Issue no. 41 - 12th June 2015 - Price 90p
AND THEY CALL THIS A DEMOCRACY
 What kind of democracy would have an unelected
leader who owns the constitution, owns the jurisdiction, owns the law and is above the law?
 What kind of democracy would openly deny its
citizens their basic human right to a fair trial?
 What kind of democracy would have a govern-
ment and leaders that cannot be voted out of office?
 What kind of democracy does not tolerate opposi-
tion or dissent in any shape or form?
 What kind of democracy uses its legislative, execu-
tive and administrative powers to destroy the
economy and people’s livelihoods on purpose?
 What kind of democracy will only tolerate eco-
nomic activity if it is under the complete control of
and serves the purposes of the leaders and members of the one ruling party?
 What kind of democracy uses its legislative and
administrative powers to engineer depopulation in
order to get rid of dissenters or non-members of
the one ruling party?
 What kind of democracy would hold “elections” in
 What kind of democracy ignores its responsibility
which an orchestrated bloc vote predetermines the
outcome?
for the welfare of the sick, the elderly and the vulnerable?
 What kind of democracy would have a parliament
 What kind of democracy tolerates, condones or
in which the leaders and over half the members
are not elected but just selected for office without
facing the electorate?
encourages its state officials to harass, bully or
even engage in criminality against citizens that
they consider to be enemies of their one ruling
party state?
 What kind of democracy is governed from behind
closed doors by unelected representatives who are
unaccountable to the people over whom they rule?
 What kind of democracy has a parliament ordered
by an unelected “president” to ignore substantial
minorities and outside authorities?
 What kind of democracy has a parliament whose
members do not object to being so ordered by an
unelected “president”?
 What kind of democracy is governed with com-
plete disregard for democratic principles and contrary to universal standards of good governance?
 What kind of democracy has no border control
and law enforcement dependent on and under the
complete control of the members of a secretive and
unaccountable parliament?
 What kind of democracy has state officials who
feel entitled to monitor and intercept citizens’
mail?
 What kind of state sends an unelected an ineffec-
tual representative to sign an international agreement with which they have no intention whatsoever of complying?
SARK IS A TOTALITARIAN
ONE RULING PARTY STATE
WITH STRIKING AND UNDENIABLE SIMILARITIES
TO 1930s GERMANY
SARK’S LACK OF BORDER CONTROL:
AN ATTRACTION FOR CRIMINALS
BUT AN IRON CURTAIN AGAINST
LAWFUL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Sark’s borders are open. In the absence of border control
anyone can come and go as they like, no questions asked,
be they illegal immigrants, terrorists, drug smugglers or common criminals.
The only ones who cannot come and go at will - the only ones barred from Sark due to its
lack of border control - are the law-abiding, money-spending Continental visitors that this
Island desperately needs in order to create a viable economy which sustains life here.
Sark’s lack of border control is an iron curtain against lawful economic activity but an
attraction for criminals and their unlawful cargoes. It makes no sense whatsoever,
but feudal lord, Michael Beaumont, and his one ruling party regime
refuse to even consider establishing a Customs post on the Island.
2
Our 73rd weekly appeal
to Michael Beaumont:
IT IS YOUR ISLAND;
YOUR CONSTITUTION,
YOUR JUDICIARY,
YOUR JURISDICTION,
YOUR ECONOMY,
YOUR PEOPLE AND
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY,
MR BEAUMONT
D
E
R
O
Over a 100 jobs have been lost on Sark and there is unemployment on an unprecedented
scale. People are suffering hardship, having difficulties paying the rent and putting food on
the table. Some shops and small businesses have simply closed down, others have gone or
are going bankrupt. The lives of many families have been devastated and many have
already left whilst others are in the process of leaving
simply because they have no other choice.
N
G
The Island’s economy is in a state of collapse and its cash reserves depleted whilst the
Island-owned monopoly shipping company, the IoSS, of which your name appears on 99.9%
of the shares, is losing vast amounts of money on a daily basis costing a mind-boggling
£6,000 a day to run with a near non-existent daily income from freight and passengers in
the winter months - as evidenced by the £200,000 taxpayer-funded emergency loans
that Chief Pleas were forced to make available last January, last October and again in
January this year in order to save the company from immediate bankruptcy.
I
Mr Beaumont, the Sark Newsletter, succeeded by the Sark Newspaper, has appealed to you on
many occasions on behalf of your people, appeals which you have so far ignored, to give them
an opportunity to create a future for themselves through an economy based on tourism.
The Island needs you to show your concern for the people, young and old, now, by
giving your permission for a local Customs post based on Sark and your support for direct
shipping routes bringing in visitors from the Continent of Europe.
Only then can the people of this Island get on with creating the economy that they so badly
need and a future for themselves and their families.
It is your Island and it is therefore your responsibility to act.
NOW.
3
WHAT GOOD CAN THE UNELECTED
CHARLES MAITLAND’S POSTURING AND
‘SUMMITEERING’ IN FRANCE POSSIBLY DO?
Without even informing his fellow
members of Sark’s one ruling party parliament, on 22nd January
2015, the unelected Chairman of
Sark’s Policy and Performance
Committee, Charles Maitland,
signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the French Departments of Lower Normandy
and La Manche and the Channel
Islands on behalf of Sark.
Article 1 of the Memorandum of
Understanding states the purpose
of the agreement secretly entered
into by Mr Maitland:
“The goal of this agreement of decentralised co-operation is to develop the institutional partnership and
strengthen exchanges in the areas of
economic development, tourism,
education and culture between Région Basse-Normandie, La Manche,
the Government of Jersey, the States
of Guernsey, and where appropriate,
the States of Alderney and the Chief
Pleas of Sark, within their respective
remits and in the interests of each
authority.”
As announced in the Policy & Performance Committee’s corresponding ‘press release’ which appeared
on the government website
Wednesday last week, the first
“summit” of the signatories to the
Memorandum was held in France
on Friday and representing Sark
was, unsurprisingly, Charles Maitland who, according to his “press
release” welcomed “this opportunity to strengthen the historic ties between Sark and France”.
It is a shame that Sark’s unelected
representative didn’t focus on the
current ties instead - or rather the
lack of current ties. One wonders
how Mr Maitland arrived in Mont
St Michel - whether he, like any
other traveller between Sark and
France, had to take the long, tedious and time-consuming detour via
Guernsey or Jersey to clear immi-
gration before being able to travel
to his destination. Or whether,
perhaps, special transport was laid
on and special dispensations issued
in view of the great prominence of
this particular Sark traveller?
We note that the two fundamental
and, for Sark, vitally important
points of the Memorandum of Understanding - co-operation on economic development and tourism did not feature on Mr Maitland’s
agenda at all. This is not surprising. Sark’s one ruling party
regime’s only policy when it comes
to economic development is to see
to its destruction. And as far as cooperation with tourism is concerned, the regime represented by
Charles Maitland in France last
Friday refuse to even consider allowing French visitors direct access
to Sark.
“We have many thousands of
French visitors coming to our
unique island every year”, Mr Maitland spouts forth in his ‘press release’. Really? How many, exactly, Mr Maitland? You are clearly
in the know, so how about acting
with transparency and sharing the
knowledge with the rest of us?
If “many thousands” are coming
now, although they are denied direct access to Sark, imagine how
many more would come if they didn’t have to waste hours and hours
of their time by sailing to Guernsey
or Jersey first in order to go
through immigration. Sark’s tourist industry would finally have a
viable market. Sark would finally
have a chance to create an economy and, with it, desperately needed
employment.
4
Co-operation on transport links
between Sark and France is another undertaking Charles Maitland
signed up to when putting his name
to the Memorandum of Understanding. In practice, co-operation
on transport links is limited to Mr
Maitland’s praise of the Manche
Iles’ less than reliable service.
Conveniently forgotten is the consultation process undertaken by
the Lt-Governor in 2013 which
showed that a number of French
operators were interested in establishing routes to Sark - at no cost to
the Sark taxpayer. We can be absolutely certain that regardless of
the agreement entered into by
Charles Maitland on our behalf, no
additional French shipping company would ever be allowed to
‘threaten’ the one ruling party’s
jealously guarded and heavily taxpayer-subsidised shipping monopoly “life-line” by bringing visitors
direct to Sark. And, needless to
say, in the absence of a Customs
presence on Sark, no such routes
could be established anyway.
So what could Charles Maitland,
pompous but ineffectual and inexperienced but self-important, possibly have achieved on this Island’s
behalf on his day out to Mont St
Michel last Friday? His promised
focus on “historic ties” indicates
that the answer is nothing. Which
is exactly what we have become
used to from Charles Maitland.
He is wholly unelected by and
wholly disconnected from the ordinary working men and women of
this Island and he has shown himself to be unwilling to and incapable of protecting their interests.
The perceived importance of his
‘summiteering’ and posturing in
France will have done much to bolster his ego and nothing to bolster
any confidence in him amongst the
people whose interests he falsely
claims to represent.
HOW CAN ANYONE POSSIBLY
TRUST A WORD OF WHAT HE SAYS?
Mr Charles Maitland was selected
for a seat in Sark’s one ruling party parliament in December 2008.
In his manifesto the inexperienced
former carpet trader, antiques
dealer and nursing home administrator promised a lot: land and
leasehold reform, the creation of a
number of well paid jobs at La Seigneurie Gardens, support for
small, locally owned businesses, the
preservation of “all that is best
about Sark” and employment laws
with written contracts and holiday
pay for all workers. However, the
promise that won him a seat will no
doubt have been his pledge to
“preserve the role of the Seigneur
and Seneschal”.
By the time he resigned from the
assembly in 2013, Mr Charles
Maitland had fulfilled only one of
his election promises, namely that
of supporting feudal lord, Michael
Beaumont, and his chief enforcer’
“president” Reginald Guille. Although small, locally owned businesses were going bust left, right
and centre; although land reform
remained as distant as ever; although Sark’s workers got unemployment instead of contracts and
holiday pay, Charles Maitland
faithfully supported the policy of
economic destruction set by those
whose powers and privileges he
had pledged to support and preserve. Indeed, he can justly be accused of successfully preserving
“all that is worst about Sark”.
Meanwhile, the promised well paid
jobs at La Seigneurie Gardens
boiled down to one ruling party
bully Josephine Birch becoming
head gardener with a contract and
holiday pay whilst long standing
employees were given the boot.
In July 2012 Mr Maitland pledged
his full support for the Belinda
Crowe Review and the implementation of its 33 recommendations
by stating that “I personally am
fully committed to the report.” But
less than a year later, Mr Maitland
had lost his zeal for reform. He
resigned from Sark’s one ruling
party parliament citing exhaustion
and saying in his farewell speech to
the assembly that “he can only assume that there are too many vested
interests here that are being threatened, too many Committees that are
content to meander onwards”.
At the non-election of December
2014 Charles Maitland was reappointed to Sark’s one ruling party parliament without any such niceties as giving the electorate a say
in the matter. And despite the fact
that the one ruling party regime of
which he is once again a prominent
member lacks good governance,
lacks transparency and accountability and lacks separation of powers every bit as much as it did when
Ms Crowe’s review was published
in May 2012, Mr Charles Maitland
seems to have forgotten all about
his pledge to rectify it. Instead, he
sees fit to describe as a
“masterstroke”, a re-organisation
which means that Sark’s entire
governance and administration has
gone under ground with even less
good governance, less transparency
and accountability and less separation of powers than before. What
changed, Mr Maitland - what made
you change your mind?
We will never know. Just like we
will never know the true purpose
and terms behind his secretive La
Seigneurie Gardens Trust - or what
goes on behind the firmly closed
doors of Sark’s one ruling party
parliament. And even if Mr
Charles Maitland suddenly should
change his mind and start acting
with transparency, the sad fact is
that it is too late. We have all
learnt not to trust a word of what
this hypocrite says.
SARK DELEGATIONS HAVE GONE
ON A JOLLY TO FRANCE BEFORE
AND MUCH GOOD IT DID US
The photo below was taken in France in April 2008,
some two months after the Sark Viking came into service. Feudal lord Michael Beaumont (whose name appears on 99.9% of the Isle of Sark Shipping Compa-
ny’s shares), his current “president” Reginald Guille
and a very carefully selected small group of Islanders
went on a secret mission to France - without, as far as
anyone knows, informing the Island’s parliament or,
certainly, the IoSS’s supposed owners, the taxpaying
public.
As a result of this secret trip, it was with great fanfare
announced that from 17th June 2008 the Sark Viking
would operate a twice weekly freight route to France.
The route was never heard of again, never even mentioned with a word by anyone in a position of power in
Sark, least of all Michael Beaumont. Why? Presumably the feudal lord was made aware that a direct
freight route between Sark and France would, heaven
forbid, require a Customs presence in his jurisdiction.
5
THIS IS NO WAY TO TREAT YOUR CUSTOMERS:
APOLOGISE OR RESIGN,
MR SMILLIE
At the end of last week all of Sark’s households received “an open letter to our Sark Customers” from
Mr Boley Smillie, the Chief Executive of Guernsey
Post. In this letter Mr Smillie correctly states that “it
is Guernsey Post’s responsibility to provide a secure,
efficient and convenient postal service to all of the
Bailiwick’s residents, including those in Sark”.
As reported in the Sark Newspaper in
its Issue no. 30 of 2nd April 2015, page 5:
NatWest’s Sark branch has now been
closed down. But only physically - the
building itself. The bank still operates
Sark accounts but via the one ruling
party bastion that is the Sark Post Office. Despite, one might add, the dark
cloud of suspicion that hangs over this
establishment after it was subjected to
both a Guernsey Police investigation
and an internal Guernsey Post investigation into the opening of letters they
were handling.
“Upon receiving any complaint concerning our services we will always undertake a thorough internal investigation,” Mr Smillie continues, before explaining
that Guernsey Post’s own “internal procedures” failed
to find any evidence of “post security breaches” at the
Sark Post Office”.
The matter was then given over to the Guernsey Police, Mr Smillie explains, who concluded their investigation on 11th February 2015 without finding
“evidence to support the allegation that any Sark Post
Office staff were guilty of interfering with mail”.
Mr Smillie was clearly disappointed that the Sark
Newspaper referred to the matter in April this year
(see top left of this page) and reassures his “Sark customers that their mail is safe”, that “there should be no
cause for any concern” and that “the allegations made
in the Sark Newsletter were fully and independently
investigated and have been found to be completely unsubstantiated”.
That is wrong. The fact that both Guernsey Post’s
internal investigation and the Guernsey Police’s investigation unsurprisingly failed to find evidence of
who tampered with Mr Delaney’s personal mail does
not alter the fact that no less than five letters addressed to Mr Delaney were indeed intercepted, read
and crudely re-sealed with Sellotape.
These two inconclusive investigations do not vindicate the Post Office and its employees in any way.
On the contrary, and as reported by this publication
on 2nd April 2015, there is indeed a dark cloud of
suspicion hanging over it. It isn’t an unsubstantiated
allegation that Mr Delaney’s mail was intercepted
and tampered with, it is a proved fact for which both
Guernsey Post and the Guernsey Police have the evidence in the form of the five opened letters; evidence
without which there wouldn’t have been any investigations in the first place.
Letters from the National Crime Agency and the
Royal Bank of Scotland, addressed to Mr Kevin Delaney
and delivered by the Sark Post Office opened and
crudely resealed with Sellotape
For Mr Smillie to believe that the Guernsey Police
would have been able to obtain any “evidence to support the allegation that any Sark Post Office staff were
6
guilty of interfering with mail” is naive in the extreme, if not disingenuous. Before coming to Sark
to investigate anything, Guernsey’s professional
and impartial law enforcement officers must obtain
feudal lord Michael Beaumont’s authorisation - a
permission which can be withheld until a crime scene is thoroughly scoured and securely cleansed of
any evidence of any wrongdoing.
As reported in the Sark Newsletter’s issue no. 112 of
21st October 2011:
“The Sark Post Office is managed by Ms Caroline
Langford. It is located in the Gallery Stores, also run
by Caroline Langford. Ms Langford is engaged to exConstable Alan Blythe, who appears to feel very much
at home in his fiancée’s Post Office / shop and is often to be seen behind the counter. As detailed in earlier issues of the Sark Newsletter, Mr Blythe has a
history of being a foul-mouthed bully and drunk. He
has been reported to the Guernsey Police for harassment, even whilst serving as Sark’s Constable, and,
more recently, he has been reported to the Constable
for abuse and threatening behaviour against the Editor of the Sark Newsletter. Mr Blythe is, of course,
another foot-soldier of Sark’s bullying brigade: a protégé of Seneschal Reg. Guille who gave Mr Blythe
such praise when his term as Constable ended.”
Mr Smillie should understand that the opening of
Mr Delaney’s mail is not an isolated, one-off incident, it is something that has happened to all too
many Islanders over the years, all of whom, because
of the culture of fear, made a conscious decision not
to complain. Contrary to Mr Smillie’s assertions of
Sark’s postal service being safe and secure, it is a
tacitly understood fact of life on this Island that the
leaders, members and supporters of Sark’s one ruling party regime consider it to be fully within their
right to intercept and read personal letters addressed to those they consider enemies of the state such the Editor of the Sark Newspaper.
Since the above was published, Sark’s postmistress’s partner Alan Blythe has been elevated by
Sark’s one ruling party to a seat in their parliament
- of which Reginald Guille is now unelected
“president” - and membership of the secret organisation called the Douzaine as well as five other committees.
As in all totalitarian states, Sark’s one ruling party
has control over all political, social and economic
institutions, including, of course, the Post Office,
which truly functions as its stronghold on Sark’s
Avenue. The leaders, members and supporters of
Sark’s totalitarian regime will delight in seeing Mr
Smillie’s ill-judged “open letter” placed in a prominent position on the establishment’s notice board.
They will exult in Mr Smillie exonerating the Sark
Post Office staff of any wrongdoing and gloat at his
sanctimonious criticism of the reporting in the free
press.
Mr Smillie’s “open letter” betrays a serious error of
judgment. Mr Delaney lodged a serious complaint
because his personal mail had been interfered with.
Now, without writing to or contacting Mr Delaney
in any way to explain what has taken place, Mr
Smillie, the Chief Executive of Guernsey Post, sends
out an open letter to all the residents of Sark exonerating himself, exonerating Guernsey Post and exonerating the employees of the Sark Post Office in
spite of the indisputable fact that Mr Delaney’s post
was indeed tampered with.
This is no way to treat your customers.
The fact that he cannot control the Sark Post Office
is Mr Smillie’s problem. But instead of admitting
to his customers in Sark that he is unable to guarantee the secure delivery of the Island’s mail and
apologising for it, Mr Smillie has clearly chosen to
pander to Sark’s one ruling party regime - and no
doubt complied with their request - by sending out
this inexcusable “open letter”.
Mr Smillie, Sark’s postal service is your responsibility. It is not secure. Apologise for it or resign.
7
SARK’S ONE RULING PARTY REGIME
DELIVERS AN OBJECT LESSON IN
TOTALITARIAN STATE ECONOMICS
Economic freedom is essential for
democracy to thrive and prosper,
but in Sark feudal lord, Michael
Beaumont’s, one ruling party rigorously enforce totalitarian state control over the people’s economic
rights and freedoms.
Rather than enjoying democratic
“government made for the people,
made by the people and answerable
to the people” (Daniel Webster, January 26 1830) we are instead forced
to endure a grotesque parody of
government that is made for the one
ruling party state, made by the one
ruling party state and answerable
only to the one ruling party state.
Here on Sark the one ruling party,
true to totalitarian states the world
over, involves itself in all aspects of
society including the daily lives of
the Island’s people. In doing so it
eradicates the distinction between
the state and the community.
The boundaries which separate the
economic policies of the totalitarian
state of Sark from those of the other
British Crown Dependencies of Jersey, the Isle of Man and the rest of
the Bailiwick of Guernsey are clear
for all to see. Where the democratic
governments of our fellow Island
states strive for economic growth,
job creation and year on year improvement to the quality of life for
their citizens, the one ruling party
state of Sark has spent the past
eight years systematically destroying the economy with a strategy designed to increase the power of the
state over every aspect of Islanders’
lives.
As a result of this cynical strategy,
which has only been possible because Sark is held in the iron grip of
a totalitarian regime, land and
property values are at a historic all
time low, the employment market
has collapsed and the Island has
suffered record depopulation to the
point where there are now less than
450 full - time residents. This number needs to be taken in the context
of there being some 650 residents at
the time of Sark’s first “selections”
for the one ruling party state parliament in December 2008.
This state-sponsored economic
cleansing is delivering exactly what
the members and supporters of the
one ruling party state intended it to
do from the outset. The less opportunities that exist for people to be
employed in the private sector, the
more those who have to work for a
living live in fear of falling foul of
the state.
emy La Trobe-Bateman, as the Island’s principal judge despite this
individual lacking any judicial experience or qualifications. The principal judge’s son, Samuel La TrobeBateman, similarly wholly unqualified for the role, will shortly take up
the position as Sark’s chief law enforcement officer.
It is against this backdrop of absolute control over the Island’s governmental structures, which include
the police, the judiciary, along with
all social and economic institutions,
that the party leadership systematically suppress any dissent by using
the powers vested in them by the
totalitarian state. It is a simple
statement of fact that those who
The lack of separation of powers,
dare to challenge the absolute powwith those who make the laws in the er of the one ruling party state pay a
one ruling party state parliament
very high price for their transgresbeing the same state officials who
sions.
move around the Island enforcing
the very laws they themselves create The level of state interference becomes particularly sinister when it
and vote through, gives immense
powers to deliver state patronage or comes to anyone who attempts to
state punishment as each and every lawfully exercise their economic
rights and freedoms outside of the
member sees fit.
influence and control of the one
Sark’s very own autocratic leader, ruling party. Tourism should be the
the ex - aircraft mechanic and now engine that drives Sark’s economy,
feudal lord Michael Beaumont, en- not only contributing to the Island’s
GDP through the revenues created
sures that by his ownership of the
from visiting tourists but also from
Island’s jurisdiction, constitution
and judiciary he is the sole provider the seasonal increase in the Island’s
population as a whole array of
of absolute and incontestable conchefs, waiters, receptionists and
trol to his one ruling party state
housekeepers swell the resident popmembers and supporters.
ulation numbers by up to 50% from
His control over law enforcement
late March through until October.
and judiciary is exercised with utter This year, as a result of the one rulcontempt for democratic principles ing party’s calculated destruction of
and with the arrogance of a despot. the Island’s economy, there are
Not one member of the professional some 150 less seasonal jobs on the
and qualified member of Guernsey Island.
Police can set foot in the selfgoverning state of Sark without first This is no doubt great news to the
many gated community retiree
having obtained permission from
Michael Beaumont, the feudal lord members of the one ruling party
who, with utter arrogance, has ap- state. But the impact of 150 individpointed his own brother-in-law, Jer- uals not spending their hard earned
8
wages in Sark’s shops, bars and
restaurants is merely accelerating
the Island’s economy’s already rapid decline. The less revenues coming into the businesses that have
survived the onslaught of the one
ruling party’s attack on the economy, belonging in the main but not
wholly to those that have shown
their allegiance to the state, the less
money they will have to spend in
other areas of the economy. Economic drivers such as the all important construction sector, gardening service providers, utility
suppliers and any number of businesses which are dependent on a
successful tourism industry for
their survival are all suffering needlessly.
tality business on Sark. Her business premises are granted to her,
rent - free, by the same one ruling
party state parliament of which she
is a member. Moreover, her husband is the chief law enforcement
officer on Sark and it is he who attends court and either approves or
objects to licenses to sell alcohol
and applications for extended opening hours for his wife’s business
and every one of her competitors on
Sark. At times one has to stop and
reflect that you could not make it
up if you tried.
because the official Sark tourism
map and guide failed to even
acknowledge the existence of many
of the hotels, pubs and restaurants”.
One hotel that did feature extensively in last year’s taxpayerfunded “official” Sark Tourism
promotional material was the bastion of the one ruling party state,
Stocks Hotel. This business is
owned by two key one ruling party
state - supporting families, the
Magells and the Armorgies. Indeed, Helen Magell and Paul Armorgie were both members of the
Observers both on Sark and in the one ruling party state parliament
corridors of power off Sark remain until the Sark Newspaper exposed
incredulous that this shameless in- the uncomfortable truth that rather
than being a family run business
dividual steadfastly refuses to do
tracing its roots back generations,
the honorable thing and resign
the hotel is in fact funded by the
For those who show loyalty to the
from office and concentrate on
Dixcart Trust, a financial service
one ruling party state there is no
trading on equal terms with every
provider specialising in tax avoidneed for such concerns. Whilst the other hospitality business on the
ance for wealthy clients.
regime has remained empowered to Island.
deliver an object lesson in the beneThis led Mr Armorgie and Mrs
fits of totalitarian state economics, State employee Karen Adams,
Magell to seek a life below the rathe one ruling party loyalists have Sark’s official tourism officer, is
dar of the free press. However,
continued to be the beneficiaries of also a member of the very one rul- their retirement from the one ruling party state parliament that emstate patronage.
ing party parliament did nothing to
ploys her. Once again, this is a situalter the fact that they used their
This year’s “official” Sark Tourism ation that would only be acceptable
one ruling party state power and
team provide a breathtaking exam- in a totalitarian state such as Sark.
influence to get planning permisple of the arrogance of one ruling
Such a conflict of interest would not
sion for a vast staff complex on virparty parliament members and
be tolerated were Sark a fully funcgin Dixcart Valley woodland in a
supporters who couldn't give two
tioning representative democracy.
record 10 days whilst those identihoots for the jobs that have been
fied as enemies of the state faced
The taxpayer-funded state patronyears of wrangling to have their
age enjoyed by one ruling party
own far more modest plans passed.
parliament members Sandra Williams and Karen Adams is matched As a result of the eight years of sysonly by the punishment meted out tematic destruction of the Island’s
by these two duplicitous individuals economy there are only two hotels
to those considered enemies of the open on Sark this year, the undisstate. Anyone consulting last year’s putedly family-owned and operattaxpayer-funded Sark Tourism
ed, multi-award winning, La Saguidebook, map or website would
blonnerie Hotel, and the Dixcart
have
been
at
a
loss
to
understand
Trust-backed Stocks Hotel.
The 2015 Official Sark Tourism
why
a
huge
percentage
of
the
Isteam: Sandra Williams, Karen
lands hotels, restaurants, cafés and The more observant amongst our
Adams, Jane Armorgie and
readers will have noted that slap
Lydia Bourne.
bars had been systematically removed from all official promotional bang in the middle of the official
2015 Sark Tourism team, can be
destroyed and livelihoods lost as a material. They had been simply
found none other than Jane Arairbrushed out of existence.
result of their self-serving rule.
morgie, wife of the joint owner of
Sandra Williams is a member of the
Stocks Hotel, Paul Armorgie, anAs one high net worth individual
one ruling party state parliament.
other example of the self-serving
from
Guernsey
who
had
booked
out
She is head of the state committee
workings of totalitarian state ecothe
majority
of
hotel
rooms
on
the
for tourism; this despite the fact
nomics at its very worst. GovernIsland
for
an
entire
weekend
comthat she operates her hospitality
plained: “I had to have my own is- ment by the one ruling party for the
business, a pub and café, in direct
one ruling party indeed.
competition with every other hospi- land maps made up for my guests
9
FEUDAL LORD MICHAEL BEAUMONT OWNS
THE LAW IN SARK - HE IS THE LAW IN SARK
In 1978 Mr Michael Beaumont quoted the Rev. J.L.V. Cachemaille, a former vicar of Sark, in
a foreword to a summary of Sark and its Government and laws in the following terms:
Mr Beaumont goes on:
“Legislation affecting nonresidents in any way and laws affecting taxation have to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for
approval and foreign affairs, international agreements and EEC regulations affecting the Island are
handled by the Home Office”.
When Michael Beaumont arrived
in Sark in the mid - 1970s he
clearly felt that he was lord over
everything he surveyed and with
the added reassurance of being
able to appoint his own court officials, he no doubt concluded he
could do whatever he pleased.
It was no doubt convenient for
him therefore to retain the services of Dr Axton, now his Deputy
Seigneur, to review documents
and records when he encountered
resistance from the owners of a
property, part of which he claimed
as his own. It was the 1980s and
Mr Beaumont was expanding ever
further into a field which he did
not own. In order to add legitimacy to his excavation of a long establish bank belonging to someone
else so that he could create a new
entrance, he firstly had a relative
apply to his court for permission,
which was duly granted by the
then Seneschal Hilary Carre on
29th July 1982. Mr Beaumont
then proceeded on 14th September
1991 to have a summons issued by
his then advocate Richard Babbé
and served on the owners of the
land by the then Prevôt Mr Alfred
Adams.
When the owners of the land objected to being subjected to Mr
Beaumont's personal court over a
matter concerning his own personal interests on 19th September
1991, Sark’s feudal lord firstly
ignored the correspondence on the
grounds he was away from the
Island. He eventually did respond
through his advocate on 31st September 1991, attaching a passage
from a French lawyer Louis
Selosse of 14, Rue des Fosses, Lille,
which was dated 1911, explaining
that “the jurisdiction of the Seneschal in a matter involving the Seigneur as a party is beyond question”. This of course meant there
was insufficient time for the owners of the land to seek further advice on the case set down for 1st
October 1991 - the day after they
received Michael Beaumont’s response.
In light of the forementioned the
owners of the land had no alternative but to submit to a court hearing at which Mr Beaumont clearly
had full advantage because it was
his court and the officials were
reliant on his support for their
office. In spite of the fact that Michael Beaumont could produce no
evidence to support his case of
trespass and in spite of the then
Greffier, John Hamon, bravely
confirming that the bank which
had been created was indeed the
10
property of the owners of the land
and did not belong to Mr Beaumont, the feudal lord's court decided he could still claim title. The
court felt obliged to offer Mr
Beaumont the lifeline he had
asked for in his Summons, namely
that "
“the Seigneur has acquired
ownership and possession of the
said land by prescription”. In other
words the court permitted Mr
Beaumont's request that he could
enforce his title by virtue of his
consistent encroachment and his
own trespass over time.
The claim of prescription is of
course invalid under the very Letters Patent 1565 by which Mr
Beaumont derives his control over
the Sark court, so this in itself
made it impossible for Mr Beaumont to lawfully justify his case.
The court, by the way, did order
that costs be borne equally, thereby signalling the court’s impartiality - or alternatively its complete
inability to take the feudal lord to
task - whichever way you choose
to see it.
Getting back to Dr Axton and the
questions for him and Mr Beaumont, who has now authorised the
excavation outside the walled
boundary of the Mill? Has Mr
Beaumont once again been part of,
or allowed, unlawful excavation of
land over which he has no title? When will feudal lord Mr
Beaumont finally abandon his
ownership of Sark’s law?
ENVIRONMENT:
INDISPUTABLY AN AREA OF NON-CO-OPERATION
FROM SARK’S ONE RULING PARTY REGIME
On page 4 of this issue the Sark Newspaper quotes Article 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding entered
into on this Island’s behalf by the thoroughly unelected Charles Maitland. Above is Article 2 of the agreement, which lays out the areas on which the signatories agree to co-operate. Economic development, tourism
and transport were, as also highlighted earlier on in this issue, topics ignored in Mr Maitland’s “press release”
where he outlines his agenda for the “summit”. Basse-Normandie and La Manche can expect no co-operation
from Sark’s totalitarian one ruling party regime in these areas.
Another topic from the above list that was studiously ignored by Mr Maitland is the environment. Clearly this
is another area in which one ruling party Sark has every intention of continuing to do its own destructive
thing, regardless of the agreement signed by Charles Maitland, regardless of international regulations, regardless of the risk to public health and regardless of the impact Sark’s outdated and dangerous waste disposal
methods have on neighbouring jurisdictions such as Basse-Normandie and La Manche:
Unprocessed glass waste will continue to be dumped over the harbour wall and left to drift across to the
beaches of nearby France. Toxic ash from indiscriminate burning of waste and raw sewage will continue to
be dumped into the sea that we share with our neighbours. The toxic plume of smoke from the indiscriminate
burning of rubbish down at the harbour is frequently visible from Guernsey, and therefore from France also.
These are state-sanctioned, state-executed and highly polluting practices dangerous both to humans and the
environment but Sark’s one ruling party state has absolutely no intention of changing its noxious ways - all
whilst its members and supporters crow about the Island’s “unspoilt” natural beauty.
11
COPY OF THIS ISSUE OF THE SARK NEWSPAPER
HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE FOLLOWING:
President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Dean Spielmann
President of the European Commission, Mr Jean - Claude Juncker
The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Nils Muižnieks
Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon
Lord President of the Privy Council, The Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling
Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, The Rt. Hon. Philip Hammond
Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice, Lord Faulks
Home Secretary, The Rt. Hon. Theresa May
Reviewer of Sark’s Administration, Ms Belinda Crowe
His Excellency the Lt-Governor of Guernsey, Air Marshal Peter Walker, CB CBE
The Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt KCVO OBE PC
Ms Camisha Bridgeman, Desk Officer in Strategy & Coordination
at the Overseas Territories Directorate
BULLYING
The Sark Newspaper’s readers are once again reminded that if you are being bullied, intimidated or
harassed in any way and wish to seek support, help or legal advice, please do not hesitate to call,
write or e-mail me at the Sark Newspaper’s address.
What you say will be in the strictest confidence unless you give your consent otherwise.
Kevin Delaney
The Sark Newspaper is edited and published on Sark by its proprietor Sark resident Kevin Delaney
E-mail Editor in Chief Kevin Delaney: [email protected]
Deputy Editor John Donnelly
website: www.sarknewspaper.com
Copyright THE SARK NEWSPAPER 2015