Tuesday, 23 September 2014

I'm just going to nick comments off VoiceforChildren's blog and see if they object or lynch me

  1. 12:12 "majority of the Jersey electorate are Christian and as such are happy to see Christianity represented in the States of Jersey by the orifice of the Dean."

    I would dispute that the majority of the Jersey electorate are Christian as in being Church-goers and God fearing people. It is possible for people to live by Christian values and morals without having to adhere to any religion, and the vast majority of good, thinking, intelligent people I know and speak to have actually turned away from a faith for a large number of reasons.

    I agree wholly with Sam that this man should not be funded by the tax-payer to sit in the States. I am sure there are many deserving people or causes that could make good use of his salary, whilst he himself could be spending that time more usefully.

    Whilst you have been diplomatic enough VFC not to get drawn into the discussion of what the Dean does, or does not do in the Island, a lot of us have long memories and could actually pin-point an instance where he clearly did nothing, when clearly he should.

    As is proven time and time again religion and politics do not and should not mix.

  2. I agree completely with Sam's view here: there should be full separation of Church and State, and the Dean should not be allowed to participate in debates in the States. However, let's be honest (and I suspect you will get around to this in Part 2), the presence of the Dean is inconsequential when compared to the fact that a significant proportion of full States members (i.e. Constables and Deputies) are "elected" unopposed or by a tiny number of voters.

    I'm afraid I include Sam himself in this category. Sam received 277 votes in a turn-out of 13%. This gives him no moral right whatsoever to lecture anybody about other States members having no right to participate in debates, when he himself was returned on such a laughably small vote.

    I will give him and the other Reform Party candidates a lot more credit if they stand on an island-wide mandate rather than in the deputorial elections. The fact that they seek to bring about fundamental reform of the Island through the broken deputorial system does them as little credit as the establishment's perpetuation of the equally unacceptable system of Constables sitting in the States.
  3. Hi VFC,

    Off topic, but have you seen that @politicsjersey tweet today...?

    "Home Affairs Minister says the Graham Power suspension could've been handled better, regrets the cost but says outcome would've been same"

    We are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted and the unblemished reputation of a great chief police officer being unfairly attacked, to cover up the misdeeds of others. It remains an absolute scandal.

    Perhaps you could get Graham Power to write an open letter to Ian Le Marquand, asking him exactly how it could have been handled better? Maybe Ian Le Marquand could have chosen not to hide in the toilet when Graham Power's wife tried to serve legal papers on him? Is that how it could have been handled better, Ian, eh?

    What a total disgrace!

  4. Something tells me the disgraced Home Affairs Minister(s) haven't seem/heard the last from Graham Power yet.
  5. Excellent news.
  6. In fact Graham Power QPM doesn't necessarily disagree with Ian Le Marquand in that "the outcome would've been same." Ian Le Marquand had positioned himself both as prosecutor and judge! What other outcome could there have been?
  7. As with some of ILM's other cases where he is conflicted, including in the church.

No comments:

Post a Comment