Wednesday, 12 September 2012

Questions without Answers 11/09/12.

Had a few problems with the recordings, I was tiring something new & it did not work out. Sorry.

2.  Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home                                                            

“Will the Minister explain why he has not yet made public the 62,000 word affidavit submitted to the Wiltshire investigation by the former Chief of Police and advise when it will be published?”

4.  The Connétable of St. Mary will ask the following question of the Chairman of Privileges and Procedures.

“Despite advising me in writing on 3rd August that the Committee considered that “a serious breach of the privileges of the Assembly” had occurred, will the Chairman advise why, one month on, the Committee has not even written to Members about the incident and will he confirm the Committee’s stance on this matter and advise how it is championing and defending the privileges of States Members?”

7.  Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister.

“Following on from my oral question (7038) of 17th July 2012 can the Chief Minister advise what progress, if any, has been made to review and update the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948 to ensure that in future all those being elected as Jurats are of sound character and judgement and to ensure that any Jurat subsequently found to have demonstrated seriously flawed judgement or behaviour can be removed?”

11.  Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chairman of the Electoral Commission.

“Given the financial cost of promoting genuine public engagement via submissions on the future reform of the States and in light of the concerns I have expressed to the Commission regarding bogus submissions using false identities, can the Chairman advise how many of the submissions made to the Electoral Commission were actually via e-mail with no address to confirm authenticity?”

2nd question period – Chief Minister

TheJerseyWay would like to Credit & Thank BBC Radio Jersey for making these recording's posible. 


Anonymous said...

TheJerseyWay Thank you for making the audio available.

No 7 Would safeguards or vetting have prevented what Mr. Pitman was discussing or was it simply cronyism at work?

I also believe a petition to her Majesty's Council could be another avenue.

As with Hillsborough this government are trying to re-write history. The evidence is there if people want to check it.

Anonymous said...

Many thanks for posting that.
The Home affairs Minister's reply on not publishing Graham Power's affadavit is very interesting.

His reason is it os potentially libellous. For that to be the case it has to be factually clearly wrong as quoting factual evidenced truth is not libellous.

The follow up questions to the Home Affairs minister is to challenge him - what are the factual inaccuracies that allow him to claim potential libel. If there are none then there is no reason not to publish.

Anonymous said...

Now ILM has said he will not be releasing it, no doubt the bits missed out be leaked and if anyone thinks it is libellous that can sue!!

I guess it is one way in which Graham Power could illuminate his case.....

Anonymous said...

I agree with Mr Pitman on the question relating to checks on Scrutiny submission process.

It really is outrageous, scrutiny and checks should be in place for fake submissions we already know of fake letters to the JEP fake submissions on this Scrutiny process website already identified fake submissions for Tasers previously identified.

I'm not surprised they are willing to let this pass nor would I be surprised if certain members were behind dirty tricks being used and accepted by those whom it benefits.

voiceforchildren said...



Anonymous said...

It sounds to me like Monty chickened out when asked to clarify his claim about Philip Bailhache. over all though, not a very professional sitting but thanks for putting up it anyway.

Anonymous said...

I have as directed by Mr. Bailhache in the audio taken the trouble to look at Scrutiny electoral submission website and all submissions

I would like to know how can I ascertain from reading those that they are overwhelmingly genuine and serious? How?

Is it because some articulate well some ramble, or some are short and to the point.

I believe Mr. Bailhache the chairman of the panel should elaborate and advise.

It's more than, there being the potential or a possibility for false submission to his electoral commission, its known to have happened.

There were identified by Mr Macon 200 fake submissions Mr Pitman explained with the Taser debacle why can they identify in one instance and not another?

Jill Gracia said...

Monty did NOT chicken out at all. He did not mention Senator Bailhache by name, which was the said persons sibling was attempting to get him to admit to doing.

Monty quite rightly stuck to his guns, and in any event we all know what he was talking about anyway!

Anonymous said...

Jill he was asked a straight question and did not answer it. If he was sticking by his guns then he would of said 'yes'.

Anonymous said...

I commend Mr Tadier on Q7 6.45 onwards approx 1/2 way through clip. In not being bullied to deal with a question phrased by the chairperson as though it was what Mr. Tadier stated.

Mr Tadier clearly said the Attorney General turned a blind eye and assisted one would argue covering up child abuse in the honorary system.

Mr. Tadier never made an allegation that Senator Bailhache was guilty of condoning, nor used the words guilty of condoning child abuse. What the chairperson tried to twist him to admit to saying was wrong.

Mr. Tadier rightfully was not prepared to deal with the chair who is conflicted, when discussing his brother with Mr Tadier.

One could easily argue the case stated by Mr. Tadier if one researches the Roger Holland case.

Anonymous said...

Well done Monty and Trevor for standing up to the bullying of the Bailhache Brothers. Can we have more please?

Anonymous said...

I have to wonder if any child abuse convictions over the last decade a particular Jurat passed judgement on, are safe. Given the Jurat could of took the same opinion and judgement in sentencing as he used previous to becoming a Jurat. It's Possible he favoured the perpetrators career, service record and standing in the community on sentencing? So many questions

Anonymous said...

Yes but is the 'bullying of the Bailhache Brothers' actual politics?

Its a storm in a teacup at the most.

Anonymous said...

I would commend Mr Pitman and Mr Tadier for their questions. They go into these sittings knowing everything is stacked against them, and it takes some toughness to stand up to that system. History will vindicate them, and they have evidence on their side, documented evidence connected with human rights violations, attempted gerrymandering and the very sinister corrupt concealment of abuse, evidence now being viewed by thousands outside Jersey.

voiceforchildren said...


The petition has just breached its 1,000th signatories THANK YOU and please keep spreading the word #FreeJersey


Anonymous said...

Well done Trevor and Monty, it's about time they were put in their place . Can't wait for the next states assembly.

Anonymous said...

Q7 02:00

Mr Bailhache's interpretation of Trevor Pitmans question is farcical, had the Jurat not conducted himself as reported in the Sharp report then he would not have been the subject of the question asked by Mr. Pitman.

I believe Mr. Pitmans question was extremely relevant.

voiceforchildren said...



thejerseyway said...

Listen Here

John Hemming MP.
1 hour 58min inn to 2 hours 10 min

Anonymous said...

John Hemming