Truth comes first
Tuesday 24th November 2009, 10:00AM GMT.
MOST islanders can take politicians whose policies they don’t always agree with, so long as they are straightforward, open and don’t hide behind spin.
Everybody is different, so it’s unfair to expect any deputy to mirror your own views on every single issue. If you really demand that, then stand for election yourself.
Instead, most voters use a few broad-brush criteria to decide whether States members are worthy of support.
- Is their general political philosophy one you can support?
- Can you trust them?
- Are they candid and tell things as they really are?
- Are they able and effective, and do they really get things done?
- Lastly, do you like them (alas, that’s human nature)?
Of course, applying these same criteria, we will all come up with very different answers because the first and last tests are so subjective. That’s fine, because to get a representative States, we need a broad church.
Where things go awry is when deputies start to cloud our judgement through excessive spin and manipulative PR. Then, as well as making value judgements about their policies and abilities, we have to try to get at the reality behind the miasma of half-truths. Most of us haven’t got the time or inclination to play that game and it leads to a general disenchantment with local politics.
So when does a healthy attempt to present the facts to the public tip over into being mere spin and hype? Certainly it’s only fair to expect our politicians to stress the positives of any situation. We all do that in our own lives and we have a built-in filter to detect when someone is stretching it too far.
The problem comes when so many half-truths are told that it goes beyond exaggeration and into blatant distortion. Traditionally, Guernsey politics has been largely free of that worst sort of spin – bar the odd unfortunate outbreak – but now there are worrying signs it’s becoming endemic.
Let’s take two recent episodes.
Firstly, there’s the petty but shameful row over the pecking order at the Remembrance Day ceremony. Should the traditional order of laying wreaths be changed so that the States representative comes before the Royal Court? Firstly, the mere fact that anybody is exercised by this matter shows a worrying degree of egotism. However, the real concern is the way the facts were bent to minimise the damage once this insensitive display of arrogance had become public knowledge.
The chief minister clearly tried to give the impression that none of the Policy Council really cared about the order of precedence but they had had to discuss it because the Bailiff had asked them to. This is a misrepresentation. For two years in a row he’s made clear his unhappiness that the States representative (that’s him, if he’s available) comes after the Royal Court.
That’s fine. It makes him a bit pompous, but if it’s his honest view, then he’s entitled to it. If he’d said ‘yes, it was discussed at my request because I feel deputies are more important than Crown appointees’, well, then we would all know where we stand.
‘All right,’ we would say, ‘he’s a bit misguided but at least candid.’
It’s the use of half-truths that is so worrying. The fact that in the end our Bailiff felt the need to clarify the matter shows just how badly it was being distorted. Sir Geoffrey Rowland doesn’t by nature like getting involved in public controversy. He’s an unassuming, dedicated servant of the Guernsey people, whose honesty is above question. So when his version of events differs so sharply with the ‘politically spun’ version, we know who to believe.
The other worrying sign of a burgeoning culture of spin was the now infamous article in the Chamber of Commerce magazine, which heaped praise on the Commerce and Employment Department and its minister. Nothing wrong with that in some ways – I’m sure they do some good work.
The problem is that it purported to be written by an independent journalist rather than a recently employed departmental spin doctor. What was the response when this was rumbled by the Guernsey Press? No real comment from the minister.
How to reverse this worrying trend? Well, one productive States saving could be cutting back on professional PR officers. That might mean that some of the communication from the States would be less polished. Fine – so long as it has the ring of truth.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Talking about spinning things is a bit rich coming from Peter Roffey he was a master at spinning information in order to get the States to vote his way, the new computer system at the hospital is a case in point. I also dislike intensely a hypocrite given his fabricated account of a Policy Council meeting which was well and truly spun to his friends in the Press. It is also interesting to note that the press were very interested in printing one set of minuets from the PC at the time of the Clinical block contract but were not interested in the slightest in printing these minuets below.
41/07 STATES REPORT: PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE – INVESTIGATION INTO THE AWARD OF THE CLINICAL BLOCK CONTRACT
Deputy Jones said that he wished to clarify an issue with Deputy Roffey, in particular the latter’s statement reported in the Guernsey Press edition of 2 February 2007, in which he had made allegations of inappropriate behaviour of certain Ministers at the relevant Policy Council meeting relating to the Clinical Block issue, and said he wished to enquire of all Ministers whether they felt that the nature of that particular meeting had been as described by Deputy Roffey who had claimed in the media that certain Ministers had created a situation that had led to the withdrawal by RG Falla Limited of its Clinical Block tender. Deputy Jones felt that Deputy Roffey’s action had done significant damage to the reputation of the Policy Council and its individual Members. He considered that if the allegations were untrue then Deputy Roffey should withdraw them.
Deputy Lowe referred to a related statement made by Deputy Roffey during a recent television interview. She proceeded to quote that statement and revealed that she had consequently sought legal advice.
Deputy Ozanne advised that he did not consider it appropriate for the Policy Council to discuss this matter and, if the discussion continued, he would withdraw from the meeting.
In response to a question from the Deputy Chief Minister, Deputy Sirett said that, from reading the minutes of the relevant Policy Council meeting, one could not reach the conclusion that the meeting could have been as described by Deputy Roffey in the media. Deputy Bell agreed. Deputy Ozanne, supported by Deputy Jones, agreed that it would be going too far to describe the meeting as had been reported in the media.
Members proceeded to discuss the detailed recommendations contained in the Public Accounts Committee’s States Report.
Note
So the minuets above clearly show that Deputies Sirrett, Ozanne, Bell, Lowe and Jones have all said that Dep Roffey’s description of that meeting was fabricated, we also know that Deputies Morgan, Trott, and Flouquet also did not support Dep Roffey’s fictitious account of the PC meeting held on that day.
Eight members of the Policy Council did not agree with Dep Roffey’s fabricated account, the Policy Council was brought down on a lie manufactured by Dep Peter Roffey, based on an account of a fictitious Policy Council meeting relayed to the Guernsey Press who printed it as fact.
There were two absent from the table Deputies Torode and Falla. making 10 Ministers in all. The Press were sent a copy of these minutes but declined to set the record straight, they now employ Peter Roffey as a columnist.
Report abuse
I did “significant damage to the Policy Council’s reputation”? They did that all by themselves – four of them in particular!
Report abuse
To Peter Roffey, please, please reconsider and come back to the States and try and get Stuart Falla back also. The island needs to get rid of Trott & co or what will we be left with?
Report abuse
Dave Jones never ceases to amaze me.
He can’t put a foot wrong can he? Bleating on about other countries and their faults and yet everything he gets involved with that isn’t in his remit as a digger driver turns to pot.
Well done!
UKIP are a joke btw, Jones. A complete nonsense to politics. You’d be better off with the BNP. At least they know how to beat people up.
Report abuse
I hate it when my gravatar goes wrong.
Report abuse
Peter are you saying that this set of minuets are not correct? They were agreed by the Ministers concerned and signed off at the time. Are you saying that all the other Ministers got it wrong and your fabricated account to the press was right?
Report abuse
The Ministers also recall your comment that you asked not to be recorded “that when you opened the tender and saw RG Falla’s quote your heart sank”
or perhaps they are all lying about that too.
Report abuse
No Dave – not lying but often a half truth can be just as misleading. Some context is therefore required.
I was arguing strongly for acceptance of the lowest tender [RG Falla]pointing out it had clearly come out as the winner from the independent post tender assessment.
Dep. Flouquet asked why I was resisting moving to the more expensive tender when he knew there had been tension between HSSD and RG Falla over the John Henry House contract.
I agreed there had been those tensions and said that as a result I did have a sinking feeling when I opened the tenders and it was very clear that we would be reconmending the RG Falla tender. I went on to say that not only had the problems over John Henry House been resolved but that any possibility of a repitition of those problems on the clinical block contract had been fully addressed and resolved during the exhaustive post tender assessment. As a result I said it was clear there was no justification for spending £2.4 million more than was needed.
People are going to have to chose who they believe over the “Fallagate” saga. The fact remains that I was strongly in favour of the lowest tender while some other Policy Council Members – 4 in particular – said they couldn’t give the tender to RG Falla while its major shareholder was the C+E Minister. Of course – they said – if only he would resign his position the whole problem could be resolved. Disgusting.
No Paul, thanks for your kind words, but it is just this sort of thing which puts me off any further involvement in local politics.
Report abuse
Dave Jones – you are doing yourself no favours.
Report abuse
IMHO the only person who came out of Fallagate intact was Mike Torode.
One of the first to resign and he wasn’t even there !!!!!
We could do with a lot more States members with that level of selfless integrity….
Report abuse
Peter
Firstly, I asked you if you believed the set of minute’s I posted today are correct? These are not half truths they are a written record agreed and signed off by the Ministers as a correct reflection of what happened at that meeting on that day. What they say clearly is that your account of what took place on the 7th August which formed part of the press alligations was not true.
Secondly in the minuets of the meeting of the 7th August they show clearly that the last part of your post is not true either, there wasn’t four Ministers who questioned the wisdom of 80 million pounds worth of government contracts going to a company whose chairman was a Minister on the Policy council, in fact there were several ministers who raised concerns Dep Sirret said and I quote “Deputy Sirett agreed that Deputy Falla was politically exposed.” Deputy Bell said and I will quote the full paragraph “Deputy Bell considered that there were three issues which the Policy Council had to consider: Capital prioritisation, the lack of a recommendation to support the proposals from the Treasury and Resources Minister and Deputy Falla’s position. So that’s six Peter raising the issue. Lastly even though questions were raised on the conflict of interest issue by 6 or 7 Ministers, We also know the Dep Morgan agreed this might be a problem and agreed to talk to Dep Falla about it so actually it was 7 ministers not 4, in the end all agreed to support the Clinical block proposal. In fact the minuet shows this and I quote “After further discussion Members indicated support for the clinical wards project”.
TL
I happen to think the truth is important. And it will always come out in the end.
Report abuse
I would love to see DJ doing the minuet.
Report abuse
I’ll make this my last post on the subject as there are more recent policies to discuss than the shameful Fallagate episode. People are going to have to chose who they believe. I think you already know who most people do believe Dave – hense your desperate attempts to re-write history three years on. However it is simply wrong to suggest that Ministers such as the late Deputy Bell were against accepting the lower tender. True they accepted that some people could raise concerns over the contract going to RG Falla when Stuart Falla was a Minister and that needed to be properly handled. It had been properly handled by going through an exhaustive and independent post tender assessment.
The fact remains that some of us [me included] wanted to accept the lowest tender, while others [Dave included] were willing to cost the tax payer a totally unecessary £2.4 million extra.
As I say people can reach their own conclusions as I don’t have Dave’s apparently unlimited time to sit on a computer chewing the fat. However I do thank him for proving so graphically my warning about the new breed of spinning politicians.
Report abuse
Peter Roffey says “some members said “they couldn’t give the tender to RG Falla”.
Mr Roffey knows full well that the Policy Council toward the contract not to stop the award. They could advise but at the end of the day it was a matter for HSSD or if they had wished the States.
This is confirmed by HSSD accepting the withdrawal of the Falla tender without any resource to the Policy Council. In like manner they were able to make the decision to award a tender.
HSSD could have gone to the States and asked them to vote on the Falla tender offer. They chose not to and as we know HSSD accepted to wish of Falla to withdraw the tender. Nothing to do with the Policy Council whose function was to advice and comment.
It’s throw away comments such as this that by design or chance, clouded the real issues in the Clinical Block saga.
Still its good that Mr Roffey now accepts the had a sinking feeling when he first saw the Falla tender.
Report abuse
Valeite
I apologise my spelling on occasions is appalling
Report abuse
@Policy Council meeting which was well and truly spun to his friends in the Press@
Coming from the Deputy Jones whose own Council has got more leaks in it than his french house?
Poppy leak to Press countered by Neal leak to take heat off Mr Jones chum.
You lot think this is a game don’t you? Roffey, Troot and Jones. Playing their stupid ego games with the lives and the cash of the taxpayers. Peas in a pod the lot of you. Pathetic
Report abuse
Peter
It was shameful, because of your behaviour which the rest of the Policy Council commented on in the minutes I have posted. I know it’s uncomfortable for you when this issue is brought up and as for most people’s version of events, well they got that from you your fictitious account to the Guernsey press. Which has now been soundly discredited? Of course you would much prefer if your version was accepted and history would record it as such You knew that if you kept repeating a lie for long enough, people would start to believe it, unfortunately you found yourself in a position where you had given this bogus account of a PC meeting to the press who splashed it all over the front page, the trouble was the other Ministers around the table did not agree with what you had said (read the official record again) So as you can see, I am NOT trying to re write history the official records of these meetings speak for themselves, the trouble is they don’t match your version of history, compounded by your refusal to answer on this site, as to whether you agree that 8 ministers were wrong and you were right. Are you really saying the Laurie Morgan, Bill Bell, Peter Sirret, Martin Ozanne, Lyndon Trott, Mary Lowe Myself and Bernard Flouquet are all lying? while you are telling the truth.
Nowhere in my posts have I said the late Bill Bell was against the lowest tender, where have I suggested that ? I quoted from the record that shows Bill was one of several ministers who had concerns about the huge amounts of contracts going to a company run by a serving Government Minister. The Policy Council had a right to discuss that point even after the tender process. Your final part is laughable I have presented on this site written documented facts, official records that show you lied, not spin or conjecture which is why you feel uncomfortable and I know you will go off and hide, because you don’t really do face to face stuff you never did. You will I have absolutely no doubt, find away to spin this again in you column and as for you final comment I can always find the time to put the record straight.
Report abuse
The sad thing about the reaction to the Clinical Block affair was that it allowed some politicians and the media the opportunity to “get at” some of the participants and to ignore some vital pieces of evidence when they did not fit their case.
The circumstances leading to the so called Fallagate affair certainly provided some members of the then Policy Council with the opportunity to question the amount of contracts that RJ Falla Ltd enjoyed, something that even Stuart Falla later accepted as acceptable and appropriate..
However, to conclude that that was the cause of the withdrawal of the Falla contract tender is to turn a blind eye to the conduct of a number of the leading players. It must also be remembered that the redacted WAO report ended with the events of a day or so after the withdrawal of the tender. The WAO was silent on the important events post the withdrawal and the quasi public spat between Peter Roffey and Stuart Falla as to exactly what happened after RJ Falla Ltd stated it was withdrawing its tender offer.
This WAO omitted to consider the request of RJ Falla Ltd, just a few days later to be allowed to return to the tender process and omits the letter written by RJ Falla asking that its action of withdrawal would not preclude the company from tendering for future States contracts.
And yet, in at least two parts of its report the WAO had over reacted by claiming that companies would shy away from tendering from lucrative States contracts. The truth was that before the welsh ink well was dry, RJ Falla had been back to the States table begging for more crumbs.
As mentioned earlier, the fact that has been ignored is the quasi public dispute between the then Ministers Falla and Roffey concerning the circumstances of the Falla withdrawal. For the record I firmly believe it was posturing by RJ Falla and that Falla assumed the then Health Department would have known that a tenderer could not unilaterally withdraw from a contract, and that they, Falla would be told to continue with the contract, as well as having their day of kicking the Policy Council members who had dared ask questions of them.
The whole Fallagate affair was one of multiple acts of behaviours that were less that acceptable. One who came out of Fallagate well was Deputy Laurie Morgan who was damned whichever way he acted. I say this as someone who disagreed with much of his policies such as the sale of Telecoms, Zero 10 etc. The manner in which Laurie Morgan conducted himself despite the rampant hysterical ravings of the media is a lesson to all.
Deputy Roffey now continues to reject the documented evidence of what was said at minuted meetings. Yet he failed to get these minutes corrected. He had the opportunity to have the minutes corrected but didn’t. Why?
There is also the instance mentioned of Peter Roffey’s alleged statement to the Policy Council of his reaction when he first saw the Falla tender price. It is strange that when this was denied no one present at the meeting supported his version of events. Also Mr Roffey was at discord with the views of Deptuy Falla concerning what went on when RJ Falla waned to continue with the contract. Interestingly in these posts Mr roffey now accepts his “sinking feeling” when he saw the Falla tender.
Is Deputy Roffey so unfortunate to have almost every former colleague either disagree with his versions of events, or to fail to come out with support, or to be the victim of minutes that suggest a story other than that claimed by Mr Roffey. This despite the fact that he could have had the minutes changed or at least his rejection of them noted?
Fallagate was far more complicated than the pure personality play the Press would have us believe.
There is evidence of gamesmanship, that cost the taxpayer money, from a number of the players, and not the people pilloried by the Guernsey Press and the rest of the media.
Report abuse
Mr Le Feuvre,
I couldn’t agree more, our States members act like kids in a primary school playground, if they can’t agree or at least compromise on things what hope is there for our island?
Report abuse
Kevin,
I absolutely agree with you on this issue. The States members are an absolute joke. They let themselves down time and time again by not sorting things at all, or by not sorting them out professionally.
It is not only me who feels like they are a bunch of amateurs playing at politics. Come on guys, get a grip – you are letting us all down.
Report abuse
Stephen I agree with you especially about the former Deputy Morgan, a thoroughly decent man whose political career was destroyed by Peter Roffey in his eagerness to rid the Policy Council of certain individuals who did not agree with him on several occasions. If you remember he called the Policy Council dysfunctional that was mostly when he could not get his own way something else the majority of the Ministers agreed about at that time. Peter tried unsuccessfully to also convince islanders that the tender was withdrawn because of the petty jealousy of other Ministers, even Stuart Falla didn’t believe that rubbish and to prove that point he seconded my nomination for Housing Minister at the re-election of the Policy Council. Stuart told me he was happy to do so and that he attached no blame to me whatsoever for asking perfectly legitimate questions, that support from Dep Falla is also a matter of public record. The media believed what they were told by Deputy Roffey. Even when confidential government papers were shared with the commercial board of one of the companies that had tendered, which incidentally in my view was why the tender was withdrawn in the first place, the media chose to ignore it because it did not fit with their version of events as they were told to them. They (the media) continued to pummel certain Deputies for weeks making all kinds of insinuations about what they thought had happened, the Press particularly subjected the families of these Ministers to intolerable levels of pressure, way beyond what you could expect any local deputy to endure, headline after headline of assumption and conjecture based on a fabricated account of what took place by Peter Roffey, without ever really getting to the core reason why the tender was withdrawn, Oh! they knew the real reason but the truth was much to uncomfortable for much of our media to stomach, couple this with the opportunity to bring down the Policy Council and the temptation took them in my view beyond the brink, it sells newspapers and air time, the truth had nothing to do with it. Even to this day and after the WAO report, had not singled out 4 Ministers as Mr Roffey had the public still do not know the real truth of the so called Fallagate affair.
Kevin
This is not about children in the playground this is about people like Deputy Laurie Morgan one of the kindest most gentle men I have know in my political career who was destroyed in a media frenzy that was unworthy of this community and to the eternal shame of those who took part in it,
removed from his post on a lie. If that is not worth trying to put it right I am not sure what is.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones
Will you confirm that after the Fallagate resignations the then Deputy Falla seconded your nomination in the elections for a new post Fallagate Policy Council?
If my memory is correct why would Stuart Falla have done this if he was, as Mr Roffey suggests, so upset with you over the Clinical Block contract?
Report abuse
Dave Jones – you said:
“TL
I happen to think the truth is important. And it will always come out in the end. ”
When I said that you were doing yourself no favours I was trying to be helpful. I wasn’t taking issue with the substance of your posts (as I am not sufficiently aware of the facts to pass judgement) but rather with the manner of your delivery. As others have stated above, you were looking like a schoolboy bickering in the playground. Regardless of whether you have the trusty sheild of truth on your side, you were undermining yourself by the nature of your petty public squabling.
If you want to get your point across, I suggest that you ensure that you do it in a way that wins supporters, not in way which puts people off.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones
Back off a bit otherwise you’ll end up like that mad Jersey Senator
Report abuse
TL
Good to know you are not disputing the truth in what Deputy Jones says.
This is beginning to become a replay of the original Fallagate saga when it was all right to give a number of deputies a good kicking – behind the protection of anonymity.
Some who have bothered to read the documents, letters etc and to verify various actions and statememtns are concerned that a number of deputies were badly treated.
Surely even on these pages they have a right to make their points. If you don’t like people being given the chance to clarify, then ignore their posts. Quite easy to do so.
Clearly the content of Deputy Jones’s posts are worrying those who took sides in the Fallagate saga and who are now fearful of the truth.
TL- perhaps you should consider your last post which acknowledges you don’t know the facts, but don’t want someone who does to have the opportunity to put his case. Very democratic.
Report abuse
Stephen John
Couldn`t have put it better myself.
I for one have changed my stance on this issue due to D Jones posts, I also notice P Roffey didn`t want to make any more comments, i wonder why? i think it speaks for itself really. Unless P Roffey can add more to this.
Report abuse
I am intrigued by these posts.
However, it may be that too much cunning is being placed upon the shoulders of Peter Roffey.
As I recall, at the time it was generally agreed that PR failed to refuse the withdrawal of the Falla tender only because he did not know he could. Where were his advisers? Perhaps there was scope for some sackings there!
What is certain is that the Policy Council ended up, after a considerable amount of uncontrolled “banter” believing that it had agreed to the Falla tender, but failing to clearly communicate the fact. Although Laurie was (still is) a kind and gentle chap, in this necessary action a strong and determined character might have been more useful.
There can be no doubt that the actions of the media and Barry Brehaut’s completely wrong appraisal of the situation contributed to a widespread misunderstanding by the public of what actually happened and who was to blame.
Report abuse
Stephen – perhaps you should read my last post more carefully. I am not saying that DJ should not put his view forward, just that sometimes the manner in which an argument is presented is counter-productive. DJ’s earlier posts came across negatively as far as I was concerned and I was merely trying to alert DJ to that fact.
Report abuse
Who was it said “those who most want to govern us are the least qualified to do so?”. Perhaps it was me? Where did I put my medication?
Report abuse
bcb
Like you my initial view was changed the more facts that presented themselves.
Roy Bisson
Glad you mentioned the role of Barry Brehaut. I recall the Press headline when BB was reported as claiming that they (the Policy Council) should have accepted the tender.
Odd when one considers a Deputy should have known that the PC could not decide but advise.
But then, Peter Roffey repeated the same mistake on these pages only last week.
Roy, you rightly mention the lack of understanding of the laws relating to tenders. But, did it fit the agenda of HSSD to accept the withdrawal? Remember, a few days later Falla were writing asking to be allowed to continue with the tender.
What happened after RG Falla said they were withdrawing their tender is the most interesting and informative part of Fallsgate.
Report abuse
TL
Peter Roffey wrote the piece on moral behaviour in politics.
Not only that he has repeated his consistent gripes about the four
Mr Roffey continues with his anti four attack in recent days on this thread. At one stage he uses the word disgusting to their conduct.
Surely even posters on Your Shout will allow such allegations to be refuted.
Natural justice and all that. An odd view that someone defending their integrity offends you as being negative.
Some of the anonymous posters might not like the basic fairness of allowing someone who has been criticised the opportunity to respond but it is a right.
After all the content is concerned with the headline post – the truth.
Report abuse
Stephen – you are still not getting it are you? It is about tone, manner of speech, body language. The worst orators can lose the best arguments, not because they are wrong, but because they present their case badly.
With the written word it is even easier to come across badly. I felt DJ was doing just that.
Of course he had a right to respond. It is just that he should perhaps have taken a step back before typing.
Report abuse
Stephen
Yes that is true and I mentioned his support for me in a previous post, Stuart and I have remained friends since that event and I would dearly love to see him return to politics. Peter Roffey wanted everyone to believe that his version of events was the true one when all the documented evidence shows clearly that it was he who was at odds with all the other Ministers around the table on what actually took place. Peter as you say has continued to attack four of us without producing a single shred of evidence for his alligations.
TL
I understand completely what you are saying and my comments have no bearing on present day issues, this was just trying to put the record straight as none of us who were effected by this lie ever really did immediately after the event, everyone just wanted to move on and that is fine up until one of the main players in this event starts to write hypocritical comments from a privileged position in our one and only paper. I hadn’t any intention of raising the Clinical block issues again until I read Peter Roffey’s latest offering on “spin”, the truth of what happened has always been there but unfortunately the public believe what they read in the Guernsey Press even when what is printed is based on a completely fabricated account of a PC meeting by someone who had other motives for doing what he did.
Report abuse
Very interesting reading and you can come to the conclusion.
That is there room for honest people in politics, without the spin factor now?
Dave Jones may not be able to put his argument as slickly as Peter Roffrey, and he can not spin like him either, but there is something more honest about Dave.
If i had to say who was telling the truth it would be Dave Jones.
I believe also that the press should take a more even handed approach to more of the important issues.
So many times it is the vocal minority, who are aloud to give their views to the detriment of the vast unrepresented majority.
Beware democracy is only a small thread.
Report abuse
But l must say their is a lot of truth in what Peter Roffrey has said in his press article.
Perhaps the Ministers who use the spin doctors should have to name them and pay themselves, not the tax payers.
If this is not done they should have to put these names on the public record, and those spinners items published as fictitious.
Report abuse
TL
Oh I do understand where you are coming from.
I am more concerned with the truth than oratory and the skills of a lickspittle.
Report abuse
A step in the right direction for open government would be the publishing of Departmental agendas and minutes; simple, easy to do and inexpensive.
It would help politicians and public alike to understand the machinations of government and build trust.
Bar agenda items that deal with personnel or contracts I can’t see why there would be resistance to that.
Report abuse
Mr Inder
The release of minutes, memos etc of the events post the letter from RJ Falla Ltd stating they were withdrawing their tender would indeed be interesting and bring the whole affair out into the open.
On the issue of confidentiality you will be interested that the UK High Court has recently determined that those who pay for public contracts have a right to see and copy contracts etc.
More interestingly, this case involved a French waste company building an incinerator, who didn’t want taxpayers to have access to contracts etc. The local council strangely enough were for disclosure.
Seems fair enough, you pay you see what your paying for.
Report abuse
My point is that published agenda items and minutes would have meant that episodes such as the Clinical Block were less likely to have happened.
A tradition of open government and public scrutiny is, in my view, a benefit to both electorate and politicians.
None of this makes for very good reading and with a little bit of clear thinking by all parties greater openness would reap huge rewards for everyone.
Report abuse
Eduet
I thank you for your comments, I have been brutally honest which wasn’t difficult, all I have done is put forward the official record of a PC meeting that shows clearly that Peter Roffey’s account of what took place at the 7th August meeting of the Policy Council was fabricated. I have re-posted the relevant paragraph.
“In response to a question from the Deputy Chief Minister, Deputy Sirett said that, from reading the minutes of the relevant Policy Council meeting, one could not reach the conclusion that the meeting could have been as described by Deputy Roffey in the media. Deputy Bell agreed. Deputy Ozanne, supported by Deputy Jones, agreed that it would be going too far to describe the meeting as had been reported in the media.”
We also know that Deputies Morgan, Trott, and Flouquet also did not support Dep Roffey’s fictitious account of the PC meeting held on that day.
So eight members of the Policy Council did not agree with Dep Roffey’s fabricated account, two members were missing Deputies Torode & Falla.
The point of all this is to show that the media frenzy that took place at the time and cost Deputies Morgan, Lowe and Flouquet their Ministerial posts was brought about by a fabricated account of a meeting that no other Ministers agreed took place, that is a very serious issue and I think the record ought to be put straight regardless of how embarrassing it is to Mr. Peter Roffey.
Report abuse