Did you hear the one about the Politician who took a pay increase?

There is an old joke that about lawyers that goes: 'Isn't it a shame how it's the 99% a bad lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name.' Substitute lawyer for politician and you have a ready made joke next time you bump into your local States Member.

As a quick aside, I was interested to hear the evidence given by Advocate Fogarty at a public scrutiny hearing on the mental health of prisoners. She is clearly someone with a great deal of experience in the Jersey legal system and of representing defendants with mental health related issues. She was quite robust in her comments that parts of the system across the board are letting vulnerable people down, and need addressing urgently, commenting also on issues of understaffing, wrong or no diagnoses and an absence of adequate facilities for people with psychiatric issues in Jersey. More on that scrutiny review can be found here by Citizen's journalist, Tom Gruchy (all thoughts are his own).

The reason I bring this issue up is to contextualise. Whilst jokes about the motivation, efficacy and ethics or Advocates and States Members about, I still believe that the vast majority of them go into for basically the right reasons. They want to make a difference and make one for the better. I believe this in the case of Tories, Socialists, Republicans, Democrats and people across the spectrum. I don't agree that all of them are right and often, I believe they are blind by the 'unintended' consequences' of their politics, but they generally want to make a positive difference. Of course, politics will always attract those on the megalomaniac/psychotic spectrum - which is maybe one reason why women are often not attracted to politics. But, hey, who amongst us is perfect?

Today, I am posting my response to Lucy Stephenson, who has written much recently on States Members pay, and who wants to know which of us States Members is taking our below cost of living pay adjustment ( to use politically correct, but also factual terms).

Whilst she is correct that States Members pay is a matter of public interest, I feel that the perennial tone of the discussion, with the media in general (the Channel TV coverage was perhaps even more facile), lacks any meaningful criticism. I have subsequently corresponded with Lucy to re-iterate that none of the comments are personal, but reflect primarily on the caliber of the J.E.Pravda (accountability is a two way street):

JEP journalist, Lucy Stephenson

Letter to Lucy

Hi Lucy,

Why are you only interested in how we are spending the below inflation 1.8 cost of living adjustment that States Members have been awarded, when the remaining 98.2% is also paid by the tax payer? Surely in the public interest, you should be asking us what we are going to be doing with that money also.Have you also thought to look into the pay affairs of the Crown Officers, Bailiff, Attorney General, etc, who are also public servants, but of a different kind? Do you even know whether they are receiving a pay increase? If so, is it more or less than us. Or does JEP populism turn into deference when it comes to these figures?Are you aware that the Crown Officers (they will correct me if I'm wrong) and other Public employee groups also receive incremental pay increases based on length of service? This does not apply to States members.Are you also aware that States Member's pay has fallen behind that of equivalently paid civil servants when benchmarked against? Since 2004, States members pay has consistently lagged in relative terms, as can be seen by the very useful stat attached in this link: (http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.127-2012Com(2).pdf#search=p.127) quite ably produced courtesy of the States Greffe.This kind of information is not often reported as it does not fit with the populist, 'all politicians are useless kind of mantra' that low quality tabloids like yours are keen to pursue.The most sinister consequence of this populist and partial reporting is that it inadvertently, or by design breeds despondency among the public. It seeks to tar us all with the same brush. It does QUITE RIGHTLY tap into the fact that people out there are suffering, and that we live in an un-equal world, but rather than offering any critical analysis as to why this is the case it takes the easy way out and and targets an easy scape goat.The real questions to ask are 'why is it that we live in an economy where wages, for the majority, do not keep up with inflation?' 'Why do the rich, even and especially in Jersey, get richer whilst the poor, on whose labour their wealth is built, get poorer and continually more oppressed, so they are forced increasingly into State dependency?'These are the kind of questions I would expect from both politicians and journalists. These questions are asked by politicians, although we are a minority in Jersey. They are asked by journalists of most papers everywhere else, whether left, centre or right, but in Jersey there is never any analysis or questioning of the economic model which harms our own people. Why is this?Lastly, to return to my point of 'tarring-with-the -same brush.' There are those politicians in Jersey, in a minority, who fight for workers to be able to have a real cost of living adjustment. You would do well to look at those politicians who voted against the 'modest' increases in minimum wage and against pay rises for public employees in recent years. This is where the inconsistency lies. please do not group me with these.

Kind regards,

Montfort Tadier

JEP - Not Fit for Purpose: Part 2

The second part of this blog on the Jersey Evening Post co-incides quite appropriately with the latest post of Team Voice,  which features an interview I did with them earlier this week. Later on in this blog, I want to focus on the astonishing media bias that all three of the main Jersey media outlets displayed during last month's Senatorial (General) Elections. However, first of all, I want to follow on from and contextualise the recent 'spat' I have had with Lucy Mason and particularly Chris Bright from the Jersey Evening Post.

One of my respected friends, and political supporters, had suggested I was a little harsh. Following Lucy's misreporting that I had spoilt my paper, when I had not, I responded with a twitter message saying: 'Lucy Mason is either incompetent or telling deliberate malicious lies.' True, the lying part was probably a little harsh, which is why I qualified the statement with the option that she was simply being incompetent.

My esteemed friend wrote,'I'm not sure one mistake deserved the phrase "incompetent". I've made a mistake today at work, which was picked up, and I corrected, but it doesn't happen often, and I'd had to be called incompetent because of that.'

I quite agree. We all make mistakes including (especially) politicians. I responded to my friend saying: 

'I agree that we all make mistakes, but a) this was not a one off and (b) it was the 'process' that was at fault. Lucy said that she did not hear what I said as my microphone was switched off. Rather than come to me ans ask what I said, she then went to colleagues who also misinterpreted my words as an admission. I told her on the phone that (i) she should not be reporting stuff if she did not hear it and (ii) if she wanted clarification, she should have come to me in the first instance.'

Jersey Evening Post Reporter
Lucy Mason

My main concern here is to do with process and 'good/best practice'. Lucy quite openly admits to not hearing what I said (which was a response to Constable John Refault's comments about how awful it was that any States member should see fit to spoil their paper - I responded that any member was quite within their rights to spoil their paper if they could not bring themselves to vote for an individual on ideological or personal grounds. This was taken as an addmission by some, although it most certainly was not). In such a circumstance one should (a) either not report anything which is not clear or (b) ascertain the facts before reporting something. Lucy did attempt to establish what had happened - by talking to other members, at least one of who had misunderstood. What Lucy should have done was to come directly to me, ask if I had spoiled my paper and proceeded from there. This is usually what happens when good practice is operating - and other journalists normally  do that. (Harry McRandle made the same error of practice when he misreported my comments at a Jersey Finance meeting earlier in the year. When confronted with the mistake he apologised and said, 'He was momentarily distracted' and so did not catch what I actually said... If in doubt, make it up)

But it is not simply me who has been affected. Deputy Shona Pitman has also fallen foul to the paper's sub-standard reporting when they reported on the closure of the Market Post Office, against which Shona was fighting. One 'mischevious' shop-owner did not agree with Shona and told the JEP reporter that the market stall holders did not support Deputy Pitman. This single view, which was not representative, then became a story.

Historically, the J.E.P. has a record of getting it wrong: and I can think of 5 occasions off the top of my head where apparently innocent mistakes were made in reporting either my manifesto or my words which all had the effect of portraying me in a bad light. This is without mentioning the 'fake' letters that they have attempted and do still publish from time to time.

Editor, Chris Bright

And now, we turn our attention to the Editor, Chris Bright. The following is the email that Chris sent me following the letter I sent to him (which can be seen on my previous blog). Note its tone and how rather than simply apologising or giving an undertaking to brief his staff to take more care in future, he prefers to go on the defensive - even threatening me. I have published my response to him below:

From: Chris Bright [mailto:CBright@jerseyeveningpost.com] 

Sent: 24 November 2011 12:34

To: Montfort TadierSubject: Spoilt papers

Dear Montfort,

In response to your email of yesterday, we have published a correction to the report mistakenly stating that you had admitted spoiling your ballot paper in the States.

Please note that the operative word here is ‘mistakenly’. The error was not intentional and it is you who owes Lucy Mason an apology for publicly calling her a liar on your Twitter feed, a nasty piece of juvenile name-calling which is simultaneously untrue, offensive and defamatory. Kindly remove the tweet and note that, should you continue personally insulting or maligning  Lucy or, indeed, any other member of this newspaper’s staff in similar fashion, I will have no hesitation in complaining about your conduct to the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

Chris Bright.

---------------

From: Montfort Tadier
Sent: 24 November 2011 15:11
To: 'Chris Bright'
Subject: RE: Spoilt papers

Dear Chris,

I regret the antagonistic tone of your email and that you did not see fit to call me in person. If you had taken time to read my twitter post you would be aware that I said 'Lucy Mason at the JEP is either incompetent or telling deliberate malicious lies.' The operative words here are 'either' and 'or'. 

With this in mind, I will not be apologising to Lucy nor removing my post. If you see fit to refer this to PPC, that is your decision. But I will not be lectured on moral standards by the editor of a newpaper which constantly falls below reasonable standards of balanced, fair and competent journalism - something which was demonstrated very clearly in the recent general elections.

I will be sending a full complaint in to you and the press complaints body, and I will be encouraging my colleagues and members of the public to do the same where they have grievances.

Warmest regards,

Montfort Tadier

Jersey's Mainstream Media Show Their True Colours -Again

'It's getting silly now. The JEP and Channel Television are not even trying to appear impartial!'

On Monday, I attended the Hustings at St Clement. It was a fairly boring affair, with predictable performances from most candidates. Lord Philip was very fortunate to have drawn a seat which was dead centre of the table and also to be the first one to speak. This fortuitous position was bolstered by being given front page coverage in the JEP, where Lord Philip's photo appeared with the headline 'Time for Better Government' i.e. time for all of you JEP readers to elect Lord Philip. His photo also had the caption 'Former Bailiff (just in case you had forgotten) and Senatorial Candidate ... criticised States Members at last night's hustings.'

Award-winning Channel TV led in a similar vein, on the Tuesday, showing footage from Lord Philip's opening speech. No such privilege was afforded to any of the other 12 candidates. Then again, with the exception of Dr Mark Forskitt and Advocate Rose Colley, the remainder are mere serfs and should feel honoured to even share a platform with such a chivalrous individual. That they were even allowed to speak in his presence was a step too far, according to some. 

During his speech, Lord Bailhache said that there were too many States Members (agreed) and that 'the devil made work for idle hands.' This is coded language for saying that opposition members who asked questions and brought propositions on valid issues, were time wasters. He went on to dismiss calls for a Discrimination Law and Freedom of Information as 'bright ideas' - not appropriate for Jersey. 'How offensive', I thought,  'they are not bright ideas, rather fundamental pieces of legislation that any civilised, 21st international jurisdiction should have enshrined at the centre of their constitution!' 

The problem is that the political elite in Jersey, thoroughly conservative, both economically and culturally, want to have it both ways: they want Jersey to 'punch above its weight' ('péter plus haut que son cul' as the wonderful French expression goes) economically, whilst remaining a legislative backwater, where issues like discrimination (age, sex, race discrimination; unfair dismissal etc, etc) and access to official information are either not addressed at all (as with discrimination), or dealt with by opaque and non-statutory 'codes', as is the case for FOI. The reason they give, is that Jersey is a small island and that we do not need these cumbersome and costly laws, yet when it relates to promoting the interests of finance, we must be fully up to speed. However, the two should not be mutually exclusive.