They seems a bit cheap, nowadays, don’t they?

Time was when only people of outstanding achievement received them, but nowadays all you need is a friend or two in high places. Apart from that, you need have done nothing of merit at all.

The most recent, glaring,  example is that of Mr (formerly senator) Terry Le Sueur.
What on earth did he get an OBE for?  He’s a lovely man, but as a politician he was hopeless – whether at Social Security, the Treasury or, latterly, as Chief minister. Why not Mr (formerly senator) Le Main? At least he looked after people as Housing president, and later Housing minister. You could call on him at any time of day – even late into the night – with your problems and he would get on your case and sort it out. I can think of other politicians who gave sterling service, too, but Terry Le Sueur? It cheapens the award.

Dec 20th 2011 -
Jersey and Guernsey are considering a court case against the UK for closing the tax loophole which allowed us to export items below a certain value to them without said items attracting VAT.

A whole industry had sprung up around this tax ‘kink’, which reportedly employs around 1,000 peole here.
It does seem to me, however, that attempting to challenge how the UK manages its own tax affairs is not only probably a waste of money, but also of questionable benefit.

Let me explain. Of course Jersey needs to diversify its economy – we are dangerously reliant on a very fickle industry at present – the finance ‘industry’. But – is the fulfillment industry of any benefit to us?
The owners of the businesses, under our wonderful zero / ten taxation system, probably don’t pay tax locally.
Those working in the industry are traditionally low-paid and, as a consequence, probably require Income Support to exist. They will, however, be using our free education, hospital and other services. In other words, does fulfillment benefit Jersey – or is it a drain on us?
Then there’s the effect sending all those items to the UK has on our postal system. We deliver incoming mail from the UK for Royal Mail – and they deliver our mail sent to the UK. Fine and dandy – but – because fulfillment causes a huge imbalance (the R. Mail delivers far more of our mail than we deliver of theirs) Jersey Post has to pay Royal Mail several million per year in offset. To further complicate matters, the amount paid is related to local postage charges, which means the higher Jersey Post keeps its local mail charges, the lower the price it pays the R. Mail.
Does seem to me that a cost / benefit analysis of this industry is overdue.

                                                                                         ———————-

Nov 22nd 2011.
How very sad for Jersey.
The public has been getting increasingly angry with our government, chiefly because ‘it doesn’t listen’ and most had high hope that the elections of October would bring change.
Well, we have eight new faces out of fifty one, and first signs were encouraging.
Our previous Bailiff, who, to much surprise stood as a senator (and topped the poll) didn’t get the job of Chief Minister. That went to Ian Gorst, a more inclusive politician. Had Bailhache won, even though in his election campaign he was offering ‘change’ there’s little doubt he would have surrounded himself with ‘the old guard’ and nothing would have changed. More about that in a moment.

Having been elected to the States again for three years, I too was eager to sort out the ‘machinery of government’ – ie the system of government. Indeed, it was a main plank of my campaign.
However, my vision was completely different from Bailhache’s. I wanted a more inclusive Assembly, where, instead of ten ministers running the Island whilst other members are excluded from decision making and have to do their best on Scrutiny, I wanted more members involved in decision making and a reduced scrutiny which, despite the enormous effort put in by members, is largely a waste of time as their Reports are routinely ignored by ministers.
Bailhache, on the other hand, either appears not to understand the problems – or has a covert agenda.
As far as I can determine from the longish telephone conversations we have had, he wants to reduce the number of members (his insulting excuse is that ‘many have nothing to do’)  and substantially reduce the number of questions allowed to be asked of ministers.
In other words, he appears to want to crush any opposition to the Council of Ministers and turn it into an effective dictatorship. That does not surprise me, though some members of the public don’t appear to have cottoned on yet.

The driver for change in the States is the Privileges and Procedures Committee who, amongst their long list of responsibilities, have a remit to bring forward proposals for changes to the machinery of government.
For that reason I was hoping to become the Chairman of the Privileges & Procedures Committee. Sadly, I didn’t get it. The two front runners (Gallichan, Connetable of St Mary and Crowcroft, Connetable of St Helier) were unlikely to make any real change so I’m doubly disappointed, as the chance to reform, get government working properly and regain public support has been thrown away. The Connetable of St Helier finally won the ballot. As he never turns up to meetings, it’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.
My fear is that it will be such a shambles that ultimately there will be calls for the UK to take over the running of Jersey. I can see a vote of no-confidence being required in the not too distant future.

Sadly, too, the States are again being belittled by journalists who are either not up to the job or have an agenda of some sort.
Recently, two have been making much of the ’spoilt papers’ that were in the ballots for the various positions (ministers, chairmen ,etc). If only these journalists understood politics and stopped whipping up public anger over trivial matters we would all be better off.
They tried to make out that States members are so incompetent they can’t even write a name on a ballot paper without getting it wrong. It’s actually the journalists who are thick. I’m told the ballot papers were spoilt because on a couple of occassions a member had written ‘neither’. So I ask these semi-intelligent hacks – what would you do if you were faced with a ballot between two people and you had not the slightest confidence in either? The only alternative – as I did on one ballot – was to put the ballot paper in the waste basket.
However, I – unlike those journalists – can understand a member’s frustration when there are perfectly capable members available for a position but either they haven’t put themselves forward – or, in the case where I dumped my paper – have been excluded early on in the balloting.

And now for another moan – because our ministerial system is such a failure, scrutiny is a waste of time. The scrutiny panels spend much time and effort producing reports only for these to be dismissed by ministers in moments. Which is why this time I won’t be accepting any position on scrutiny. I want to do productive work, not waste my time and effort.

And now for a warning – if members think that by voting the Connetable of St Helier in as chairman of PPC will ensure ’business as usual’ I have bad news for them.
The phrase ‘p*ss*ng into the tent instead of p*ss*ng out’ springs to mind.

                                                                                       ———————

A little humour – though some of it is all too true …

This page is mainly, as the title may give a clue, to those matters not published in the JEP – or, more specifically, those letters I sent to them for publication and which were ignored. There will be the odd comment too where I can’t be bothered to send to the JEP because they’re not likely to publish anyway. For clarity, those which were ignored are preceeded by ‘Dear Sir’.
 
Oct 31st.
I see in tonight’s JEP that our ex-police chief is, as usual, blaming everyone but himself for the expensive fiasco that was the child-abuse inquiry. Lenny Harper – Jersey’s version of Tommy Cooper – was about the most un-professional copper I’ve ever seen. His job was to find evidence, not be a media PR man – and, to maker matters much worse, he didn’t even stick to that – he embellished everything to suit his egotistical nature. Remember some years back when he coverd the front page of the JEP and alarmed the public with nonsense about ‘machine guns’ in Jersey?  One was, according to him, a ’single shot machine gun’. For thosde not familiar with guns, google ‘machine gun definition’ and you’ll see what an idiot he was.
Anyway, Lenny Henry was running the investigation and was completely out of control. But he had a superior officer – a certain Mr Power – whose duty it was to keep Harper under control. He failed. So it’s no use blaming others, Mr Power – it was YOU who failed – and cost taxpayers a fortune. You should at least have the decency to shut up.

                                    ————————————————-

Oct 26th 2011
(They published this on Nov 1st)
Dear Sir,
I was somewhat alarmed to read your front page headlines of Oct 26^th which clearly infers that anyone found in possession of a knife in a public place would go to prison.
My first inclination was that the magistrate had taken leave of her senses, but, on further analysis it appears that the case in question revolved around the possession of a knife in a situation whereby it came into the category of ‘offensive weapon’.

I feel that your article failed to make that distinction clearly enough. It is not a criminal offence to have a knife in one’s possession – it is what it is used for that matters. Many people carry knives daily for legitimate purposes – which is why there was so much fuss when a Proposition in the States some time ago tried to make the carrying of knives and all pointed articles (screwdrivers, scissors etc) an offence. That would make virtually every person at one time or another in a public place (a very wide ranging definition) liable to arrest at the whim of a police officer.

After all, a restaurant is a public place – would clients be locked up for holding a knife there?
As for street crime with knives – fortunately not prevalent here as in the UK – surely the problem is being tackled the wrong way around. Sadly, the Human Rights legislation and other problems visited upon us by do-gooder liberals (such as removing corporal and capital punishment) has removed not only an effective deterrent, but created a society where parents and schools are prevented from addressing inappropriate behaviour at an early age. The result is a whole generation without respect for authority, elders or society in general. Tackling symptoms instead of addressing the root cause will merely criminalise decent citizens whilst allowing society to degenerate even further.

 Yours sincerely,

                                      ————————————–

Oct 6th 2011
Dear Sir,
given that the argument surrounding the Portelet development appears to hinge on the claim that what is there is an improvement on what had previously been approved, would it be possible to publish a comparison – ie an artist’s impression of the previous design compared with what has been built? It does seem to me that not only is the mass and outline of the present structure inappropriate for the area, but the overall design too, insomuch as it would be quite at home as a Benidorm beachfront hotel but is hopelessly out of character in the Portlet rural /  marine environment.

Results in St. Clement:

Pinel              1313
Baudains         979
Cabeldu          712
Bree                710
DuPre              679
Ward               315

First of all, I thank all those who showed confidence in me by voting for me. I am looking forward to starting on the job of sorting out the mess that is currently our government. Naturally, I shall represent all parishioners to the best of my ability. A big thank you too to my helpers. In previous campaigns I have used a team of ten or so plus a campaign manager. This time I managed the whole campaign myself, including applying labels to and delivering almost all my manifestoes personally. Nevertheless, I had a couple of friends assist with some deliveries at Le Marais and along parts of the Inner Road – and to stand with me outside the polling station. Again, thank you.
Sadly, there was a bit of skullduggery in this campaign – one gets used to a handful of posters being ripped down by hooligans, and I had half a dozen to replace as a result. However, a mystery surrounds the disappearance immediately before polling of my two medium-sized posters on lamposts a 100yds or so away from the Parish Hall.
No posters are allowed to be visible from the polling station and mine weren’t. It appears, however, that the parish driver sent out to remove those that were got a little carried away and took down more than was necessary. Ok, so a genuine mistake, but what is unclear is what happened to mine – I asked the Returning Officer to sort this out and he did – the parish foreman was asked to replace the missing posters. Unfortunately, my two ‘main’ ones were nowhere to be found. The foreman claimed not to have seen them (I believe him) yet a supporter saw his truck by my posters earlier that morning. They were not torn down – vandals usually leave them nearby and cable ties are left on the pole. These were cut down and are missing. Very strange. I had to ask my son to replace the missing poster with the only spare I had left – a huge 4ft x 4ft one. So if you’re wondering why I had such a large poster, no, it wasn’t intended, it was to resolve a problem which does seem a little curious.
Now to strangle a few politicians in the States ….

Assessment of results.

Well, now the dust has settled, what have we got? The public wanted change, and there’s several new members now, but will that actually mean change?
I don’t think so, although I shall be trying hard and believe I have a chance. Wouldn’t have stood for election otherwise. The reason I made the previous comment, is because despite warning about ‘establishment’ plants putting themselves forward as ‘independent candidates’, several have been voted in. At least half a dozen I reckon.

Wait and see how many end up as Assistant Ministers – that’s a good guide.
Then there’s Philip Bailhache. I was hoping he wouldn’t get in. He may have a fine brain, but why did he stand for election? I believe as Bailiff he was the main conduit between us and the UK whereby whatever the UK government wanted here (eg ministerial government) he made sure it happened. He also supports multiculturalism – which has caused so much strife elsewhere – and an international arts gallery we neither need nor can afford. I believe (and hope I’m wrong – but you heard it here first) that his main purpose is to bolster the Council of Ministers. He already wants less States members and less Questions asked – making it clear he wants to remove what little accountability exists with regard to ministers’ actions. Fewer members = less opposition, and fewer questions = less accountability. After all, the reason there’s so many questions is because the ministers behave the way they do. If everything was transparent and above board, there’d be no need for questions at all!
If he gets to be Chief Minister (which I believe was the plan all along) then it will be jobs for the boys and bugger the public. I sincerely hope a credible alternative (no, not Ozouf) comes forward.

.

Let’s face it, until you know how many directors / managers you have, and who is answerable to whom, you can’t even begin to address efficiency issues. Of course, a second thrust is also required since the advent of ministerial government, and that is to regain political control of States departments. They seem to have become autonomous of late.
Anyway, the Proposition I lodged was debated in May 2008. I lost by one vote, mainly because some members believed the timescale of 6 months I set was too short. Details are below:

WORKING PARTY TO REVIEW APPROPRIATENESS OF DEPARTMENTAL STRUCTURE

Lodged au Greffe on 20th March 2008
by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement.

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion - 

            (a)        to agree that a working party should be established to investigate the appropriateness of the internal structure of each Department of the States to ascertain whether it is fit for purpose and to report back to the States with its findings within 6 months; and

            (b)        to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee, in consultation with the Council of Ministers, to bring forward for approval by the States the proposed membership of the working party, which should comprise States members who are Ministers or Assistant Ministers and members who are not.

DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

REPORT

For as long as I can remember people have questioned the efficiency of our public services. As these services are funded by taxation, it is right that such services should provide the best value for money possible.

 In a effort to achieve the greatest efficiency, the States have employed various procedures: an analysis by OXERA, the Fundamental Spending Review, benchmarking and so forth, but I believe a basic question remains unanswered – if our public services were in the private sector, would they be the same? Would they be more efficient? Would the structure remain the same?

 Over a period of time, various people have criticised the services we provide, on the grounds that they, with private sector expertise, would achieve economies by different working practices.

I have lost count of the occasions professionals have expressed to me not only their amazement, but, as taxpayers, their concern, at the way a particular function is being carried out. And, as a politician, I have uncovered waste and inefficiency in several areas only to be frustrated by my inability to effect real change.

Over recent months I have come to the conclusion that the real block to understanding whether or not our civil service delivers value for money could also be a cause of the inefficiency itself (assuming the latter exists).

That common denominator is Departmental structure. In my view, these structures have not kept up with modern private sector practice. This not only indicates a possible shortcoming, but also inhibits meaningful analysis.
I recall asking the Minister for Planning and Environment whether it was possible to have an audit trail of Planning Applications in order not only to assist applicants awareness of the progress of their application, but also to enable the Minister to identify possible logjams within his department. He replied it was not, as he would need more staff for such a scheme. Here we have a situation of mutual exclusivity – where more resources are needed in order to achieve greater efficiency.

I have therefore concluded that an analysis of Departmental structure by a working party consisting of politicians familiar with departmental practices – assisted by professionals expert in the particular structure being analysed as necessary – would give us the information needed to establish the appropriateness of our present structures.

In today’s culture of blame, where civil servants are increasingly coming under attack, I believe an analysis of Departments may well demonstrate it is the structure in which they work that is at fault, rather than failures by employees. As such, not only might productivity be increased, but staff morale as well.

Financial and manpower implications

I am hopeful that there will be no additional financial, manpower or resource implications arising from this proposition. It is anticipated that professional experts who assist the working party will do so on a pro bono basis and that members of the working party will be able to undertake the work without officer support, although they will undoubtedly look to the officers of the department being examined to provide factual and other background information. If the working party decides at a later date that some officer support is required I would anticipate that could be provided through the secondment of existing officers as this work could represent a useful training opportunity. It is possible that, in the longer term, there will be savings should inappropriate structures be identified.

Their website is a master of deception, and you need the mind of a detective to avoid the traps they lay for you.
Having got over the shock of the price (which goes up as you progress), you’re then invited to spend over a hundred pounds more to ‘upgrade’. And why does this ‘upgrade’ vary enormously in price depending on which flight you choose – can be £70, £90, £105 …. and what’s it for? It’s not as if you’re changing to a bed for a long-haul flight.

You’re then asked to select what baggage weight you require – 15, 20, 23 or 40kgs.
And here’s part of the spiv aspect – not long ago Flybe announced in the JEP that baggage weight was a critical part of their calculations, as it decided take-off weight and therefore fuel requirements etc – ‘a safety issue’.   Bollocks.
Some passengers will weigh as little as 8stone (c. 50kgs) Some will weigh 140kgs or more – and there’s 100+ paswsengers, meaning passenger weight (assuming 100 persons) could be anywhere between 5000kgs to 14,000kgs – an – admittedly extreme possibility – of  9,000kgs difference. But, no worries, baggage weight is critical!
And have you noticed how small the ‘no baggage’ option is? Almost invisible. Spiv factor no 2.

Then we have the insurance salesmanship. Easier to avoid, this one, but still a trap for the unwary.

Then there’s the  ‘chose new seats / accept seats’ option. Makes you believe you have to accept one of the two options, @ £6 per leg per person. Spiv factor no 3. You don’t have to – just ‘continue’ to where it then says ‘continue without seats!! What, are we standing now??
And the final insult? You use your Debit card, because there’s no charges attached, right? Not with Flybe .
Add another £6 for one person, one way.
I just hate having to use a company that looks upon its clients as a nuisance rather than a valued asset.
A couple of years ago, a friend’s luggage was lost between London and Jersey. Flybe took a week to find it – and then it had to be collected by the owner from the airport.
Last year BA lost my luggage (left behind at Gatwick). I went to the desk and they were very helpful. A couple of hours later it was delivered to my house.

Flybe a budget airline? Should be renamed Spivair.

The Corporate Management Board is where all chief officers of the civil service met in secret, once a fortnight,  to discuss things even States members weren’t allowed to know about. I found that outrageous and therefore lodged a Proposition to remove that secrecy.
You wouldn’t believe the fierce opposition I received, some of it pretty robust. But I won.
Take careful note of the ‘Contre’ votes – those  ‘eastblishment’ men who wanted the secrecy to continue.

STATES OF JERSEY

Corporate Management Board: access to meetings and minutes
Lodged au Greffe on 23rd January 2008 by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

to request the Chief Minister to –

(a) make available to elected members the minutes of the Corporate Management Board meetings;

(b) arrange that elected members are advised of the Board’s meetings so that they may observe those meetings should they so wish.

DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

REPORT

I have to say that the Chief Minister’s attitude, when asked whether he would disclose the deliberations of these meetings, is quite unacceptable.
He has now refused, at two separate question times, to move from his position, which is not that the meetings of these people are privileged, but that he believes matters discussed are implementational, and therefore not what members should be involving themselves with.
Such a position appears terribly arrogant. It is not for the Chief Minister – or any other Minister – to decide what would constitute a waste of backbenchers’ time. That is for member themselves to decide.
We are not schoolchildren needing to be guided away from activities that are of no concern to us. We are all members of government, and anything done in our name should at least be monitored by us.
At present, it would appear no-one is monitoring these people.
Since the advent of ministerial government, many functions previously carried out by politicians are now delegated to civil servants. The idea that the latter merely implement policy generated by Ministers is misleading. Ministers don’t have the time or resources to develop policy, so it is developed by senior civil servants, and offered to Ministers as solutions.
If the Council of Ministers truly believes it develops policy, it deludes itself – and misleads others. The truth is each Minister is briefed by his Department; meaning, in fact, that it is the Department which develops policy.
States members have a duty to scrutinise such activities.
The Chief Minister assures us that discussions at Corporate Management Board meetings are about policy implementation. As explained above, it must be obvious that these are pretty high-level discussions. Indeed, one might hope that a meeting between people whose combined salaries far exceed a million pounds per year does not involve mundane matters of a managerial nature.
Quite apart from the suspicion generated by keeping these meetings secret, one has to ask how such a position fits in with today’s supposedly ‘open’ government? If, indeed, such meetings are of no interest to politicians, then those members will soon tire of reading the minutes or attending meetings. I suspect the reality may be somewhat different. Either way, it is not for the Chief Minister to tell other members there is no need for them to know what’s going on – it’s for members to find out for themselves.
Naturally, should commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential material come up for discussion at these meetings, then the obvious way of dealing with it would be an ‘A’ and ‘B’ agenda – the latter having only a reference to the subject concerned.
We are in an age where more authority than ever has been given to civil servants – and where public spending is rising at an alarming rate. An age where projects of public interest appear from nowhere yet, without debate or consultation, seemingly develop a momentum of their own. The ability to get behind some of the initial thinking that subsequently coalesces into these projects can only be beneficial to democracy and, at the same time, help reconnect politicians with the public.

There are no financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this proposition

                                                            ————————————————

(note carefully who voted ‘contre’ for secrecy)

Corporate Management Board – access to meetings and minutes -paragraph (a) minutes to be made available  12 February 2008 Proposition:  Corporate Management Board – access to meetings and minutes
	POUR: 29    CONTRE: 14    ABSTAINED: 1   ILL: 1    OUT OF ISLAND: 1    EN DEFAUT: 2    NOT PRESENT: 4    EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1
	Senator Stuart Syvret	POUR
	Senator Leonard Norman	CONTRE
	Senator Frank Harrison Walker	CONTRE
	Senator Wendy Kinnard	CONTRE
	Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur	CONTRE
	Senator Paul Francis Routier	CONTRE
	Senator Michael Edward Vibert	CONTRE
	Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf	OUT OF ISLAND
	Senator Terence John Le Main	POUR
	Senator Ben Edward Shenton	NOT PRESENT
	Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen	CONTRE
	Senator James Leslie Perchard	CONTRE
	Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert	NOT PRESENT
	Connétable Kenneth Alan Le Brun	POUR
	Connétable Thomas John du Feu	NOT PRESENT
	Connétable Derek Frederick Gray	POUR
	Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft	POUR
	Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan	CONTRE
	Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher	POUR
	Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy	ILL
	Connétable Michael Keith Jackson	POUR
	Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates	POUR
	Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher	EXCUSED ATTENDANCE
	Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning	POUR
	Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel	POUR
	Senator Alan Breckon	POUR
	Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet	POUR
	Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.	POUR
	Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains	POUR
	Deputy Peter Nicholas Troy	POUR
	. Celia Joyce Scott Warren	POUR
	Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier	POUR
	Deputy John Benjamin Fox	POUR
	Deputy Judith Ann Martin	POUR
	Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern	POUR
	Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson	CONTRE
	Deputy James Gordon Reed	NOT PRESENT
	Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan	CONTRE
	Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey	POUR
	Deputy Collin Hedley Egré	POUR
	Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton	CONTRE
	Deputy Guy William John de Faye	CONTRE
	Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire	POUR
	Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré	EN DEFAUT
	Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian	POUR
	Deputy Anne Enid Pryke	POUR
	Deputy Sean Power	EN DEFAUT
	Deputy Shona Pitman	POUR
	Senator Alan John Henry Maclean	POUR
	Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis	POUR
	Deputy Andrew David Lewis	CONTRE
	Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst	POUR
	Connétable Juliette Gallichan	ABSTAINED

                                                                                   —————————————————

Update 20-11-’11
At the end of this posting I mention Norway’s justice minister.
Glad to hear he’s had to resign over his support for child abduction.

update (16-10-’11) at end of article.

I see that an issue I was dealing with a few years back has just hit the headlines over there (and causing a bit of a stir), so thought I’d explain in English what’s going on, and why I refer to Norway’s legal system as being no better than that of a third world country such as Zimbabwe.

I sometimes joke that when Jack Nicholson suggested that if God ever wanted to give the world an enema he would put the tube in at Mexico, he got it wrong – it should have been Norway. But this is a very serious matter, so let’s look at the facts:

For those not familiar with the British Island of Jersey, we have our own government, called The States of Jersey. I was a member of that legislature from 1998 to 2008.
As a States member, it is not unusual to be approached by people with problems they cannot resolve. Happens the world over.
And so it was that I was approached by a Jersey resident about 5 years ago.

The lady was Jersey born and had lived here most of her life. She married a Norwegian and they lived in Jersey, having three children. After about ten years, the marriage broke down and they were divorced. Our Royal Court – the ‘High Court’ – granted custody of the children to the mother, with specified, limited, access for the father.

After a while, the Norwegian father left Jersey, saying he had no interest in the children.

Then, in April – I think it was 2005 – he came back to Jersey with the grandfather, staying for a week in a flat (which he never paid for).

Then he asked the mother if he could take the children to school. She agreed and took a day trip to nearby France. When she learned the children hadn’t arrived at school she became concerned and when she got back home found they had been abducted. Later, it transpired, taken to France on a private boat (it’s a 33 mile journey to St. Malo in France).

Naturally, she informed the police – and wondered how they had got away seeing that the childrens’ passports had been cancelled. At that time it was assumed they had travelled by ferry – only later was it discovered a private boatowner had facilitated the abduction.

But that was just the beginning of her problems.
I won’t go into all the details here – it would take several pages – but suffice to say her trust in Norway’s legal system was seriously misplaced – hence my comments above.
I do not joke when I say the Norwegian legal system is the most corrupt I know.

So what happened?
The ex-husband filed a case in Sandnes stating the children were in Norway – and that the mother had abducted them. They weren’t in Norway, they were in the process of being abducted, so that was straightforward perjury.

Did they send Mr Muren to prison? No chance. But his ex-wife had a Court Order proving she had custody, so that would prove the truth and get the children home?

If only.
In Norway, their custody laws are quite different, so they didn’t understand the Order. No problem, you might think – it will be explained. Yeah, right….  Just to help matters along, the ex-husband crudely altered the Royal Court Order to his advantage. He forged his ex-wife’s signature (looking absolutely nothing like the genuine article) to enter the children on the Norwegian Folk Register – again with more lies.
Then there were ‘expert child psychiatrists’ who gave evidence in court. They never met the children – just took instructions from the father.

I would have no problem with the above, provided a court did its job properly. Unfortunately, in Norway, you can take the judge out to dinner the night before a case ‘to explain things to him’. And provided you are Norwegian, you can get the judge changed for a more amenable one if you wish. And the court (unworthy of a capitol ‘C’) will accept any ‘evidence’ – even if it’s known to be a forgery!  I joke not – all the above happened.

And don’t trust your lawyer, because you’ll find later on that he is actually working for the other side as well, and merely using your brief to undermine you.
Columbo or the Pink Panther couldn’t have done worse – only this was for real – we’re talking about a mother’s and childrens’ lives here.

And so the court found in the father’s favour. It was his ex-wife who was delusional. She had abducted the children and he had retrieved them!

The next five or six court cases went the same way. Or maybe not the last one. During that ‘trial’ the court remarked how badly the mother had been treated and how scheming and nasty the father had been.
And when the verdict came a couple of weeks later? Exactly the same as before – custody for the father with only limited access for the mother – basically when it suits the father. For the first few years (yes, years) that was only for an hour about once a month – and then only under supervision at a designated place.
For the umpteenth time, the ‘trial’ had merely been a charade, with the conclusion known before it even began. The father used to boast he knew the outcome before a trial – we know why.

At the time, I was in contact with the British Embassy in Oslo, the Foreign Office in London – not to mention Jersey’s Attorney General.
I raised the matter in our States Assembly and briefed our Chief Minister. I also tried to correspond with the Norwegian Justice Ministry. I say tried, because, according to the minister, they never make mistakes and their justice is just marvellous.

I was called as a witness at one trial and travelled to Norway (at my own expense) to explain, amongst other things, the Royal Court Order and its custody meaning.

However, I had my suspicions about the mother’s lawyer, Knut something or other – never could spell his last name - and didn’t tell him all I knew. Just as well – it later transpired he, like the others, was in collusion with the father’s lawyer. He was a frightful figure I recall calling ‘the viking’. Sadly, in Norway they have no more sense of humour than of justice.

Anyway, I suppose it should have come as no surprise that when I arrived at the court, this clown told me I wasn’t needed – and promptly went into court leaving me standing in the corridor.

I hadn’t travelled a thousand miles at a cost of several hundred pounds for nothing, so I marched into the court myself and tried to understand, as best I could, what was going on. My presence didn’t make them very comfortable, I have to say.

In recent times I have learnt that there is a backlog of Human Rights cases against Norway at the Hague, many for similar reasons.

Despite being signed up as a participating party, when it comes to repatriating abducted children, Norway’s policy is to go, using armed force, to fetch back any Norwegian child – but to refuse to release any child abducted to Norway by a Norwegian. Apparently there’s about 30 children a year abducted to Norway.

And their courts will twist and bend anything, no matter how absurd, to arrive at the conclusion they desire.

And so I warn not only Jersey, but any country who anticipates signing any agreement with them. Sadly, they have not come far from their Viking days.
My analysis is that whilst the courts do an average job, the verdict handed down comes from above, most probably the Ministry of Justice.
If this is so, the courts should tell the minister to stick his interference where the sun don’t shine – but they don’t: hence my label of corruption.
I was told by the British Consul that a couple of years before Muren abducted the children, there was a judicial clean-up and some judges went to jail.
Seems they need another clear out.
Until then, any bi-lateral agreement or indeed any other agreement another country has with Norway is unlikely to be honoured.
The is no ‘fair play’ there, so best avoid doing business with them.

Don’t say you haven’t been warned about Norway.

                                                ———————-

                                       UPDATE.

Below is English version of the article in Norwegian newspaper. (Blue clarifications in parenthesis are mine).

My story ABDUCTED TO NORWAY
During a visit to Jersey UK where I lived with my three children for whom I had custody, I made the fatal mistake of letting my Norwegian ex husband take them to school one day. They never arrived. Instead they were abducted by him and his father and smuggled off the Island by private boat to France some 10 (actually 33) miles away by sea, where the grandfather had cunningly placed his Norwegian registered car ready to travel through Europe up to Denmark where they would all take the ferry to Norway the next evening. The children had no passports or ID, and my ex husband admitted that he had planned it all. He had also forged my signature to register the children in the Folk register in Norway. He did not submit the Court Order or the true documents.  

The Jersey Court immediately issued an Order for the return of the children with an attached Arrest Warrant, which was faxed to the Police after Kristiansand Port Authority had confirmed they had arrived in Norway.

A false petition made by his Norwegian lawyer was also submitted to the (Norwegian) Court prior to their arrival in Norway, and this petition was completely untrue, false in everyway, made with the sole intention to deceive the Court. Attached to it were the illegal registration forms from the Folk register and a forged letter that he claimed I had signed to give him custody of my children. Again, he did not mention or submit the valid (British) Court Order or the Agreement he signed. He knew he would not have been able to register the children if he had.

The British Embassy in Oslo, UK Foreign Affairs Office and the Jersey Royal Court requested Norway to respect my Court Order and return the children. Norway dismissed this. The Attorney General in Jersey contacted the Justice Department in Norway requesting it take into account that the Hague Convention on child abduction in Jersey was about to be ratified, again all requests were rejected. When his next letter asked for the case to be resolved through “Judicial comity”, an action between countries to try to resolve disputes in diplomatic ways, this request did not even receive a reply.

During a hearing in the District Court, the judge concluded that there was no reason to return the children to Jersey, and no evidence or documents suggesting they should be. It was clear the judge failed to read the requests, Court Order and all other evidence, but it is my view that this was all deliberately ignored.

During a hearing in the Court some months later, his Norwegian lawyer stated that she knew of my ex husband’s intention to abduct the children and had drawn up the petition with him prior to him leaving Norway. He himself also stated that he had planned it all for a long period with the help of his lawyer and the Norwegian Consul in Jersey, and he had also had taken advice from the Norwegian Ministry, whom he stated all advised him that the best way to get custody of the children was to ensure he got them to Norway as quick as possible and applied for custody there as he would be favored.

Evidence of the statements they made were submitted to another Court later, which further showed the extent of the Norwegian Consul’s involvement, and proved that my ex and his father had kept the Consul fully informed of the progress of the abduction as they headed to Norway after abducting, and further to inform him they arrived in Norway, and again months later, to inform him of the progress.

The Consul, who was fully aware that there was an existing High Court Order in Jersey for which my ex husband had no rights of custody and no right to remove the children from my care, did nothing. He alerted no police and no authorities Instead, he chose state to my lawyers that although he was informed during many meetings with my ex husband that he wanted to abduct them, and he said he was in Jersey to help Norwegians, not Jersey people. Even after being told of the abduction and knowing my ex husband’s whereabouts, he failed to advise the Police who could have detained him and my children at that point, and prevented them traveling further.

In Court he also lied at first stating quite strongly that he was annoyed his name had been mentioned as he did not know who my ex husband or his father were. He said he had ever had any contact with either of them and had actually never heard of them…. Until however, when confronted with transcripts of his own written evidence by way of letter to me, and also in documents submitted by my Jersey lawyers, his memory returned very quickly and precise.

The judge however, even being aware of all the lies told in Court from my ex’s side, against all the extensive evidence proving my case, against the Court Orders, and also after hearing my ex husband’s own statement of how he had carefully planned the abduction with the help of his lawyer and the Norwegian Consul, took my children and dismissed me as the children’s Mother.

He gave me only 4 hours a week visitation under strict supervision, stating that the FATHER had to be safeguarded against me taking my children home!  

And so began a 6 year battle in the Norwegian Courts at all levels, judges who persistently refused to take into account any evidence or background of my children’s lives before Norway. Judges who continuously deprived not only me but my children of their Mother, and made it impossible for me and my children to have any real relationship like we once had or any decent contact for that matter, against all the evidence of what my ex husband did. They did not care he forged my signature, prevented my access, or how he used the children for his own gain, the law was “irrelevant” to him.

My children were happy children. There has never been any history of abuse, alcoholism, drugs or anything untoward in our family. My children had a nice home, a close family, many friends, they were settled in school and most of all, they had a Mother who loved them but all of this accounted for nothing in the Norwegian Courts.

In Norway, it’s okay to abduct children – as long as you are Norwegian”. You can forge documents and give them to authorities because its “irrelevant” or “not valid for the question”. There is no law for Norwegians. The Norwegian authorities actually help their citizens abduct children from abroad, regardless of circumstances or other countries Court Orders.

For 6 years I have been treated like a criminal and subjected to horrific injustice. Many Christmas’s and birthdays with gifts only exchanged in front of impersonal visitors and mostly behind a locked door, never alone. No cuddling or talking with my children as this was seen as me manipulating my children with love. The emotional stress of hearing your child whisper in your ear “take me home Mummy”.

The Court said this was how it had to be as there was a risk I would take my children home to Jersey. Yet I never abducted my children to Norway. He did. But as I was not Norwegian, I was put under strict and extreme conditions, the type of interaction I was allowed with my children is the same given to parents in severe child welfare cases, incest, molestation, family violence, alcoholism and drug addicts, murderers. And all because I had legal custody of my children and we lived in Jersey, but the father wanted them to live in Norway.

I was convicted on assumptions and presumptions by the Courts, penalized by so called “experts” named psychologists and child welfare services who did not have a clue about the situation at all, all who said my children’s lives were “irrelevant” before they got to Norway, and all  who sided with my ex husband and his lies. They all wiped out my children’s previous life. All that mattered was Norway. Their background was unimportant, not relevant they all said. Anything and everything was used against me, yet nothing was said about him or what he did or how he was manipulating the children to his advantage with extreme Parental Alienation… Nothing was either mentioned about his lies. The Court said he did nothing wrong in abducting my children against a Court Order. They looked for ways to praise him instead of seeing him for the calculating lying manipulative abductor that he was.  

Legal witnesses were dismissed as irrelevant with judges stating that I had been given too much advice, was focused on the law instead of the fact my children were in Norway, referring to me being the abductor for taking my children home after my marriage failed, having spent only some 200 days in Norway during a temporary reconciliation of marriage period, all despite the fact that I had rights of custody and legal agreements in place.

I moved to Norway to be near my children after they were abducted. Even then I never got a fair hearing. There has been no equality in the law for me.

What is very clear however is that if you’re Norwegian it’s accepted by the Courts, the Norwegian Ministry, the authorities, the psychologists, everywhere you look, it’s accepted for you to go to other countries and abduct your children against your spouse’s custody rights and Court Orders without any fear of repercussion in the Norwegian Courts for doing it. And we only have to look at the Skah case to see this.

Sadly for me, there were no Jersey Elite Soldiers with ties to the UK Intelligence Service to smuggle my children out of Norway back to Jersey on a sailboat. I took the legal route and abided by the law… did it help me?… NO!

Norway took my children regardless of the law. They ripped a Mother out of the lives of three small children whom they had lived with all their life, a happy life full of love and security. They gave them to their abductor on a silver plate after a well planned and calculated abduction by their Norwegian father and grandfather! 

This is how Norway treats foreign parents.

                                                                           ********************Les også A-magasinets artikkel ”Dømt til å tape”  11.03.11.

Update 15-10-’11.

Just to demostrate how corrupt Norway is:
The media made a documentary about Mrs Muren’s childrens abduction, together with other abduction issues.
The first part was shown on TV – and then the rest was suddenly banned from transmission just an hour or so before it was due to go out.
By a court? No, by the Justice Minister – who did so because the broadcast would have shown him in a bad light (ie he lied).  I call that corruption – which is rife in Norway.
But, happily, there’s a thing called the internet – so the banned programme was put on Youtube – where it went international. As a result, journalists from around the world are meeting to find out what’s going on.
Let’s hope those bastards who support child abduction (eg that ‘Justice’ minister) end up in jail.

                                                                  000000000000000000000000