To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Was the Harcourt lawsuit e-mail never mentioned as a topic of conversation before the debate?
Share this:
From Michael Green.
JUST as it appeared that things could not get any worse we are now informed that, despite being e-mailed valid information by Deputy Power, Senator Walker tended to believe Harcourt’s version of events rather that that supplied by a fellow Member of the States.
We are further informed that on receipt of the e-mail Senator Walker approached Harcourt for a response. With almost childlike naivety he apparently accepted Harcourt’s response that there was no lawsuit pending without further ado, despite information to the contrary provided by way of the States Member’s e-mail.
This appears to indicate that Senator Walker is protecting the interests of Harcourt over and above that of the interests of the public who elected him into office. We are also told that no fewer than four ministers and a senior civil servant received the same e-mailed information and yet not one of those individuals chose to act on it.
Then we are informed that Senator Ozouf, as one of the gang of four, initially claimed that he could not remember seeing the e-mail of 16 May sent several weeks before the debate.
After being informed that Senator Walker had admitted receipt of the same e-mail he made a quick U-turn by admitting that he had indeed received a copy.
Incredibly, he then decides to complain that his Blackberry does not allow him to open attachments. Now that is what I call incredible. And what a coincidence.
Were the contents of the e-mail never mentioned by any of the recipients as a topic of conversation with each other in the days or weeks prior to the States debate?
Why did those ministers, who allegedly act in the interests of the electorate, remain silent in the face of potentially damaging information even to the point of blatantly voting in favour of the deal with Harcourt, despite the knowledge they almost exclusively held between them and who were determined to keep that information from the public domain? Had they received orders to do so from the Chief Minister?
Why did Senator Walker not alert the States Assembly of the Las Vegas lawsuit? It was not too late. Did Senator Walker and his cronies intend to prevent the Las Vegas lawsuit from ever becoming local knowledge knowing full well that the ensueing outcry may not be in Harcourt’s best interests?
And just as importantly, if it wasn’t for the integrity and determination of Deputy Baudains in his attempts to reveal all to the States Assembly, the public may never have become aware of the background to Harcourt’s dealings in the United States.
13 Bas du Mont,
Pier Road,
St Helier.
Related