4 as the non-Chief Pleas member of Policy & Fi- nance”. Guille was duly elected by a show of hands. The Hansard report of the evening’s events will rec- ord that the Speaker declared the vote to be car- ried unanimously. It will not record the fact that numerous Conseillers sat on their hands and de- clined to vote and that the proposition was not passed without any Conseillers voting against it. From the public gallery it was not difficult to un- derstand that the majority of the house had been caught unawares by Reginald Guille and his sup- porters’ manoeuvrings. It took less than half a minute from Raymond's proposal being put be- fore the assembly until it was voted on and passed. The looks of bewilderment amongst eve- ryone in the chamber, on the benches and in the public gallery, bore witness to the fact that Guille had once again outwitted everybody and had en- sured that his control of the governance of Sark had been unaffected by his resignation from Chief Pleas. This is simply wrong. Following Guille’s resigna- tion 23 days ago, Michael Doyle, the long-time Sark resident who Guille used parliamentary privilege to attack, on record, wrote to the Speak- er of Chief Pleas Arthur Rolfe: “Dear Mr Rolfe After reviewing various reports from the recent Chief Pleas meeting - it would appear that the De- fendant in the case of the complaint that I initiated has attempted to instruct you to "stand down" the independent complaints committee - based upon his resignation. I have to say that such an instruction is wholly inappropriate whether the defendant choose to comply with the correct procedure or not. The matter related to a time when the said defend- ant was an acting Conseiller and as such the com- mittee certainly should not be told to stop its inves- tigation. I am therefore expecting to receive an outcome based upon a decision of the committee - not based upon an unlawful untabled ramble in Chief Pleas at which I was of course unable to offer any re- sponse. Please convey these views to the code of conduct committee if you would. I am appreciative of the fact that you were appar- ently taken by surprise yourself and I would also suggest that the publication of this untabled rheto- ric be deemed not suitable for Hansard. The findings of the committee may of course be published in due course and Mr Guille. Accountability and transparency are for all and there should be no exceptions”. There is nothing in the public domain to suggest that Guille has stood before the Chief Pleas Code of Conduct Panel to explain his attack on Sark resident Michael Doyle. The Hansard report of the Chief Pleas meeting of 16th January 2019 will record the morally bankrupt Reginald Guille’s attack on a fellow Islander Michael Doyle; an at- tack which Guille undertook under the protection of parliamentary privilege. A greater abuse of parliamentary privilege would indeed be hard to imagine. This ancient right was not granted so that an ageing autocrat such as Reginald Guille could vent his vile personal opinions on a fellow Islander without fear of repercussion. Unlike the cowardly Reginald Guille, this publi- cation does not have the luxury of parliamentary privilege to hold fellow Islanders to account. It must stick to the facts or find itself accountable in a court of law. It has to consider the limited re- sources with which it can defend itself in a court of law against accusations of misrepresentation or libel. Anyone who has been party to the Friday morning print run, an exercise that generally means moving a clotheshorse or two of washing out of the way to make room for the ageing print- er from which the latest Edition is churned out, will bear testimony to the fact that The Sark Newspaper is nothing if not ‘of the people’. This publication, despite its limited resources, neither seeks, nor needs, the luxury of the parlia- mentary privilege afforded to the cowardly Re- ginald Guille to tell is as it is: REGINALD GUILLE IS A BULLY: This is a view that many of the current and past members of Chief Pleas and numerous Islanders have expressed to the Editor of The Sark Newspa- per . REGINALD GUILLE BELIEVES THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS: Anywhere else in the western world Guille’s as- sertions that he and his family have greater rights on Sark than those of his fellow citizens would, quite rightly, be condemned as being akin to the far right-wing nationalism which has its roots in 1930s Germany. REGINALD GUILLE’S REFUSAL TO AN- SWER TO CHIEF PLEAS’ CODE OF CON- DUCT PANEL HAS SET SARK’S PROGRESS TOWARDS FULLY REPRESENTATIVE DE- MOCRACY BACK TEN YEARS: One has only to take a walk around Sark to un- derstand that Guille and his supporters’ agenda of division and entrenchment has driven the Is- land to economic ruin.