AT some time in the dim and distant past I commented – to no avail, which is just about par for the course, I’m afraid – about the extraordinary length of time it took to investigate and ultimately deal with disciplinary matters in relation to members of the States police who, in the interim, were left kicking their heels (and worrying themselves and their families sick no doubt) while suspended.

I have no idea to how many officers (other than the well-publicised case of Chief Officer Graham Power) are currently suspended and what the lengths of suspension are, but, knowing how slowly the wheels of justice turn in this place, I doubt that there has been any marked improvement in terms of reducing the length of time the sword of Damocles hangs over these people, all of whom are rightly presumed innocent until it is proven otherwise.

Now we have virtually identical circumstances to those I criticised in the case of Karen Huchet, the suspended chief executive of the excellent Family Nursing and Home Care Service, who has been suspended from her job for the better part of six months.

I have no idea at all what Ms Huchet is supposed to have done to warrant her removal from her post for that length of time, or indeed if she is guilty or otherwise of the allegations made against her. What I do know – and what should concern everyone involved greatly – is that the quite extraordinary length of time it seems to take to take these matters to a fair and satisfactory conclusion is totally unfair on Ms Huchet and indeed on the service itself, not to mention its clients.

Such is the suspicious nature of some folk that (sadly, in my view) I have to stress that I am neither related to nor a friend of Ms Huchet, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never met her. Having got that bit out of the way, let me make a final point.

Having worked for a line manager (the modern parlance for immediate boss, Herself tells me) many years ago who, for reasons best known to himself, seemed predisposed to think the worst of me (although he never had either the courage or courtesy to say so to my face) to such an extent that it was almost invariably incumbent upon me to prove innocence because he always appeared to be satisfied as to guilt, I always have grave misgivings about where justice features in such proceedings.

In stark contrast to legal proceedings, for example, where matters are investigated by professionals whose task it is to do so, and appropriate legal expertise (in the form of legally qualified judges) is on hand to ensure that rules are not broken when it comes to findings of guilt and appropriate sanctions, I seriously question whether such safeguards are always in place in disciplinary proceedings held outside the judicial system.

The fact that similar allegations to those made against Ms Huchet were made by her against the service’s chairman seem to me to support unequivocally the Jersey Nursing Association’s call for a totally independent investigation. Indeed, it amazes me that given Ms Huchet’s position as chief executive, such an investigation was not initiated all those months ago when she was first suspended. Little wonder that the suggestion that she is being denied natural justice is being made.

HERSELF, who is Chez Clement’s resident expert in such matters – my expertise is restricted to putting a bit of bait on a hook and plugging into the intravenous drip attached to a Calvados bottle in the Shed – told me the other day how to look at this newspaper on the internet and how to plug into readers’ comments on the various news stories published daily. On a fairly cold and miserable day last week, I looked at the comments made about the perfectly proper invitation to comment on States Members’ pay made by the chairman of their remuneration board, Julian Rogers.

Quite frankly, some of the comments are so idiotic as to beggar belief, like those from one self-styled cynic who seems to assume that because ‘every other government has corruption’ – he bemoans the fact that no States Member has been charged with corruption but produces no evidence for his sweeping generalisation that ‘all governments’ have corruption – there is corruption in the Big House.

As a result, he supports more money for ‘States Members who are not benefiting in other ways from being in government’ but fails to tell us who will determine this, or how. Listen, pal, when you and others who think like you come up with evidence – as distinct from nasty, malicious rumours about Dandara directorships or backhanders and other nefarious practices repeated as much on the cocktail party circuit (the class of people responsible, in my view, for much of the lying nastiness directed at the former Chief Minister) – then people like me might take your otherwise daft comments seriously.
It seems to me that Mr Rogers and his board are quite right to raise the issue of a pay differential between ministers, scrutiny committee chairmen and so on because there are questions to be answered in this respect.

As to attendance and voting, I urge people not to place too much emphasis on this, despite the boy Shenton’s apparent obsession with these matters. I know of one parish Constable many years ago who worked in town. He never missed a States sitting, he told his parishioners every three years.
That was slightly at variance with the truth. He never missed saying ‘present’ when his name was called, but he was in his office (although not taking calls) at 10.20 every Tuesday morning.

AND finally . . . It’s sad to see the demise of Maillard’s weekly auction, although I haven’t attended one since the days of Hedley himself and Clive Hacquoil inquiring of their clients whether their purchases were wise. Happy days.