Tuesday, 8 October 2013

Questions without Answers 08/10/13.

6.  Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –

 “How does he reconcile evidence given by H.M. Solicitor General under oath in the 2008 Royal
Court Curtis Warren abuse of process hearing, that he was not mislead by any of the police
officers involved in the investigation (later repeated in a 2011 Privy Council statement) with the
written statement to the Operation Invicta investigation alleging that the Law Officers
Department were mislead by the States of Jersey Police?”




8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chairman of Privileges 
and Procedures Committee – 
 
 “Would the Committee agree to review the current operation of Standing Order 109(7), which 
relates to the removal of the names of individuals named within the course of States questions or 
debates, to ensure it is operating adequately?” 




9. Senator S.C. Ferguson will ask the following question of the Minister for Health and Social 
Services– 
 
 “Would the Minister outline the negotiations which have taken place with staff in the pathology 
laboratory and advise whether the significant number of recent press releases has been 
considered appropriate to this process?” 



12. Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Health and 
Social Services – 
 
 “What is the average waiting time for an appointment to see a psychologist?” 



13. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister - 
 
 “Will the Chief Minister explain what the difference is between a ‘criminal’ breach of the Data 
Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 and a so-called ‘regulatory’ breach?” 



14. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home 
Affairs – 
 
 “Will the Minister reconcile his written answer on 10th September 2013, confirming that the 
disciplinary action against three officers involved in car bugging in the Curtis Warren case was 
brought by the Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, with that same officer’s 
statement to the Disciplinary Hearing conducted by the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary 
that he was not the complainant but it was H.M. Attorney General?” 



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

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Much appreciated, as always.

Ian Evans said...

Good one TJW, you need to get some links out there mate :)

Anonymous said...

"The results were that which I have said!"

The questions are good ones and they're important.The problem is there are almost no understandable answers coming out of these clowns.

These sessions are no more than an exercise in arrogance, self-congratulatory pretentiousness and the hopelessness of any meaningful scrutiny.

voiceforchildren said...

TJW.

An alarming update on the school SHOOTING210 BANEON

Anonymous said...

Thanks, TJW. As always, it's a big help to be able to listen to these silly non-answers to reasonable questions. Makes the fear and hedging easier to pick up than in the written form.