Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Haut de la Garenne – Teeth and Bones and Phil puts Foot-In-Mouth, Again!

Bone fragments and a total of five teeth recovered from a cellar at Haut de la Garenne have undergone initial examination and have now been sent to the UK for carbon dating and DNA testing.

The teeth are thought to belong to a child, around the age of four or five.

Police are not expecting any tests results before the beginning of next week…


So it seems, most are in agreement that Phil and Frank’s Liberation Day speeches were unsuitable and self-serving and, surprisingly the JEP actually ran that story.
We also know that Deputy Gerard Baudains criticized Frank’s speech in a letter to all States’ Members.

Let us not forget, Phil and Frank censored Senator Syvret’s Christmas speech, even going so far as shutting-off his mic. They deemed his speech, giving voice to victims of the abuse scandal, as inappropriate and “out of context”.
Phil can’t help himself and chose to respond to Deputy Baudains criticism and Senator Stuart Syvret Blog kindly posted Phil’s response. Below are some excerpts:

From: Bailiff of Jersey
Sent: 12 May 2008 17:23
To: Gerard Baudains
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: Your email

Dear Deputy,
I hope that I qualify as a “colleague” but your e-mail was sent to me amongst others, and it raises important questions which deserve an answer from the perspective of the presiding officer.

Liberation Day is obviously very important for those who were here on 9th May 1945. But if Liberation Day is to continue to be celebrated in the future, it must be made relevant to the remainder of the population. That is why Liberation Day is becoming, if it has not already become, our “National Day”. It is an occasion for celebrating not only the freedom restored in 1945 but also the liberties and privileges that we enjoy today. All parts of the community have contributed to that success.

Phil, please go re-read Frank’s speech – Liberation Day was NOT the gist of what he spouted, or you for that matter!

As to the Chief Minister's speech, all speeches in the Assembly are expected to be in context. Where there is a proposition, that is the context and Standing Orders require Members to speak to it. But even where there is no proposition, context remains important.

As Senator Syvret points out, “the standing orders of the assembly do not provide any guidance, analysis or working definitions of what is “relevant” or “in context”.

It is not for me to respond on behalf of the Chief Minister, but as he is away from the Island for a week, I think that Members should know that it had been agreed that a sub-theme for this year's Liberation Day celebrations would be “Confronting the Past”.

So the Members are now just finding out a sub-theme was agreed to? Does this mean that the agreement was reached by only Phil and Frank?

Having regard to that sub-theme, I did not, for my part, consider the Chief Minister's references to Haut de la Garenne to be inappropriate or out of context for the occasion. In contrast, I did not believe that Senator Syvret’s Christmas intervention was in context. His speech would have been entirely appropriate (and in order) in the context of a debate on child abuse. But on that occasion he was speaking for Senators to express seasonal good wishes to the Chair and to Officers and others who serve the Assembly. That is the context of the traditional exchange of Christmas Greetings. It was not the occasion to berate the States and parts of the public administration for alleged past failures. I believe that that is why Members thought that the intervention was inappropriate and not in context, and in my view they were right.

There’s that “context” thing again. Is Phil the only one who determines appropriate or inappropriate “context”?

Did Phil poll the Members to see who and how many thought Senator Syvret’s remarks were, “not in context”?

These are of course my personal views, and I am very happy to discuss them privately with you or any other Member. I do not think that I should, however, become involved in any further e-mail exchanges.
Philip Bailhache
Bailiff of Jersey

OK, again we see the true side of Phil; he will discuss privately, but e-mail exchanges are out. Why? Because we can get our hands on them and see for ourselves how disingenuous you are? What is said behind closed doors is safer for you?

Phil is either arrogant or stupid, or maybe both! It is he who continues to heap fuel on the fire – had he just shut-up, this probably wouldn’t have received the attention it is garnering.

If it wasn't so sad, this would make for great theater.

A word of advice, Phil – put a sock in it…


Anonymous said...

One can't help but wonder what a "debate about child abuse" would look like in Phil's mind. Would it ever actually be appropriate, or is the subject too impolite for their proper, white glove discussion?

Nothing will change if blogs like yours don't keep a focus on the big picture of this investigation. Far more than a tragic child abuse case of horrific proportions, this really is a story about the inevitability of sustained evil permitted by or because of oblivious, dangerously corrupt governance.

Thank you.