The old “Jersey Open for Business” cry is visibly being replaced by the “For Sale” signs at Scrutiny meetings these days.

As we go from one scrutiny meeting after another and listen to the pathetic attempts of government departments to achieve 2% cuts to be followed by 3% and then 5%, the spectacle is ever more depressing.

How long before the “En Desastre” sign goes up is anybody’s guess but it surely won’t be long. So desperate has it become that joining the EU is being put forward as a realistic option by several departments including the Chief Minister’s. A Jersey Brussels Group chaired by Tom Walker is looking at several specific issues such as our representation in the EU, the benefits of full membership and the role of our own office in Brussels.

Obviously, if the people of Gibraltar can participate in EU elections it is much more difficult to argue against Channel Islanders voting too but, of course, the fear that EU rules on social matters and human rights safeguards might be part of the package worries the business/finance lobby. How to get the enhanced business without the social responsibilities and cross-border equalisation is still worrying to some. Does anybody care what the general public thinks?

Who will protect the Jersey Cow? Well- rest assured - when it comes to the crunch nobody will. A total herd of 3,000 Jersey milkers with 27 farms is just not important to the world when the whole global economy is at risk. Jersey milk can be bought cheaper elsewhere and there are just too many alternative products these days such as soya and rice milk besides a whole range of healthier and less fatty dairy liquids. Jersey’s tiny herd is doomed – so we might as well plan for the inevitable rather than waste yet more money and effort on preserving an 18th century farming concept.

It is similar with Jersey spuds. Now, UK supermarkets offer the Royal at a less than cost price to customers because it’s a strong brand name. But what does this say for the long term future? It is only a tiny niche part of the UK demand for potatoes and is still too expensive for a staple food. In Jersey the cost of producing this minority food is high both in financial and environmental terms and there are many other calls on the use of the one-crop land.

Apart from the challenges of the weather, blight and eel-worm, pesticides and pollution, plastic waste, transport, energy – the simple fact is that there are many other competing varieties from other places. Even Jersey’s own dairy industry will soon admit that school milk is neither desirable nor healthy enough to justify its distribution in future.

The one breed of cow and one type of spud is a formula for economic failure sooner or later. No other industry would attempt to compete globally with such a restricted menu of products and so constrained by regulation.

Many £millions are currently being invested in Jersey’s dairy and spud industries. Why? Here in Jersey these activities are in direct competition with the Finance sector. There are no other island based farming challenges with other crops or products.
As part of the overall Jersey economy the farming activities are of negligible importance yet they occupy an absurdly large part of Jersey’s useable land. Why?

At the recent Lord Carswell hearings on the role of the Crown Officers in Jersey, one voice – that of former Chief Minister Frank Walker – expressed the unconventional view that the Bailiff should step aside for the Chief Minister as “Mr Jersey”.

Frank Walker realised that the role of the Bailiff belongs to another long-gone age and that Jersey now needs an elected President both within and outside the Island. But clearly Frank sees such a President touting for more Finance sector business – not sales of spuds or milk that the Island cannot actually produce.

Even now Jersey is planning its next overseas office in the UAE (Dubai, the first choice having gone phut!) to “serve” the Middle East and India. Shall it be selling Jersey Royals and Jersey ice-cream?

The answer is NO because it is Jersey that is for sale.
The great desperation sale will be the subject of another blog soon – but anybody wanting to learn more directly should attend the many Scrutiny Panel hearings currently taking place. Entry is Free – the taxpayers foot the bill.


[Submitted by Tom Gruchy]

The Time4Change protest rally against the government cuts to jobs and public services drew a large cross section of society to listen to politicians, civil society activists and trade union representatives.

Following in the wake of the Senatorial by election at which Stuart Syvret lost his seat, and the JDA candidate saw the party vote plummet, Time4Change predicted the inevitable demoralization of progressives, by arranging a rally around the twin theme of “Stop the Cuts!” and support the vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur, to be debated in the States next week. The message - “It’s no time to sit around and mope; get up and fight!”, was warmly received as progressives regrouped politically.

Whilst Mencap gymnasts went through their paces at the bottom of the Royal Square, Time4Change speakers delivered a scathing critique of the Ozouf/Le Sueur government’s economic somersaults that are leading to widening structural deficits and attacks on working people’s living standards. Ironically. Mencap is one of the many worthy charitable organisations that is suffering government austerity measures and a 2% cut in its grant for this year, It was fitting the two groups, one political and the other a campaigning charity, should compliment each other and share the square.

The Saturday morning rain having been replaced by bright summer sunshine, the protesters took heart at a renewed sense of solidarity for future political battles. The famous “Red Book” of contacts that had been passed around at formation of Time4Change, served again to renew old contacts and new enthusiasts, willing to join in political struggle.

Speakers and audience recognised the important role that the trade unions in the island will perform in reinvigorating the labour movement and the formation of a new political organisation that can effectively represent the interests of all the working people in Jersey. Roll on the 2011 elections! – we still have a lot of hard work in the meantime to organise and educate an awakening sleeping giant that is the working people of the island.








Well done T4C for showing leadership, intellect and courage.

[Submitted by Time4Change]

While the Teachers threaten strike action and the Nurses may follow, the States is trying to cut wages, jobs and services. The only way to show the Ozouf/Le Sueur government that the people of Jersey do not want their £50 million of cuts is to fill the Royal Square this Saturday at noon.

Rising Taxes for the majority, while the wealthy 1(i)k’s residents get “sweetheart deals” of £5000 and £10,000 per annum. Non resident companies pay Zero rate, and working people now face a freeze on allowance, “20 means 20” and rising GST.

Wage cuts. The States has imposed a pay freeze for this year and refuses to negotiate over pay increase promised last year. Working people get no cost of living increase despite rising taxes, rising prices and inflation.

Cuts in jobs and services. The government has demanded £50m in cuts, starting this year with 2% and 10% over 3 years.

WE DEMAND

• No job losses – no cuts in services – No front-line service cuts
• Defend Trade Unions and members against victimisation
• Scrap GST
• Introduce progressive taxes on personal income and corporate profits.
• No privatization of Public Utilities – Post Office & Jersey Telecom
• Fight for Democracy – reform the States and Crown Officers

Time4Change is organising this rally and demonstration in the Royal Square to protest against the cuts to public services and job losses announced by the Le Sueur/Ozouf government as well as to support Deputy Geoff Southern’s vote of no confidence in Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur to be debated in the States Assembly on 22nd June.

Time4Change will be arranging an alternative "Peoples' States" at which ordinary citizens will debate how to achieve a government that represents the interests of the working people of the island and what policies it should pursue.

Speakers included Deputy Montfort Tadier, Stuart Syvret & Nick Le Cornu
Invitees: Deputy Geoff Southern, Trade Union representatives of JCR - Joint Council of Representatives, Unite, Teachers, Dockers etc

NOTE THAT OWING TO CENSORSHIP BY GOVERNMENT MEDIA SOURCES, INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROTEST WILL NOT BE BROADCAST THROUGH OFFICIAL MEDIA CHANNELS. Spread the word and tell your friends.


[THE RALLY WILL NOT BE TELEVISED; IT WILL BE LIVE!!

[Time4Change]

Ted,

Before I reply to the baseless allegations on your blog that I did nothing to assist the Woolworths workers in their struggle, I will make one point very strongly. The “enemy” is the Establishment and in particular the two Establishment candidates, Patrick Ryan and Francis Le Gresley. There are three serious “progressive” candidates on the platform – Stuart Syvret, Geoff Southern and myself. We are all making the same point in our own unique ways, that the government of Jersey, in the form of the Ozouf – Le Sueur Council of Ministers clique and its loyal supporters, a block of some thirty States Members, is leading the island to disaster economically and socially. By attacking another “Progressive” candidate publicly you are simply being opportunist, diverting attention and energy better employed in opposing the Right and furthermore giving them ammunition to discredit our cause. The “Left” is notorious for its inane bickering, meanwhile the government carries on as usual unopposed. Your conduct is once such worked example. Whose decision was it to let you out and cause such havoc?

It is always a good idea to at least have some basis to substantiate allegations before making them. Perhaps you would like to consider the following links together with all the sub links as you may then wish to retract your comments. You clearly have not been keeping up to date with Citizens Media.

Is WOOLworths being pulled over our eyes?
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/

http://www.isthisjersey.com/comment.php?comment.news.713

http://www.isthisjersey.com/comment.php?comment.news.804

http://www.isthisjersey.com/comment.php?comment.news.699

http://www.isthisjersey.com/comment.php?comment.news.698

The Woolworths issue is still not finalised. The real issue is not what happened last year in relation to the redundant workers, but rather the many unanswered questions about where has the money gone and what sort of opaque transactions were taking place using offshore jurisdictions? There has probably been some off balance sheet borrowing that may have contributed to the ultimate demise of the company. It is hard to see why the “Pick n Mix” counter was involved in £116m loans from General Motors Finance arm. No elected politician, JDA or otherwise is the slightest bit interested in finding out more. Why is that?

The recollection of the conversation you initiated with me after the St Brelade Hustings is faulty. You are either confused or deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I told you that I almost had the Woolworths workers taking action to occupy the shop. I did not dissuade them as you write. The Public would have certainly had great sympathy for such action and undoubtedly would have forced the Receivers to find their redundancy money or face jeopardising the transfer of the shop lease to new tenants. A number of workers had independently come to that conclusion and wanted to act on the final day but others were intimidated by the presence of the manager. At the time the workers of Republic Windows and Doors Company in Chicago, IL, had occupied their factory to prevent the owner removing machinery and refusing to pay redundancy money.

It ought to be noted that the unions gave little or no help to the workers. The attitude was one of indifference because of repeated attempt in the past to recruit them having been rebuffed. When they did need help none was provided because they were not members. So much for solidarity!

Support for the workers did not come exclusively from the JDA. One individual, a civil society activist, not I or a Team Voice member, did a lot of work preparing hand held posters on poles that could be held by the workers for additional publicity outside the shop and JEP photo opportunities.

I and Team Voice did a lot of background research. In particular we alerted politicians to the fact that the receivers were repatriating funds to the UK ignoring the fact that Jersey was a separate jurisdiction with its own bankruptcy procedures. The issue became more acute once the States had become a creditor by making an ex gratia payment to the workers and stepping into their shoes. A hastily convened sitting of the Royal Court on 2nd March, with the Bailiff presiding, granted the Receivers limited authority to act.

On the 7th January 2008 BBC Radio Jersey midday phone programme, I spoke for seven minutes with the breaking news that Receivers in the Isle of Man had found some money and intended to pay the workers their redundancy entitlement. This put moral pressure on government in Jersey and embarrassed the Receivers.

Team Voice and I made extensive enquiries in Guernsey. Neither workers, politicians nor unions were in the slightest bit interested in any kind of a fight for redundancy monies.

As to the celebratory Drinks Party which you say I did not attend, you have simply been misinformed. The Woolworths workers senior organiser personally thanked me and another Team Voice member, inviting us both to the event. I attended even though I knew it would be a JDA celebratory Rally. Sure enough the entire JDA front bench was lined up behind a table to receive appropriate supplication from the ever so deferential workers. It was announced that the sacred right to membership of the JDA was bountifully offered to all that might wish to join.

I am not claiming that my efforts were decisive in obtaining payments for the Woolworths workers. It may have helped affect public opinion and in turn influence a notoriously parsimonious States. What I did was out of a sense of solidarity with working people in struggle.

In conclusion your allegations are based entirely on hearsay, all of it incorrect. The facts speak otherwise. You were not active politically at the time and did not help the Woolworth workers at all.

As for the allegation that I have appropriated all the JDA’s good ideas without attribution, I am reminded of the Little Britain sketch with out gay man Dafeth Thomas who considers that he alone is “The only Gay in the village”. Ted Vibert thinks the JDA is the only organisation that can and should speak for working people and gets annoyed when others do it more effictively and eloquently.

As for the connection between the formation of Time4Change and the JDA, I would remark that the JDA provided funding for the demonstration against child abuse held on 8th March 2008, at which at least one current JDA Council member spoke and another attended. Certain Council members were conspicuous by their absence. The event was a success with over 600 attending and six million watching on Sky TV. The issue of child abuse was too close to a raw nerve for someone and anyway it was not really a good idea to organise demonstrations in an election year, lest is frighten the horses and upset certain career plans.

At the formation of Time4Change in the Pomme D’Or Hotel, one current JDA Council member attended whilst the absence of others was again conspicuous. Given that it was to be an organisation embracing Liberals, Greens and the “Left”, this was unusual.

The £1000 used to pay for various expenses relating to the demonstration and Hotel hire was not “sparse funds …(the) contributions from members”, it was donation by the Rowntree Foundation political fund. The JDA has no membership of significance and subscriptions never amounted to £1000.

You most certainly did not state “… I asked him to give this money back to the JDA, otherwise (I) would be regarded as a fraudulent huckster.” Our brief conversation was confined to discussion of the Woolworths issue only.

What you omit from the account of our conversation is that I tapped the red, white and blue JDA rosette you were wearing and stated “You ought to take the red out of that rosette as you are just a Tory.”. You then said “Don’t you touch me Pal!”

You dismiss me as a “Champagne Socialist” (the JDA is not a socialist party in any sense of the term). I find that offensive given the last twelve months of hardship and relative poverty, that I and my family have endured as a result of the impact of the recession and precarious employment. Perhaps you could tell us more about your own wealth; I believe you “married well” as they say.

What matters is not where you come from; it is where you are going to.

Maybe I should be campaigning on a platform of "champagne socialism"-- champagne for workers and not just bankers and land owners!!

A campaign which framed socialism with the virtues of champagne-- a delightful beverage-- might be at least more entertaining than the puritanical hypocrisy of the JDA. The PR manager at Laurent Perrier once said to a friend of mine that she did not understand why other regions of the world wanted to make sparkling wines like champagne when they had far better still wines. Her argument was that champagne was a wine making virtue out of necessity. Jersey socialism could be compared with champagne-- making social justice a virtue out of necessity.

Ted, can you tell us exactly what you have done for Socialism and what it means to you?

Incidentally, I saw you in town posing for the JEP, with another opportunistic ex JDA Deputy, outside the market post office with your daily newspaper. That paper did not appear to be the Guardian let alone the Daily Worker; could it have been a copy of the Daily Mail? Surely not! A Daily Mail reader and a Socialist - a novel combination.

I will leave it to readers to assess the veracity and utility of anything you may write now or in the future.

You are clearly a part of an island political culture, sometimes called the “Jersey Way”, in that you prefer to denigrate and vilify an opponent with insinuations, rumours and lies, rather than engage and refute their ideas and policies. Since you do not have counter arguments and cannot express them in a coherent fashion, you resort to denigration – “liar”, “fraud”, “Champagne Socialist”. One hopes that the gullible will eventually realise that what you write and say is mostly untrue.

We have to hope that the era of the Cult of the Personalty; of charismatic populist politicians who promise much and deliver little, is finally coming to an end. Your return is a retrograde step on the path to creating a credible opposition in Jersey: one that is not easily stereotyped – loudmouthed, rolling in the gutter, Andy Cap with jutting finger.

Further, I know there are many good people in the JDA who have remained loyal to the organisation in spite of the antics of certain members of its leadership over the years. Such is the desperate need for an opposition, they will cling to any lifebelt in a storm. Perhaps they will now reassess that loyalty in the light of your return to the political scene, new found zeal and lickspittle rants.

Salut et Fraternité,

Nick

[Submitted by Nick]

Just as the head of Jersey’s CAB announces he is about to stand in a Senatorial by-election, the organisation’s annual report is coincidentally published, allowing publicity for the candidature. Fine; all’s fair in love and war. We all need to take advantage of what resources we have in an election. However, what is not acceptable is when an organisation like the CAB stokes up racism against immigrant workers, either deliberately or through negligence.

Racism is a dangerous and pernicious thing. For a supposedly “Progressive” organisation to allow it to be used to assist a candidature shows a lack of judgment. Nothing will be said locally, however this should be an issue for the national organisation, which ought to consider severing all ties with the Jersey branch.

Intolerance of minorities, be they East Europeans or Portuguese, is just below the surface in all sections of Jersey society. Prejudice is very easily mobilised in a corrosive and destructive way to divided a community. That is precisely why racism, in all forms, should be fought. There are few civil society organisations in Jersey that disseminate values of tolerance of difference and as a consequence racial prejudice abounds unchallenged.

Here is what was printed in the 2009 Jersey CAB Report:



The only solution to the problem of poverty and homelessness faced by unemployed immigrant workers is to recommend that the state adopt policies to discourage further workers coming less they find themselves in the same situation. There is no suggestion that the state should accept responsibility for their welfare by changing its discriminatory 5 year qualification rule to benefits and assistance or introduce unemployment benefit for all without work. Let them eat food parcels!

Jersey’s government has long maintained discriminatory policies as regards housing access in the form of housing qualifications. Some ten to fifteen thousand people live such a rightless existence. The economy needs a pool of migrant labour primarily employed in unskilled work in retail, hospitality and fulfillment. This pool is constantly turning over as people arrive and leave if dissatisfied, always with the certainty that there are others who can be attracted to replace them.

When there is a downturn in the economy the Jersey state solves its social problem by effectively forcing the now redundant labour to leave. By imposing the 5 year rule for eligibility for welfare it establishes a logic of work or starve. Without work and in the absence of state assistance, individuals and families are forced to leave. The problem is solved by moving it elsewhere – back to Poland or to the UK where family, friend and state assistance may be available. This is the pressure release valve mechanism designed into an economy that is highly distorted and inflated by finance.

Jersey was shocked by the revelations of child abuse at Haut de la Garenne children's home and no doubt many children amongst East European unemployed families will be going hungry tonight. No lessons have been learnt from the child abuse scandal to ensure that it never happens again.

Charities in these circumstances are mere sticking plasters, totally overwhelmed by the demand and unable to provide an adequate response to basic social needs of food and lodging.

When the media started running the story of immigrants in poverty one could almost hear the response - “deport the buggers”. This is precisely the response it engendered. The Friday BBC Jersey lunchtime phone-in had several callers saying that the 5 year rule must stay – “that’s the rules of Jersey – they knew it when they came”. No sympathy for the plight of fellow human beings was expressed, ignoring the fact that some will be children of unemployed mothers and fathers.

The Jersey Evening Post in its editorial of Friday 21st May reiterated the government line:



So that’s it then, all is well, the charities will deal with the suffering and the state does not need to review its policies.

It is true that there has not been an honest debate about immigration into the island and nor into the UK in general. Cheap labour has been attracted and now it will be discarded, whilst forcing the existing working class to compete.

Because politicians refuse to tackle this demand by business for a highly exploitable workforce, all their tough talk about limiting immigration never leads to such reduction and at the same time fuels the dangerous perception that immigration is out of control.

There has been a demand for short term non binding sub contracted workforces which can be hired and fired at will and are constantly threatened by replacement of cheaper labour from elsewhere. This has led to a demand for rightless migrant workers to exploit. Government has used this to reshape parts of the labour market so it can be so called “flexible”. This has resulted in the casualisation of the labour market and is the reason for the increase in immigration we have seen over the last decade. Its about the changes in the UK and not in other countries that is driving this increase.

What is required is reform of the deregulated labour market into which migrant workers are recruited. Strengthening rights of all workers, bringing real change in such issues as health and safety, working hours , trade union rights and a living wage, has advantages to both migrant workers and the exiting low paid workforce. Otherwise the impression will persist of a downward spiral of intense competition between these different groups, dividing people who have a shared interest in transforming the way the labour market functions for poor people.

Its not as simple as immigrants have come in and taken jobs or taken housing or public services. It’s the way the government has used immigrants to bring about a diminution of resources for the working class and at the same time transformed the labour market. It is true that the existing working class population has lost out to migrants, but its not that simple. There is a more complex picture. The immigrants and the existing workforce have a shared agenda in preventing themselves being pitted against each other. Trade unions should be organising inside the exiting communities alongside the migrants to bring about real change for both.

One suspects the CAB will not be issuing a clarification of its position or apology for fueling racist sentiment. We shall see if the issue of immigration and job competition with East European workers becomes an election issue. That one candidate uses a little racism to get elected playing on popular fears and prejudice of the basest nature is deplorable.

[Submitted by Alex]

The fear of international embarrassment was the reason given by the former Chief Minister of Jersey as his principle reason for removing the Bailiff as Speaker/President of the States Assembly. Attending hearings yesterday (05.05.2010) into the role of the Crown Officers, headed by Lord Carswell, Frank Walker revealed a significant split opening up in Jersey’s ruling elites on the issue.

Central to the power of the Crown Officers over the structures of the state has been the unique multiple office holding of the Bailiff as Civic Head, Chief Judge and President of the States. Historically there have been challenges by the States Assembly to this authority without altering significantly the constitutional arrangement. The restructuring of the constitution in 1948 left the Bailiff untouched whilst the Clothier Report of 2000 alluded to the anomalous situation but was not followed up as a government reform.

The majority opinion from written submissions and oral hearings to the Carswell inquiry has been that the present arrangements are generally satisfactory. This opinion, it has to be noted, has come mainly from the Crown Officers themselves and those associated with the Royal Court and Jersey legal profession; all clearly actors with a vested interest that nothing changes. Added to that has been a plethora of deferential Loyalists (backwoods States Members, Honorary Police, Ex army field officers and wealthy English settler classes) arguing defence of the status quo along the lines of its threat to island tradition and “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” conservatism. The voices of dissent and those in favour of government based on liberal-democratic lines have been few. Given that barrage, Frank Walker’s comments come therefore all the more as a surprise. So, what is happening?

What one sees is a fraction or split in the ruling class in Jersey between the “Capitalists”-those favouring the finance industry, as against the “Feudalists”, a more traditional elite, around the Bailiff, Crown Officers and Royal Court.

Walker asserted the primacy of the Chief Minister as the representative of Jersey on the international stage as this was a political role and not one for the Bailiff. He questioned where the civic role of the Bailiff began and ended, implying it should be limited. He went on to suggest the creation of a new post, that of Foreign Affairs Minister, to lead international relations. This would be separate from the role of the Chief Minister. The Bailiff would remain Civic Head of the island, but only in a titular sense, shorn of real power and authority – a sort of Constitutional Monarch. Real power would reside with the Chief Minister’s Office and exclusively so in respect of relations with the UK and internationally.

Walker argued the Attorney General, who historically had undertaken negotiations about the island’s international relationships in the form of Conventions and Treaties, should be firmly subordinated to the Chief Minister’s Office, in order to avoid any divergence of view as perceived externally. The Attorney General would be allowed to undertake negotiations provided it was under instruction from the Chief Minister.

It is clear that the former Chief Minister envisages the removal of the Bailiff as Speaker/President of the Assembly and his replacement with some form of elected individual. The primary reason for so doing was not for any theoretical concerns about the separation of powers, legitimacy or democracy, but because the presence of a judge in the parliament was perceived by the political class elsewhere and by financiers as abnormal for a modern capitalist democracy. This external perception was sufficient to warrant alteration of traditional structures, which normally would be defended as a bulwark of stability.

There is clearly great fear of critical international opinion as being bad for business. When Walker argued with Senator Syvret on the BBC over child abuse, he famously accused him of “trying to shaft Jersey internationally”. His choice of words was revealing. The use of Jersey in this context was code for the finance industry and the greatest sin was to bring its image into disrepute around the world.

Walker recognised implicitly that the Guernsey case of McGonnel at the European Court of Human Rights and that of the Barclays Brothers concerning the Sark Senechal, had implications for the role of the Jersey’s Bailiff. The various submissions of the Crown Officers have sought to judicially distinguish these two cases and to argue that they have no real relevance to Jersey. The previous day the Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache had argued that there was no point making changes simply on the off chance that there might be a critical judgment sometime in the distant future. It was better to wait and if Strasbourg changed direction and only then make the requisite changes. Walker by contrast, understood that the problem was an actual one in the here and now, not a hypothetical one for the future. Constitutional changes were urgent for the sake of image and to forestall even further embarrassment in the event of an adverse judgement before an international tribunal.

Tradition was to be sacrificed to expediency: the Bailiff’s role as President of the States would be ended to preserve the good business reputation of the island as a finance centre. Henceforth, power would be shifted further toward the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, as the local political representatives of international finance capital.

[Submitted by kiran ]

Anyone coming to live in the island needs to have a clear understanding of the “Jersey Way” if they are to progress and get on.

Some of course find that they have qualities that do not quite fit with what those in authority might usually expect. If you ask too many questions or answer back, it is obvious that this makes one unsuitable for advancement. Were one to be in a profession close to authority, such as the legal profession, one would be unwise to hold Left Wing or Liberal opinions. Certainly expression of those opinions to anyone other that one’s spiritual adviser or beneath the duvet to one’s spouse, would be highly problematic. Skin colour or ethnic origin might likewise mean that one would not advance in one’s chosen career as might otherwise be expected. This is not to say there is discrimination in Jersey. Being a woman for example would not preclude one from rising to the highest levels in our many esteemed institutions. Look at the Crown Officers and the Royal Court and one will discover that there are a few women there.


It is always edifying to find written examples of what those who live here and seek to progress, learn to internalise without having to be told. Here Jurat S Le Cornu explains to Lord Carswell at the Crown Officers Review hearings how it was always possible to weed out in advance any undesirable persons that might have pretensions to join the Honorary Police without being “one of us”. All that tedious examination of CV’s, interviews, merit assessments, can all be dispensed with by a simple telephone call to someone in authority. The question every time is a simple one: “is he one of us?”

"JURAT LE CORNU: Occasionally, of course, we have people who would like to become Honorary Police, members of the Honorary Police, who we may hear things about in the parish.

They may not be suitable.

Rather than go through the rigmarole of interviewing somebody we know is likely to be
unsuitable, by linking in with the Attorney General, or the Solicitor General, we can usually find
the way –

MR STRANG: You can make inquiries?

JURAT LE CORNU: Yes, we can save a lot of time and effort for everybody. Now that can only be done in the sort of what I call the Jersey way where you pick up the phone and speak to somebody you know.”

[Submitted by vladim]

A tectonic shift in industrial relations occurred in Jersey on Saturday 24th April in the wake of a demonstration and Rally organised by teachers in defence of jobs and public services.

Seven hundred people marched to the Opera House in St Helier where they listen to speeches by union leaders and representatives both national and local. Also speaking were representatives of other areas of the Jersey Public Services threatened by redundancies and reduced services, including the prison service and manual workers.

Only five States Members attended the march, which is indicative of the fact that the rest simply do not care about the quality of services or the jobs of working people.

Amongst the marchers were many public sector workers from other unions and sections besides the teachers, together with their families and friends. All understood that the issue of the day was defence of jobs and services against the inevitable onslaught of the Ozouf/Le Sueur government.

Listen now tosome of the speeches in Howard Davis Park and at the Opera House Rally. Help prevent the destruction of jobs and services. Get organised!

[Submitted by Alex]