chairs of Scrutiny Panels have also decreed that we shall be refused permission to record at all times – no matter what witnesses might say.

Of course, the restriction on Team Voice’s participation at Scrutiny or other public meetings has been compounded too by a range of bespoke petty rules and “protocols” introduced under the stamp of Senator Shenton’s Scrutiny Chairmen’s Committee or PPC.

Soon, Proposition 100 will be discussed in the States and this seeks to further inhibit us (the proposed legislation is designed specifically to curtail our activities) under the pretence of “setting out how members of the public who are not journalists working for an accredited media organisation will be permitted…to make visual and audio recordings etc.”

Of course, Proposition 100 is the predictable response of authoritarian government to the latest technology that threatens the status quo. The Internet and blogging are seen as threats to the established order so Jersey politicians have reached for the control and restrict buttons. It is especially sad that well meaning people like Alan Breckon have apparently been seduced by the controlling instincts of more conservative political colleagues.

Senator Breckon serves with Senator Shenton on the Public Accounts (Scrutiny) Committee and we fear that some of his former reforming motivation has become eroded. We have observed Senator Breckon at recent hearings of the Committee and note that he hardly participates at all in the questioning of witnesses.

We also note that this Committee sets out to be different from other Scrutiny panels because it tends to examine senior Civil Servants rather than Ministers and claims that;

“The PAC is neither political nor adversarial in its approach to questioning witnesses at hearings. This is particularly important since the witnesses are normally public employees without the power of public reply.”

Such an approach, if applied across the whole field of scrutiny activities, would suit the secretive purposes of the Chief Minister and many of his close colleagues very well.
However it is a great pity that Senator Breckon sought to give that dull policy a wider application.
The entire scrutiny process in Jersey needs a much keener adversarial approach and the direct involvement of the general public.

There is no place for the cosy club approach to Jersey government in the 21st century.



Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

OZOs International status recognised at last and cultured too!

Yes – little Pip is at it again, this time he has been in the USA showing-off his international dimension.

We interviewed him following his trip to India and we have previously commented upon his ambition to be Jersey’s very own globe-trotting Foreign Secretary hob-knobbing with the international glitterati.

Of course, in the Frank Walker - Pip Bailhache tradition, young Senator Ozouf is very keen to boost Jersey’s International profile and he wants to sit at the top table with the rich and powerful at Davos and other trendy places (see our voiceforprotest posting from November 2009). HERE

Well, we all have a dream! – though, whatever happened to the two new banks that were due to open in Jersey following the India and Chinese promotions, is anybody’s guess. Recent figures seem to indicate that two banks have actually gone missing from the famous and exclusive Jersey list…although that’s another matter.

But what a pity that none of this international awareness and profile raising is evident in Jersey.

Here, adherence to international obligations remains a farce and we just cannot afford to sign up for the most basic standards that apply in other places. Except, of course, for those agreements that suit the Finance centre agenda.

We have previously reported on some very basic UN agreements that have been ratified for Jersey – but are still ignored by Ozo and his chums.

We wonder if he managed to call in at the UNs HQ in New York to check on our record of non-compliance with the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?

Team Voice has previously focussed on this obligation especially since we (Jersey) have to send in a report to the UN every few years to show how well we are doing and we posted on voiceforjersey on 19 May 2010 on this very subject HERE

Then it was the Public Accounts Scrutiny Panel chaired by Senator Ben Shenton (plus Breckon and Perchard) that was considering Jersey’s hopeless Cultural Strategy.

Nobody mentioned our international obligations during the discussions around the table under the Blampied paintings. We noted the irony of it all and Senator Shenton left a single word comment – “noted” – to our criticisms on the vfj blogsite.

Sadly, nothing has changed or improved, because this Monday we attended the latest Scrutiny hearings to consider the same six years-old Scrutiny Strategy.

This time it was Deputy Le Herissier chairing a sadly depleted Education, Home Affairs scrutiny cultural strategy review. Only Deputy Macon was also there for most of the three hours of talking. Deputy Trevor Pitman turned up later but Deputy Tadier gave it a miss.

The Scrutiny process is desperately unchallenging at the best of times since the questions are usually submitted to the witnesses beforehand. Thus, it is usually nothing more than a polite chat among friends and the same witnesses seem to appear with monotonous regularity before different Panels answering the same unchallenging questions. Deputy Le Herissier assured all the witnesses “we are not the public accounts committee” and this is only “like a health check.”

Why don’t they protest we wonder and tell scrutiny to stop wasting their time? Surely these good people have real work to do?

Thus, whenever our scrutiny politicians want to spend a few hours of discovering nothing new it’s easy enough to call in the Arts or Heritage Trust management, or those nice people from the Societe Jersiase or the Opera House to tell how they all get on so well together but could do with more funding.

We at Team Voice seem to remember that some of these same witnesses have been heard recently before Senator Ferguson and one of her Panels discussing CSR implications – but its all becoming a bit of a blur…

By way of a change, the latest polite chats took place across the corridor under the paintings of Jersey artist John Le Capelain. He is of course long since dead so there is no danger that he might be asking for any funds or facilities to further his cultural activities.

Team Voice and the general public are not allowed to speak at the hearings of course – but when the official proceedings cease we do attempt to put forward some well meaning observations – like why does nobody ask about international culture obligations – and why is it the same “culture and arts” groups that are always consulted – why not the Jersey Live organisers or Island motor clubs or even the churches of Jersey…..

Surely, we try to suggest, there is more to culture in the 21st century than this? - but the room soon empties….

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

JERSEY REFORM DAY 28 September

At about 5.30 p.m. this Tuesday, following the States meeting and weather permitting, there will be a meeting and celebration in the Royal Square.


The occasion is organised to recognise those brave Jersey people who protested in 1769 and initiated reforms that are still significant today.

28 September 1769 should truly be recognised as JERSEY REFORM DAY and we invite everybody to join us and hear about this most important day in Jersey history.

Bring a brolly just in case - but if you have an interest in our historical and political development and how it is relevant today - please join us

On 28 September 1769 up to 500 islanders marched on St. Helier from the country parishes and halted the proceedings at the Royal Court house in the Royal Square.


The corrupt Court was in session as the ancient Cour d’Heritage which still meets today. This was Jersey’s own revolution against oppressive government and pre-dated those in America and France but it was a peaceful affair and the reformers returned to their homes at the end of the day.

The reformers demanded many changes. They wanted regular elections, consultation before laws were changed or adopted, a comprehensive book of Jersey laws, restrictions on the export of foodstuffs and cattle and a properly regulated market, standardised taxation through the feudal wheat rentes system with an appeal process, import taxes to pay for a harbour, the appointment of a King’s Advocate, a general all-Island rate and the release of several prisoners from jail. Some of the reforms are still outstanding.

The corrupt Jersey government, which was centred around the Lt. Bailiff and other Crown Officers, appealed to London for military support to prevent further trouble and arrested many of the reformers.

Since they faced potential charges of sedition, for which the sentence was death or transportation, the action of the reformers was courageous.

Fortunately, the London government intervened and demanded that the Islanders should submit their complaints in the form of petitions. Eventually, all the brave reformers were released with full pardons by order of the Privy Council – but there is no memorial to them in Jersey now.

The gilded statue of King George II which still overlooks the Royal Square, was already there in 1769. The existing Royal coat-of-arms over the doorway to the Royal Court/States Building was also in place then over a doorway to the old, long since demolished, Royal Court building.


The reforms achieved by the brave Islanders in 1769 included the removal of the corrupt Attorney-General, the appointment of a new Lt. Governor and other Crown appointees, regularly elected representatives as the basis of a future democratic States Assembly and the publication in 1771 of a Code of Jersey Laws.

But – who now remembers Philip Alexandre, Philip Luce, Clement Gallichan, Francis Le Boutillier, John Coutanche, Amice Le Vavasseur Dit Durell, John or Edward De Ste Croix, Nicholas Arthur or Thomas James Gruchy and the several hundred others who fought for our rights & freedoms on JERSEY REFORM DAY

28 September 1769?

AFFORDABLE JERSEY HOUSING IN THE DRAFT ISLAND PLAN

Access to adequate and secure housing is a basic human right.
The UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing has defined this human right as:

“The right of every woman, man, youth and child to gain and sustain a safe and secure home and community in which to live in peace and dignity.”

This applies to Jersey just as much as any other place.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 states under Article 25(1) that;

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing……”

The right is supported by many other international conventions and agreements – some of which have been ratified for Jersey – such as the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) under Article 27 (Para 3).

According to General Comment No 4 adopted by the ICESCR Committee in 1991, housing to be adequate, must provide more than just four walls and a roof but, at a minimum include; legal security of tenure, availability of services, affordability, accessibility, habitability, location and cultural adequacy.

Older people, those with disabilities, minorities and migrant workers are among particular categories recognised and protected under specific international obligations.

According to Agenda 21 from the Rio Conference and Earth Summit of 1992, Jersey was supposed to draw up a plan to provide that ALL inhabitants of the Island should be adequately housed. No such plan has been produced.

Jersey has had a Housing Law since 1949.
Without a proven “housing shortage” there is no purpose for that law because its primary purpose is to “prevent further aggravation of the housing shortage.” It follows, therefore, that there is an inherent reluctance to end that housing shortage because that will remove the pretext for discriminatory “anti-immigration” laws and policies which are built around the Housing Law and Regulations. No shortage = no discriminatory laws.

The extent of the “housing shortage” has never been precisely defined.
Successive Island Plans have never attempted to end the “housing shortage” or to determine how many people live in inadequate housing.
There has never been a plan to house all those residents (in excess of 10,000 working adults) who do not have “housing qualifications.”

The Planning Department has, since the 1960s, sought to present a sham, distorted and professionally inadequate succession of Island Plans before the public.

The resident Island population was about 60,000 in 1960 and is now in excess of 92,000 but whether the “housing shortage” is diminishing or expanding is not clearly explained.
No planned date is offered when Jersey will cease to have a “housing shortage” even on current population statistics. Yet, the official economic plan for Jersey is based upon a population expansion to 100,000.
Such bland figures say nothing about specific housing type needs – such as accessible homes for people with disabilities or for resident carers.

The “housing shortage” is the basis of a substantial business for those who own properties for rent, lodging houses, rooms to let etc and accommodation tied to employment.
Jersey has a significant, permanent under-class of inadequately housed residents – contrary to international human-rights obligations or the Mission Statement of the States of Jersey.

Discrimination and unfairness under the pretext of a “housing shortage” is not just manifested under the Housing law qualifications system. The obsession with brown cows in green fields is another form of prejudice exploited by Jersey’s planners and others. Although agriculture and horticulture are ever diminishing activities and almost insignificant in Island economic terms, they enjoy an absurd preference so far as the use of land is concerned.

In spite of providing some of the worst housing accommodation in Jersey for their own employees (Portakabins and suchlike), the agriculturalists of Jersey have enjoyed an absurd planning priority for decades to develop their lands, to construct enormous sheds or glasshouses and receive all manner of subsidies. Other, more beneficial businesses, trades or activities receive no such help or little encouragement and the agriculturalists, by their animals and crops, pollute the land and water supplies too with impunity. They are also, likely as not, to receive planning permissions to redevelop old glass for houses or to convert empty sheds into data stores or mini-industrial centres.

The only desirable policies under the former Housing Law and Regulations were attempts to control the price of all housing transactions and to fix that of land for housing to £1400 per vergee.
These policies were abandoned in the 1970s because the more privileged in Jersey society (the property owning class) objected to the constraints upon their freedom to make money – although others could not afford or were not allowed to buy (sometimes even to rent), property at all.


Senator R. Shenton entered politics and the States, because he was unable to sell his house at St. Aubin for the price that he wanted and a potential buyer had agreed to pay.

Thus, “affordability” has been an aspect of Jersey’s so called “housing shortage” for a very long time. The former price control policies were intended to keep housing affordable.
This is not a problem that has suddenly arisen due to the current banking difficulties, or availability of loans, as our planners now falsely claim.

The “Zenzele” community project in 1980s Bristol afforded an opportunity for a group of unemployed persons to self-build for themselves a small block of flats. Many similar projects have been completed at various UK locations whereby people in receipt of social security benefits have been enabled, not only to become housed in their own homes but also to be enabled to find long term employment.

“Affordability” in the UN sense is not to be confused with the interpretation promoted by Jersey planners and the money-lenders.
As the self-builders have demonstrated, “affordable” has much more to do with enabling practical, socially desirable things to happen rather than helping bankers, financiers and property developers to achieve profits.

As “Zenzele” shows, even the poorest in society can afford to own decent homes, given appropriate support.
More generally, there is no excuse for any Jersey residents being denied the opportunity to occupy adequate housing - in accordance with international obligations.

According to Para 2.5 of the 2002 Island Plan and 1.3 of 2009 Draft Island Plan;

“The Island is subject to more than 350 international treaties, conventions and protocols, which carry legal and moral commitments as well as rights and obligations under international law….There, are other agreements covering social and economic matters, such as Human Rights law, which will impact indirectly on the planning system and thus need to be taken into account.”

Hardly any further information about these 350 treaties etc is offered in the current Plan beyond a few safe references to environmental issues under Ramsar conventions.
There is no attempt to list the 350 treaties or even to outline how the most important ones might have been considered in drawing up the Draft Plan.
There is no attempt at a “rights” or “compliance” audit to confirm that the Island is within existing international obligations. Nor is any guidance offered on likely international standards that might apply, during the future lifetime of the Plan.

Without such information, the Draft Plan must be viewed as substantially defective and not ready to be seriously considered.
The Island Plan of 2002 was similarly flawed yet was, nevertheless, agreed by the States.
It must not happen again.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.