Issue no. 85 - 25th March 2016 - Price 90p
THE ONLY MEANINGFUL GIFT FEUDAL LORD MICHAEL
BEAUMONT CAN GIVE THE PEOPLE OF SARK:
RELINQUISH
YOUR POWERS!
Under item 11 of the one ruling party parliament’s
agenda next week, we learn that unelected feudal lord
Michael Beaumont has made a “gift” of a parcel of
land suitable for building six ‘local market’ houses.
The announcement is made in a report signed by the
chairman of the state’s Development Control Committee, namely the feudal lord’s unelected left-hand man
and “president” of the Douzaine Edric Baker. The
report is accompanied by a letter signed by the feudal
lord’s unelected right-hand man and “president” of his
parliament Reginald Guille. Both Baker and Guille
impress on us that this is a “generous offer” indeed
and that the people of Sark are to be deeply grateful to
the feudal lord for his magnanimous gesture.
It is no such thing. It is instead an empty, meaningless
PR exercise in the best tradition of totalitarian leaders
throughout history. It is pure propaganda, stagemanaged by Michael Beaumont and his closest one ruling party allies to project the image to the world at
large of a benign and caring feudal lord deeply concerned about the welfare of his people. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of such a masterly touch.
The people of Sark, the number of whom are rapidly
diminishing due to the ongoing depopulation, don’t
need a virtually worthless parcel of land where six
houses can be squeezed in. Land and property values
on the Island are at an all-time low and an unprecedented number of homes are standing empty, with
many masquerading as self-catering accommodation in
one of the Sark one ruling party regime’s many deceptions.
What the people of Sark need is an economy which can
sustain them with secure jobs. What the people of
Sark need is land reform which permits them, finally,
to aspire to home ownership by the help of raising a
mortgage against Island property. What the people of
Sark need is the security of law and order; the protection afforded them, their families and their assets by
fit-for-purpose, independent and professional law enforcement, border control and an unbiased and independent judiciary able and allowed to deliver justice.
What the people of Sark need is the democracy they
were promised would materialise all of eight years ago
with the introduction of the Reform Law of 2008; the
deeply-flawed legislation which instead placed them
under the yoke of a totalitarian one ruling party state
reminiscent of 1930s’ Germany, led by an unelected
feudal lord, his unelected chosen leaders and the unelected one ruling party parliament which they dominate and control.
Feudal lord Michael Beaumont is a private individual
accountable to no one. As a result of his family purchasing a lease in 1852, he enjoys power and privileges
unmatched by any crowned heads or elected leaders
across the civilised world. As long as Michael Beaumont exercises this power the people of Sark will not
be allowed to develop an economy. They will be denied
meaningful land reform. They will be denied protection under the law and their basic human right to a
fair trial before an unbiased judge. Most of all, they
will continue to be denied their right to a say in their
own governance by a feudal lord whose powers enable
him to prevent democracy from taking hold.
The only meaningful gift Sark’s feudal lord can give
his people - and the only truly magnanimous gesture
he can make to deserve the gratitude of this Island’s
people is to relinquish those powers. The people of this
Island will never have the economy, the security, the
home ownership and the democracy they need until he
does.
THE FEUDAL LORD’S POWERS ARE ANACHRONISTIC, ANTIQUATED
AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY:
GIVE THEM UP!
 POWER to appoint the principal judge for life via
 POWER to appoint Island/court official the Pré-
a committee chaired by and specifically chosen by
himself. Later enhanced power also to fire the
Seneschal judge figure.
vôt.
 POWER to appoint Island/court official the Gref-
fier.
 POWER to appoint the deputy judge.
 POWER to appoint Island/court official the depu-
ty Prévôt.
 RIGHT to automatic membership of parliament,
over which he presides from a raised dais alongside his chosen “president” and court officials appointed by himself.
 POWER to appoint Island/court official the depu-
ty Greffier.
 POWER to remove Island / court official the Dep-
 POWER through his role to act as possible deputy
uty Prévôt from office.
president of parliament.
 POWER to remove Island / court official the Dep-
 POWER to freely appoint his own deputy from
uty Greffier from office.
amongst Island residents and his own family.
 RIGHT to give or withhold consent to the removal
 POWER to revoke the appointment of his own
from office of a special constable.
deputy.
 RIGHT ex officio to be a trustee of publicly-owned
 ENTITLEMENT to vote in elections
Sark property, including its management and disposal.
 POWER to give or withhold consent to the sum-
moning by the “president” of extraordinary parliamentary meetings.
 POWER to sign contracts on behalf of parliament.
 RIGHT to give or withhold consent to the Chief
 IMMUNITY from liability for any act carried out
Officer of the Guernsey Police to send Guernsey
police officers to Sark to investigate crimes.
on behalf of parliament.
 IMMUNITY from legal proceedings for defama-
 ENTITLEMENT to feudal theft in the form of
tion (in common with the rest of the assembly’s
members) for statements made during parliamentary meetings.
seizing the property and assets of Island residents
dying intestate.
 ENTITLEMENT to feudal theft from the taxpay-
 RIGHT to speak at parliamentary meetings and
ers in the form of the index-regulated stipend - for
life for Mr Beaumont and then to his descendants
forever in perpetuity.
influence/persuade the assembly’s members on
any topic and in any way he sees fit.
 OWNERSHIP of Sark’s foreshore and any public
 POWER to veto, temporarily, Ordinances made
parts of Sark not in private ownership - the whole
basis of Sark land law depends on the feudal lease
that is personally held by Michael Beaumont.
by his parliament.
 RIGHT to put propositions to parliament.
Feudal lord Michael Beaumont, an unelected private individual accountable to no one,
is afforded these extensive powers, rights, entitlements, immunities and ownership under Sark’s
Reform Laws of 2008 and 2010. Far from being a benign and distant figurehead, he dominates
and controls Sark’s political decision-making process, Sark’s judiciary, Sark public property
and the Island’s land-holding structure. All because his ancestors obtained the Crown Lease
on Sark by foreclosing on an unpaid mortgage back in 1852. To say it is anachronistic, antiquated and incompatible with democracy in any form is the understatement of the century.
2
MORE SHAM REFORMS
WHICH ENHANCE THE FEUDAL LORD’S UNACCEPTABLE POWERS
INSTEAD OF ABOLISHING THEM
The Reform Laws of 2008 and 2010 were a fraud on
the people of Sark. Instead of delivering Islanders
from 450 years of feudalism, the legislation enabled
the Island’s feudal lord to enhance his powers by the
creation of his very own one ruling party state, the citizens of which are further than ever away from having
a say in their own governance and exercising their
right to self-determination.
to really understand what they are up to, neither the
public at large nor the UK Ministry of Justice.
Although you will search in vain for any wholesale removal of the powers of the unelected feudal overlord
from Sark’s allegedly democratic constitution, some of
the amendments proposed concern the role of the feudal lord. Rank hypocrisy courses through the report
as the one ruling party try, yet again, to propose the
removal of the Lt. Governor's powers over the budget
and yet leave almost all of Michael Beaumont’s powers
intact with consolation provisions even for those that
are to go.
Outside pressure, mainly from the UK Ministry of
Justice, which is responsible for the governance of the
British Crown Dependency of Sark on an international
level, has, however, resulted in further “reforms”. Although lauded as “progress” towards bringing Sark’s
governance into line with the standards expected of a
Crown Dependency, these “reforms” are invariably
meaningless shams, carefully designed to appease the
Ministry of Justice whilst ensuring that nothing changes in Sark, least of all the feudal lord’s position of absolute and unassailable power.
The London High Court judgment of 9th May 2013
famously found that the Seneschal’s dual role as principal judge and president of Sark’s assembly must be
split. It also found that Sark’s principal judge and his
deputy should not be in the pay of those involved in
the Island’s political decision-making process, namely
parliament. Three years later the one ruling party
state of Sark is finally acting on the latter finding and
from now this supposedly modern democracy is instead going to give control over the salary it pays its
resident judiciary to a “Remuneration Panel” appointed by the feudal overlord. At least he doesn't seem to
be a member of the panel itself, unlike the
“Appointments Committee” for that same resident
judiciary, which is selected and chaired by the same
feudal overlord - albeit with the oversight of the Lt.
Governor, who they are trying to write out of the constitution elsewhere.
Sham “reforms” to Sark’s already bloated, cumbersome and unworkable committee structure resulted in
Sark now having 30 committees instead of the earlier
18. The one ruling party state has more committees
than members of parliament. Sham “reforms” saw
the creation of Sark’s ‘Secret Parliament’, a
“committee” consisting of all members of parliament,
which meets three times as often as the public assembly but behind closed doors and under Chatham
House Rules, which means that no one is accountable
for anything that is said. All parliamentary business is
thus agreed before the meetings open to the public, at
which the decisions made behind closed doors are
summarily rubber stamped.
How Sark’s one ruling party regime can justify this
state of affairs is beyond understanding. The fact that
the Law Officers allow themselves to be persuaded to
go along with it and draft it is unacceptable. Arthur
Rolfe’s covering report to the assembly makes no mention and draws no attention to the role of the feudal
lord in choosing this “Remuneration Panel” whose
members will be “all independent of Chief Pleas” –
albeit appointed by a member of Chief Pleas, namely
feudal lord Michael Beaumont. So much for independence. So much for the Law Officers.
In the on-going effort to appease the Ministry of Justice, more sham “reforms” are on the agenda for next
week’s public meeting of the one ruling party parliament. On behalf of our unelected would-be “chief
minister” Charles Maitland’s Policy and Performance
Committee, on behalf, again, of the ‘Special Secret’
Reform Law (Good Governance) Policy Development
Committee, Arthur Rolfe is bringing a mish-mash of
half-baked but finely targeted amendments of the Reform (Sark) Law 2008 to the assembly. It's a mishmash because it's impossible to distinguish between
what remains merely aspirational and what is actually
included in the amendments to the legislation. A very
close comparative reading of the draft legislation to
the existing legislation is required because no one has
provided a track-changed version of the existing law
for ease of comprehension. Of course, no one is meant
Rather than do the truly democratic thing and remove
the feudal lord from Sark’s Reform Law altogether,
the loyal members of his one ruling party parliament,
aided and abetted by the Guernsey Law Officers, enhance his powers. Why should an unelected private
individual answerable to no one be given such privileges? Where is the democracy in that? Do they really
need reminding that Michael Beaumont is the de3
scendant of a family which bought Sark as a piece of
property. It is absurd and fundamentally antidemocratic to give new privileges to such a figure.
overriding principle is that of keeping control over
Sark - over every aspect of life in Sark - in the hands
of the feudal lord and those closest to him.
We then reach the first of the aspirational sections of
Rolfe’s report - aspirational in that it has not made its
way, yet, into the draft legislation. In the interests,
presumably, of “democracy” and Sark's “new” government and constitution, they want to provide that
any letter of resignation from the Speaker should not
go to the Lt. Governor. Who should it go to instead in
the brave new world of democratic Sark? Perhaps the
chairman of the Policy and Performance Committee?
No. They want to replace the Lt. Governor with the
feudal lord. This they call democratic progress.
Another section of Arthur Rolfe’s report reveals the
one ruling party’s renewed desire to remove the Lt.
Governor's powers over the Sark budget. It is disclosed however that the 2014 proposal was referred by
the then Lt. Governor to the Ministry of Justice for its
views. This appears to have taken the best part of two
years to date, so no one should hold their breath. It is,
however, quite clear that the Lt. Governor's office opposed this proposal. The Sark Newspaper continues to
call for consistency. If the Lt-Governor’s very limited
powers are to be removed because they are not democratic then the same principles should be applied
across the Reform (Sark) Law 2008 as a whole and the
first target for such changes should be the role of the
feudal lord. Rather than enhance the role of the feudal lord in the Sark constitution it should be removed
altogether. It has no place in a supposedly modern
democracy. The hypocrisy of Sark’s one ruling party
regime is breath-taking.
Rolfe’s report also reveals that with the magnanimous
permission of the feudal lord, they are finally to abolish the feudal lord’s power to veto Ordinances passed
by a quorate parliament: “the Seigneur and the PDT
agreed that, under our current democracy, this power of
veto was anachronistic and should be removed”. The
“current democracy” is 8 years old. When during that
time was the feudal lord’s veto not “anachronistic”?
Why didn’t Michael Beaumont insist that it form no
part of the 2008 Law? Isn’t it “anachronistic” in itself
that the feudal lord’s permission had to be obtained
before this “anachronistic” power was abolished?
The feudal lord’s power to give or withhold permission before the Guernsey Police can land on Sark is
also to be done away with, but the constable must nevertheless “inform the Seigneur” whenever he requests
the Chief Officer to send police officers. Why? Why
should the feudal lord, an unelected private individual,
have the right to be informed over all others on Sark
as to the exercise of this power? What if feudal lord or
some close family member or friend is suspected of a
crime? The potential for conflict of interest and conflict with other legislation is obvious, e.g. tipping off
provisions.
Then more power is to be handed to Michael Beaumont. At the Easter 2014 meeting of Sark’s one ruling
party parliament, he made it patently clear that he
intended to give up his role in appointing the Greffier
and Prévôt. This was something of a surprise, but
then the years passed and nothing more was heard.
The draft legislation now before the assembly would
have been the time to make good on this change, but
it's not there. On the contrary and as part of the pattern of strengthening the feudal lord’s role rather than
weakening it, we see amendments permitting the feudal lord to also appoint assistant deputy Greffiers and
deputy Prévôts.
It is totally inappropriate to replace the requirement
for feudal permission with a new requirement of feudal notification, but it is part and parcel with the drift
of all this tinkering with the Reform (Sark) Law.
There is no justification for this attachment to the feudal office of Seigneur. What we see is the carefully
selected members of the feudal lord’s loyal one ruling
party parliament doing what they are there for, namely doing the feudal lord’s bidding by reinforcing the
anti-democratic, medieval and “anachronistic”. Indeed, as alluded to at the very end of the report, Michael Beaumont wants to see reporting requirements
for whenever the Guernsey Police attend Sark, whilst
his faithful servants on the ‘Special Secret’ Policing
Review Policy Development Committee have ruled out
the possibility of professional policing for Sark. It all
gives a sinister insight into the controlling mind of
Sark’s autocratic feudal lord.
This begs the question of why Michael Beaumont
thinks it was appropriate two years ago to indicate
that he was going to give up his powers of appointment
but now is happy not only to keep those powers but
also grab more? Perhaps the feudal lord could make
one of his statements and explain this to the attending
public, the assembly’s members already having been
informed behind closed doors.
This is another area where appointments require the
ultimate approval of the Lt. Governor. Why doesn’t
the one ruling party regime go the whole hog and give
all these powers absolutely to the feudal lord? There
is a total incoherence in this tinkering with the Reform
Law. They want to remove the Lt. Governor from
some parts of it in the name of “democracy” but not
others, all whilst enhancing the role of the feudal lord
in other areas. The only consistent logic, the only
It all goes to show that Sark is governed by the feudal
lord, for a feudal lord who has no intention whatsoever of relinquishing his extensive powers. On the contrary, he wants, and gets, ever more.
4
Our 112th weekly appeal
to Michael Beaumont:
IT IS YOUR ISLAND;
YOUR CONSTITUTION,
YOUR JUDICIARY,
YOUR JURISDICTION,
YOUR ECONOMY,
YOUR PEOPLE AND
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY,
MR BEAUMONT
Over a 150 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. The fact that the Island’s population
has dropped from 650 in 2008 to only 420 today speaks for itself.
Sark is losing its life-blood - its people.
The Island’s economy is in a state of collapse and its cash reserves depleted whilst the
Island-owned monopoly shipping company, the IoSS, is kept afloat by continuous “emergency loans”
funded by an ever diminishing number of taxpayers.
As matters stand, your Island is not sustainable - neither its tourism-dependent economy nor the
population which depend on that economy for their livelihoods.
Sark is dying and something must be done.
Mr Beaumont, the Sark Newsletter, succeeded by the Sark Newspaper, has already appealed to you
on 111 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 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.
5
THE FEUDAL LEADERSHIP PASSED
ON SARK'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS BREACHES
At the Mid-Summer Meeting of
Sark’s feudal government back in
2007 both feudal leader Michael
Beaumont and his trusted
‘lieutenant’ Reginald Guille presided over what for them was a
very important meeting. Their
objective was to get rid of any
checks and balances in Sark’s parliament and retain for themselves
authority to preside and influence
all aspects of future meetings. At
the same time they needed to pass
all responsibility to defend ongoing breaches in Sark’s obligations
under the European Convention
of Human Rights to the UK government and to be able to hide
behind the wider Bailiwick of
Guernsey when it came to their
dominating authoritarian influence.
Sark’s feudal leadership had for
some time been bothered by the
mere title of this European Convention since the title “THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS”
is clearly an anathema to authoritarianism. It was therefore important for Messrs Beaumont and
Guille to deal with what in any
other jurisdiction would have been
an insurmountable problem.
Their solution was to feign democratisation whilst really retaining
the reins of power in the feudal
one ruling party state. In order to
facilitate the puppet state system,
it was important to bring in as
many staunch and reliable home
grown feudalists as possible - such
as Edric and Diane Baker and of
course the newly aspiring selfstyled “chief minister” of propaganda Charles Maitland.
One of the main concerns of the
Mid-Summer Meeting in 2007 was
no doubt the proposition that “all
candidates must poll a minimum of
25 votes to be elected”. This simple
protection to the democratic process would mean that the likes of
Charles Maitland would not have
been striding around Westminster
posing as Sark’s democratically
elected representative. Unsurprisingly, this proposition was not approved but the very idea of having
to be voted in will have increased
the feudal heart rates uncomfortably at the time. Of course, since
then Reginald Guille, in his
‘Returning Officer’ guise, has
made a mockery of democracy by
ushering the majority of members
of Sark’s parliament, including
the now infamous Maitland, into
pivotal government roles without
having even a single vote from the
disenfranchised public.
Rights and fundamental freedoms
is set only to rise, which will embarrass not only the Bailiwick of
Guernsey but the UK government
as well. At the time of writing, the
Sark Newsletter has learnt of yet
another case where the British
Government has to expend scarce
resources in an effort to defend a
challenge arising out of Sark’s disregard for human rights. This is
in addition to the recently documented case where a significant
proportion of Sark’s electorate
remains disenfranchised. The UK
government must be wondering
where this will all end and the
Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey
will certainly prefer not to be cast
centre stage at the European
Court at a time when there are so
many other more pressing issues
to be addressed in Europe.
The big selling point promoted by
Reginald Guille, speaking in his
dominating capacity as Seneschal
at the 2007 Mid-Summer Meeting
was: “IF THE CONSTITUTION
GOES FORWARD AND IS APPROVED BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL, HUMAN RIGHTS BECOMES A UK RESPONSIBILITY.
THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
(MOJ) HAS MADE IT CLEAR
THAT ADDITIONAL SECTIONS
CAN BE ADDED AS AND WHEN
REQUIRED”. Just to ensure all
those present voted in accordance
with his feudal leader’s diktat, he
added (recorded under point 22 of
the minutes of 4th & 5th July
2007) that “the Law Officers automatically check all drafted laws for
human rights compliance”.
The Sark Newspaper has reiterated
again and again the hope and expectation that good governance
will eventually prevail in Sark and
that the Island can enjoy the transition from feudal authoritarianism to inclusive democracy. The
unfortunate reality is that, unless
and until Sark’s feudal leadership
is willing to embrace meaningful
change rather than proliferate an
endless series of sham reforms and
deceitful press releases, we are
going nowhere fast.
Unfortunately for Mr Beaumont
and his feudal followers, the number of Sark challenges under the
European Convention of Human
6
Hopefully those young families
who are able to endure the current
economic cleansing process will
one day benefit but it seems things
will get worse before they get better. The Sark leadership have
many questions to answer and
passing on their responsibility for
violations in human rights can only delay and not remove their need
to address justified challenges.
DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED
GUERNSEY POLITICIANS PAY HOMAGE TO
FEUDAL LORD MICHAEL BEAUMONT’S
UNELECTED ONE RULING PARTY STATE OFFICIALS
Only as a result of a report carried in Mondays’ The
Guernsey Press do the public know that a second
meeting of Guernsey Chief Minister Jonathan Le
Tocq’s pet project, the rather grandly named Bailiwick Council, took place in Sark on Tuesday 15th
March 2016. Once again, for reasons known only to
the Chief Minister of Guernsey and his fellow democratically elected states members, they are willing to
sit down with unelected totalitarian state officials
such as Sark’s would-be “chief minister” Charles
Maitland to discuss any manner of ‘soft’ issues. It is
notable, however, that they dare not tackle the
greatest threat of all to the Channel Islands’ reputation on the world stage, namely the lawless, unregulated and uncooperative nature of the autocratic
rule of Sark’s feudal lord Michael Beaumont.
Mr Le Tocq is seen by many as an honourable man,
a church minister who practices what he preaches.
A man of actions as much as words who has, over
the years, thrown his home open to vulnerable
young people. By welcoming those in need into his
family home he has given these youngsters the
chance to rebuild their troubled lives in an atmosphere of warmth, caring and security. With this in
mind it is astonishing that such a highly principled
and intelligent individual has not grasped that, in
crossing the few short miles of sea from Guernsey to
Sark and meeting on equal terms with Sark’s unelected state officials, he is empowering a totalitarian
state regime which shows nothing but contempt for
the principles that he so clearly adheres to.
In Sark there is no statutory help for individuals
who fall on hard times, be it through ill health, unemployment or simply growing old and being
deemed a drain on the Island’s finances. In the totalitarian state of Sark, feudal lord Michael Beaumont's regime values its children's futures so little
that it will not provide them with, as a statutory
right, a state-funded education.
The Guernsey Press coverage 21st March 2016
continue to suffer state persecution the likes of
which has not been witnessed in Western Europe
since the economic ethinic cleansing in Germany
during the 1930’s.
As we enter Easter weekend, the actions of Guernsey’s Chief Minister Jonathan Le Tocq resonate
with those of Pontius Pilate. By washing his hands
of any responsibility to do the right thing by the people of Sark, by confronting the issue of the immense
powers of the unelected feudal lord Michael Beaumont he has discredited both himself and his fellow
democratically elected politicians. Little wonder
that the British Crown Dependency of Guernsey’s
reputation on the world stage continues to suffer as
a result of continuing to shore up the rogue state of
Sark.
The decision by the democratically elected Jonathan
Le Tocq to share a public platform in The Guernsey
Press with Charles Maitland, a state official who has
not faced the electorate, has not received a single
vote and carries no mandate to represent the views
of the people of Sark, constitutes a grave error of
judgement on his part. Whilst Mr Le Tocq and his
democratically elected colleagues from the Bailiwick
of Guernsey are willing to travel to Sark and pay
homage to feudal lord Michael Beaumont's unelected one ruling party state officials, the people of Sark
7
“PRESIDENT” EDRIC BAKER’S “INDEPENDENT” POLICING PANEL:
SHAM REMOVAL OF THE
ONE RULING PARTY STATE CONTROL
OVER SARK LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Sark Newspaper has consistently exposed the fact that
Sark's lay policing is wholly
unfit for purpose, along with
the rest of Sark's institutions. This exposure to the outside world has clearly found its
mark because at item 1 of the
Easter agenda for the one ruling party parliament we find a
proposal to establish an
“Independent Police Panel” for
Sark.
This “independent” panel is to
consist of three Sark residents.
They have to be resident and
therefore under the control of
the Sark establishment - and
not just resident but “fully”
resident, in other words fully
under establishment control.
Predictably, there is still no definition in existence for those
who can call themselves Sark
residents - nor, for that matter
“full” residents.
We are told that the panel’s
members cannot be sitting
members of the one ruling party parliament. Douzaine
“president” Edric Baker’s report states that they must be
wholly independent of the assembly. Very late in the day
Sark’s totalitarian regime has,
as a direct result of exposure in
this publication, been forced
into cosmetic tinkering with the
way that Sark is policed. The
fact that everywhere else in the
civilised world - and certainly,
in London, home of the UK
Ministry of Justice - it is completely unacceptable to have the
police force appointed by and
accountable to, the legislature
and executive - Sark's legislature also being its executive.
This has left Sark’s ruling elite
with no choice other than to
make a show of appearing to
respond to external pressures
to remedy the situation.
Michael Beaumont’s one ruling
party regime are masters of
fooling the Ministry of Justice
and, in particular, its successive
The final paragraph in Edric Baker’s report to the one ruling party assembly is
nothing but self-congratulatory one ruling party state propaganda romanticising the
unacceptable. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud. There are all too many
“traditions” in this world which are as repulsive as they are unacceptable in a modern
democratic society. Sark’s particular brand of deeply conflicted amateur policing by
constables answerable to an unelected, unaccountable “government” headed by
an unelected unaccountable feudal lord most definitely falls into
the repulsive/unacceptable category.
8
Ministers in charge. They did it
with ease with Jack Straw, running rings around him in the
lead up to the Reform Laws of
2008 and 2010. They were perhaps less successful with the rather worldly and deceptively
canny Lord McNally, a man
who in time saw through Michael Beaumont and his one ruling party state members and
supporters and publicly declared that he could not give
Sark’s governance ‘a clean bill
of health’. With Lord Faulks at
the helm of the Ministry of Justice, Sark’s totalitarian leaders
are back on solid ground. He
and his department have shown
that they have neither the will
nor the wherewithal to take on
Michael Beaumont face on and
wish only that the problem that
is Sark would simply go away.
In true one ruling party tradition, Sark’s power elite has
therefore devised a sham reform designed to dupe Lord
Faulks, the Ministry of Justice
and the rest of the outside world
into believing that Sark now
conforms to acceptable standards of democracy and governance whilst in reality ensuring
that the one ruling party regime
retains its power and control
over Sark’s law enforcement.
Accordingly, Baker’s allegedly
“independent” policing panel
will “oversee” the annual appointment of the constables –
but not, of course, actually
make the appointments, as this
will remain, as ever, within the
control of Baker’s Douzaine, a
committee which meets behind
closed doors and whose members are sworn to secrecy, and
the one ruling party parliament
of which the Douzaine’s members form a part.
The panel will also deal with
complaints against the consta-
bles and meet to “discuss isAFTER SARK’S
sues”. They will have no powUNFIT-FOR-PURPOSE
ers of any kind over the constaLAW ENFORCEMENT
bles. No investigatory powers,
HAVE ARRESTED YOU,
no powers of sanction, nothYOU ARE AT THE
ing. They can give a “warning”
– of what, we do not know –
HANDS OF THE FEUDAL
perhaps that there is an infaLORD’S UNFIT-FORmous boat which leaves in the
PURPOSE COURT
morning.
The whole “independent panel”
scheme will be entirely nonstatutory and, ultimately, voluntary. It will have no teeth, not
even gums. The panel does
nothing to alter the fundamental objection that Sark's politicians choose and control their
police. Quite apart from the
objection of Sark policing being
wholly amateur, its present organisation is fundamentally objectionable and this panel does
nothing to alter that fact. This
whole deceitful exercise is devised to make it look like they
provide for oversight of the constables independent of the members of Sark’s one ruling party
parliament. Who is to appoint
these much heralded
“independent” panel members? None other than Baker’s
Douzaine and Sark’s one ruling
party parliament, to whom the
“independent” panel is accountable.
The entire proposition is such a
transparent fraud that it is an
insult to the intelligence of those
both on Sark and within the
corridors of power off Sark who
criticise the Island’s law enforcement and term it unfit for
purpose. Sark has a history of
unacceptable law enforcement
by hopelessly conflicted, shortterm amateur constables who
are answerable to a feudal lord,
his chosen leaders and the members of his one ruling party parliament. That’s the way they
will keep it, as this proposition
illustrates all too clearly.
9
UNELECTED and
ACCOUNTABLE
TO NO ONE,
feudal lord Michael Beaumont, as
owner of Sark’s judiciary, personally appoints each and every court
official, including, of course, the
principal judge and his assistant.
As principal judge in his court, the
feudal lord has appointed his own
brother-in-law, Jeremy La TrobeBateman, a crane driver with no
qualifications or experience in
matters of law.
The principal judge’s son, Sam La
Trobe-Bateman has, with the feudal lord’s consent, been appointed
chief of Sark’s law enforcement,
and Guernsey’s professional police
force can only come to Sark to investigate crimes after obtaining the
feudal lord’s permission.
The helpless people of Sark
A SELF-SERVING TOTALITARIAN REGIME
WITH CONTEMPT FOR EVEN THE MOST
BASIC DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
The publication of the conditions
of eligibility to would-be candidates for the States of Guernsey
election to be held on April 26th
2016 is a timely reminder of the
vast gulf that lies between the
democratic principles governing
our dominant neighbouring Island and those of the totalitarian
state of Sark.
In Guernsey, as is the case in all
democratic societies, there is a
requirement that no person in
public office can remain an employee of the state or a beneficiary of state patronage. In Sark
this basic democratic principle is
simply trodden into the ground
under the jackboot of a fascist
regime which shows nothing but
contempt for the checks and balances that are the very bedrock
of democracy. Whilst in Guernsey, as the case in the rest of the
democratic world, there is a
clear distinction between those
who make the laws and those
who enforce them, in the totalitarian state of Sark there is no
such separation. Indeed, well
documented factual accounts exist of unelected state officials
passing laws, enforcing those
very same laws, and subsequently attending protest meetings
posing as ordinary members of
the public when mere technicalities have meant that the laws
that they have passed and subsequently enforced have failed to
achieve their objectives.
Lying just seven miles off of the
coast of Guernsey, the rogue lawless state of Sark continues to
inflict reputational damage on
the credibility of all of the Channel Islands on the world stage.
Whilst the UK government pontificates on the abuses of power
of numerous rogue states the
world over, it continues, for reasons known only unto itself, to
turn a blind eye to the lawless
totalitarian state of Sark.
A foundation stone of the democratic process is the principle
that no state official should benefit from public office. The conditions of eligibility for successful
candidates taking their seats in
the Guernsey States Chamber
stipulate that: “If they are States
employees or public officers they
must cease those roles before joining the States on 1 May” [the date
of the sitting of the new parliament]. No such conditions are
placed on the members of Michael Beaumont's one ruling party state assembly.
As with totalitarian states the
world over, the power of patronage or punishment is essential
for the continued survival of
Sark’s one ruling party regime.
Sark’s one ruling party parliament is populated by unelected
state officials who have not faced
the electorate, who have not received a single vote from the
electorate and who carry no
mandate. It is, moreover, riddled with state employees who
thereby are perfectly placed to
pursue their vested interests
above the democratic interest of
all Islanders.
A list of Sark state officials who
through their public offices or
state employment would be uneligible for office in any other jurisdiction makes a mockery of
Sark’s claim to be a democracy.
Setting aside the fact that sixteen
of the twenty eight members of
Michael Beaumont's one ruling
party state parliament have not
10
faced the electorate, have not
received a single vote and therefore carry no democratic mandate to represent the people of
Sark, their abuse of power is
nothing short of breath-taking.
Amongst the many members of
the current one ruling party
state parliament who enjoy state
employment or financial patronage are Karen Adams, Edric
Baker, Sandra Williams, Peter
Byrne, Colin Golds and Paul
Williams.
Not only does Karen Adams enjoy taxpayer-funded employment
as Sark’s tourism officer, she is
also chairman of the Shipping
Committee and the ‘Special
Secret’ Liquor Licensing Policy
Development Committee, deputy
chairman of the Medical Committee and a member of the Public Health, ‘Special Secret’ Children's Law Policy Development
and ‘Special Secret’ Regulation
of Medical Practitioners Committees. Such conflict of interests would only be tolerated in a
totalitarian state. Word on the
street is that she is soon to leave
Sark and take up a paid position
in Guernsey in order to guarantee that her own child does not
suffer the disadvantage of a Sark
education.
The multi- tenement owning
multi-millionaire Edric Baker is
employed by the secretive state
committee, the Douzaine. He is
also the “president” of this powerful and secretive state committee, which meets behind closed
doors and whose members are
sworn to secrecy. Diane Baker,
Edric Baker’s wife and fellow
member of the one ruling party
state parliament, (membership to
which neither of them have received a single vote from the
electorate), has recently taken to
working part-time in the local
supermarket alongside fellow
party and parliament member,
Rosanne Guille Byrne, niece of
the unelected president of Chief
Pleas, Reginald Guille. Clearly,
despite denials from the state,
the catastrophic collapse in
Sark’s economy in the wake of
eight years of state- sponsored
economic cleansing is impacting
across every walk of life.
Peter Byrne, who, by being the
husband of Rosanne Guille Byrne makes up the third of the on
and off three husband and wife
partnerships sitting in Michael
Beaumont’s one ruling party
state parliament, is employed by
the state as deputy harbour master, a situation which would not
be acceptable in any 21st century
representative democracy and
most certainly not in our neighbouring Island of Guernsey.
Fellow one ruling party state
members Paul Williams and
Colin Golds are also beneficiaries of state employment. The
fact that they sit as members of
the very parliament which employs them once again highlights
the gulf that exists between the
totalitarian state of Sark and the
rest of the democratic British
Crown Dependencies.
However, the greatest example of
how far removed Sark is from
being a fully representative democracy is the prominent member of the one ruling party parliament Sandra Williams. Williams runs her own hospitality
business, a café and public
house, in direct competition with
her own constituents from a publicly-owned building. Unlike her
constituents she pays no rent for
her business premises, which are
given to her rent-free courtesy of
the one ruling party state parliament of which she is a member.
STATES OF GUERNSEY
ELECTIONS 2016
Conditions of Eligibility For Candidates
Must be at least 20 years old.
Must be considered as ordinarily resident in Guernsey on
the date of nomination.
Must sign a declaration affirming they are eligible to hold
the office of people’s deputy.
Must have their application signed by two people whose
names are on the electoral roll for the district they hope to
stand in.
Can only stand for election in one district.
If they are States employees or public officers they must
cease those roles before joining the States on 1 May.
Cannot have been sentenced by a court in the UK, Channel
Islands or the Isle of Man to imprisonment for a period of
six months or more, whether suspended or not, in the last
five years.
She is, furthermore, the recipient
of a taxpayer-funded maintenance grant of up to £8,000 per
annum to run her business, again
by the very same one ruling party state parliament of which she
is a high profile member.
The conflicts of interest of this
self-protective, self-interested
and self-regarding one ruling
party state official knows no
bounds. She is the chairman of
the state Tourism Committee,
deputy chairmanship of the
Shipping Committee and chairman of the Harbours and Pilotage Committee. She is also the
chairman of the Committee reviewing the Isle of Sark Shipping
Company. Such abuses of power
will only ever be found and tolerated within totalitarian states
such as Sark .
One wonders what the newly
democratically elected members
of Guernsey States would make
of this symptom of statesponsored corruption and vested
interests.
11
There are two major breweries/
public house landlords in Guernsey; Bucktrouts and Randalls.
What would the people of
Guernsey have to say if the
States spent their taxpayers’
money to build a portfolio of
public houses which would trade
in direct competition with the
existing privately-owned businesses and then gave this portfolio, rent-free, to individual members of the States of Guernsey to
run for their own personal gain?
There would be uproar, civil unrest and a public outcry which
would inevitably result in a public enquiry into corruption and
the abuse of public office.
This will never happen in Sark.
The iron grip which Michael
Beaumont and his totalitarian
regime hold over the lives of the
people is so powerful that the
people dare not speak out for
fear of repercussions in the form
of state-sponsored harassment,
bulling and persecution. Such is
the gulf between the democratic
Island of Guernsey and the one
ruling party state of Sark.
COPY OF THIS ISSUE OF THE SARK NEW SPAPER
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
Prime Minister of Belgium, Mr Charles Michel
Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Mr Boyko Borissov
Prime Minister of Croatia, Mr Zoran Milanovic
Prime Minister of Estonia, Mr Taavi Rõivas
Prime Minister of Greece, Mr Alexis Tsipras
Prime Minister of Italy, Mr Matteo Renzi
Prime Minister of Lithuania, Mr Algiradas Butkevičius
President of Poland, Mr Andrzej Duda
Prime Minister of Portugal, Mr António Costa
Prime Minister of Spain, Mr Mariano Rajoy Brey
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
The Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt KCVO OBE PC
Ms Camisha Bridgeman, Desk Officer in Strategy & Coordination
at the Overseas Territories Directorate
The Bailiff of Guernsey, Sir Richard Collas
Lt-Governor, Vice Admiral Ian Corder CB
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 2016