Pages

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

VFC All Time Top Ten.


Further to our Top Ten most hit Blog Postings of 2016. Below are the Top Ten most hit postings of all time.


Adrian Lynch.

In Tenth Place. Adrian Lynch "Official Line" Questioned.


William Bailhache.

In Ninth Place. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and WILLIAM BAILHACHE.


Ian Le Marquand.

In Eight Place. No-Body REMAINS.



In Seventh Place. Adrian Lynch Investigation. Questions To The States of Jersey Police.

Philip Bailhache.

In Sixth Place. Senator Philip Bailhache Letter to ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.


Inquiry Panel.

In Fifth Place. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Adopts "THE JERSEY WAY."


Former DCO/SIO Lenny Harper.


In Fourth Place. Open Letter to HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER.


Former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.


In Third Place. Complaint to PPC (2)


Adrian Lynch.


In Second Place. Video of Adrian Lynch's Last Reported KNOWN MOVEMENTS.


Former Health Minister/Whistleblower
Stuart Syvret.

In First Place. Stuart Syvret, The Rule of Law and THE BBC.

A belated Happy New Year to our readers/viewers and a big thank you for your support and contributions.

 

136 comments:

  1. I for one am not surprised Stuart is tops. It's an excellent interview, both the questions and answers. Personally I think Stuart is very very bright and I'm fairly sure few of us are anywhere near his level. It would be interesting to get a fresh interview with him. I'd also like to know what he reads, his music tastes and that kind of thing. Also My kid just walked past and said "look, Harry Potter". I wonder if he's a Potter fan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor Pitman looks like Yul Bryner but that hasn't started me thinking is one of his favourite films The King and I or Westworld.

      Interesting Top Ten though.

      Delete
    2. Why hasn't Trevor been online for so long?

      Delete
  2. Surprised to see two Adrian Lynch posts in the top ten given all of the huge political stories you have covered. Many of these feature in the links to previous year's top tens. So I am guessing that the reason the Lynch story features twice might well be down to the blog's popularity and consequent hits getting even bigger over the past two or three years? If correct a sure sign of just how important the blog is to Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I drew the same conclusion.

      Delete
  3. An excellent read. The blog regarding William Bailhache and Mr K is particularly good analytical journalism. Whether William Bailhache has been telling porkies to get his mates off the hook or not what it does show for sure is a shoddy and unprofessional approach to the evidence on his part.

    He said that Mr K was well reported upon when working at HDLG but there were in fact no reports on his performance. He says that the alleged victim had no injuries when in fact a medical report shows injuries which could be consistent with the allegations. Rather like the case of the Maguires which was dropped at a time when "everyone knew" Mr Maguire was dying from cancer but nobody bothered to seek a medical report. Meanwhile he slipped away quietly to France where he lived out his years until his relatively recent death. The kindest thing which can be said is that these are indications of sloppy third rate lawyers promoted above their station. Either that or they are failing in their duty to make an honest assessment of the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, William Bailhache has some very serious questions to answer. The Blog Posting you refer to is HERE.

      Delete
    2. Bailhache isn't any more fit to be a judge and Bailiff than his brother Philip. Both selective in prosecution. And far worse.

      Delete
  4. So now we learn that Constables don't even need to be Britsih but Senators and Deputies do! Coming on top of the fact that can be in the States even if insane or bankrupt but Senators and Deputies can't this shows how bent and a total joke our States is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite right. So dire, so 1894. So corrupt. So Jersey.

      Delete
  5. A comment has been submitted that could help identify witness Mr. K. If the commenter would take out (redact) the place of his work/work title the comment can be published.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Please redact place of work VFC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Redacted comment and thank you for your understanding with this.

      "An interesting fact concerning witness 7 a.k. Mr K can be found in (redacted) statement to the COI. Evidently the personnel file for him had no entries after 2004, surprising when he was not suspended until 2008, during this period he was (redacted) when annual appraisals were the norm, also during that period he was accused of assaulting a young person and was investigated, this was common knowledge amongst staff at the time."

      Delete

    2. Stuart Syvret at number one is a surprise as he has not been in office for a long time even though active in a smaller capacity including a secret trial using dubious witnesses which obviously found him guilty, imprisoned him and made him a bankrupt.

      Clearly he is still highly respected and stands ( as shown by his history and dedication ) head and shoulders above the majority of Ministers and assistant Ministers.

      For those thinking of him not giving evidence to the child abuse enquiry, they were obviously very happy not have his testimony and evidence. If they had really wanted it they would have provided legal council as they did for the lorry loads of civil servants. He has spent enough time in prison and lost enough of his life for the cause.

      Nice one VFC, look forward to more of your thought provoking real journalism this year.

      Delete
    3. I do hope the COI don't treat the incredibly arrogant William Bailhache with kid gloves in their report. That would be an unforgivable cop out. His selective prosecutions while Attorney General were notorious.

      Delete
    4. I was a longstanding supporter of Stuart Syvret. I still admire him a lot. But can we please get past spouting this line that it is the Committee of Inquiry's fault first and foremost for not getting Stuart's evidence.

      That they did not is ultimately down to one person. Stuart himself. He chose not to which is his perfect right. I do not defend this Inquiry. Like most I am waiting with not overriding confidence to see what they produce.

      But from their point of view I really can well imagine that they may have concluded that even if they tried to force his attendance he would not have done so anyway.

      Delete

    5. You are missing the point completely. Why would anyone who has worked tirelessly for years against the abuse of children by government departmental staff not wish to give evidence ? After a secret States department farce of a trial, and all the other stuff that has been well documented on here why take the risk of serious legal strife and hassel appearing in front of a panel that when all is cut and dried is not set up properly and may just slap a few wrists.

      Worse without legal protection ( given to almost everyone else ) again the guy would be putting his head in a noose which a vengeful public administration would gladly tighten. Do you get it now ?

      Delete
    6. Said it before on other threads.
      Incredible how out of the hundreds of people who gave evidence including alleged abusers that none of them used the same excuses Stuart Syvret did not to.
      Besides he had been using excuses not to give evidence when asked to long before this Col was even agreed upon so that alone was a slap in the face to all who supported him.

      Delete
    7. Don't worry Stuart is arranging to have a proper Inquiry after this so called illegal one.
      We are just awaiting the details....zzzzz

      Delete
    8. "people who gave evidence including alleged abusers"
      ohhh, even alleged abusers gave evidence! -of course they did the CoI is pretty much a get out of jail free card for them.

      But you are right @07:40
      ........How dare the Ex Health Minister who initially blew the whistle on the whole thing demand legal representation
      .......How dare he demand a fit for purpose CoI

      You would have thought that after his secret trials and political imprisonments he would have come to understand that that is not the way we do things in Jersey.

      What is wrong with the man ????

      PS. Is that more Paedo-Trolling @09:40 ?
      Hilarious!

      Delete
    9. You must be heavily connected to Mr Syvret to defend his non attendance because the whole point of a Public Inquiry is to get a proper picture of what happened and Mr Syvret had a duty to attend as former HSS Minister. There were no excuses as he held a Public Office position so the Legal Representation argument was irrelevant because why should any former Politician be allowed such representation?

      Besides Mr Syvret has stated many things over the past decade that have simply not materialised and if you call people who question that Trolls, then we had Trolls attending the Col then. Bit lame.

      Delete
    10. Hilarious @10:10 ....You must be heavily connected to the Fake CoI to defend it's non-subpoenaing of the Ex Health Minister because the whole point of a Public Inquiry is to get a proper picture of what happened and Mr Syvret is one of the absolutely fundamental witnesses as former HSS Minister. There is no excuses as it is the duty of the CoI and we are paying £27 million for this sham lawyer fest which will do a bit of hand wringing but not make today's or tomorrow's children any safer because we will still have a politically controlled police force and no separation of powers.

      Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck .......
      .......... limps like a lame duck.

      Delete
    11. "Besides Mr Syvret has stated many things over the past decade that have simply not materialised"

      Yes, like saying that Jersey's Children's Services and child protection was not fit for purpose.

      What an idiot he is !

      Delete
  7. Paedophiles abuse children. If they cannot, or have no reason to control themselves it is what they do.

    They will manipulate, maltreat and threaten to make the child available for abuse.

    Many will maltreat and threaten and sometimes even kill to ensure that their crimes go undetected or unpunished.

    It is the way career paedophiles are made, whether in Jersey or elsewhere?


    But why does Jersey seem to have have a disproportionate problem with these people who wheedle themselves into positions in children's services/responsibility and why are we so ineffective at stopping them in Jersey (never mind punishing them!)

    It appears that the main root cause is a failure in administration and the rule of law. Some would say that even the dysfunctions/unfitness of the present CoI is a symptom of those ongoing failures.

    as Syvret said 20+ years ago it is the lack of separation of powers that is  the root cause of failure in administration and the rule of law.

    More pearls before the swine:
    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=554.msg61196#msg61196

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why nothing changes:
      (Thanks BB)

      http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=554.msg61196#msg61196

      Having a read through Hansard regarding the debate on removing the Bailiff as speaker of the assembly three short speeches caught my eye.

      I thought they may be of interest, as they are just so full of common sense.

      Deputy Higgins

      Every time this Assembly has addressed this issue, there is always someone trying to sabotage the proposition: whether it be an amendment or a refer-back, or this, that and the other. 

      I am amazed that the people who are the ones doing it today are some of those who, for the last few years, have been saying: “Oh, we believe that there should be a separation of the powers.  We believe that the Bailiff should not be in the Assembly.”  They always seem to be the same ones that keep on putting it off.  We have got the Constable of St. Helier; probably when he was a Deputy he was arguing the case for the separation of power, but it never comes to pass. 

      We have got Senator Ozouf, another one who, again, is supposed to have had the view that there should be the separation of powers, but always there is something that is wrong with this. The Assembly has got until May 2018 if this Assembly is going to decide this issue.  To be perfectly honest, I think if we delay the debate today and give a steer, perhaps, to P.P.C., it will never be done in this Assembly by the Members that are here.  I believe that we should go ahead.  All I can say is I am just appalled.  It is just another wrecking attempt, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

      Deputy Martin

       I love my Constable of St. Helier, but he has the gall to stand here today and tell me he does not know what his public wants.  Since this has been lodged, we have had 6 Parish Assemblies.  Did the Constable think to put it on? 

      Did the Constable of any Parish think in their Assemblies:

      “Oh, this is coming up.  It is a massive constitutional change that the Deputy of St. Brelade is proposing.”  Not one.  This is why I am told we keep the Constables: “Because
      they have their ears very close to the ground. 

      They meet their parishioners at their Parish Assemblies.  They come to the Rates Assemblies, they come and tell them when they are not happy about something.”  So if, from 24th May, you - sorry, they are all sitting to the right of me - had wanted any indication, why did you not put it to your Parish Assemblies?  But to come here today and say: “Oh, I have got no idea.  People are not really phoning up.”  No, because they are going down to food banks, or they cannot get on the housing list and they are really ...

      Deputy Tadier

      It would be nice if the Chief Minister, in particular, could use his great enthusiasm for this urgent democratic change that needs to happen to finally support this proposition rather than finding ways to stall it.

      Delete
    2. 'as Syvret said 20+ years ago it is the lack of separation of powers that is the root cause of failure in administration and the rule of law.'

      RUBBISH!

      Paedophilia is a World Wide problem and it is not only historic it is happening now.
      Look at Jersey last year, we had an Honorary Police Officer, a former Prison Me No Way Officer and a Member of Staff from La Moye all imprisoned for downloading sick material.
      That has nothing to do with any separation of powers.
      These people cannot be stopped as it is a World Wide problem and 99.9% of the sick material these perverts look at is made elsewhere. We have to hope the findings of the Care Inquiry help to stop the abuse of children but these predators will always be around.

      Delete
    3. As if Deputy Martin has done anything to stop child abuse.

      Delete
    4. @10:44
      Corruption is also a world wide problem. Lack of separation of powers makes a place even more vulnerable to corruption and incompetence at the highest level

      Not only does this put children ant additional risk but it puts everybody at risk:

      REF, CoI witness statement extract:

      2. At the age of 18 I worked for the States of Jersey. In order to assist my
      mother who was having financial difficulties, I went for an interview for a job
      at  a ########################### The interview took place
      around 6pm on a winter's evening when I went to the interview in ###########
       The man who interviewed me was [737] I didn't know it at the
      time but [737] was a #####  I wasn't particularly interested ######
      at the time, but I do remember saying that ############# The
      interview proceeded normally and towards the end I asked whether he would
      consider paying me a lower wage and paying cash in hand: I wanted to help
      my mother out of her financial difficulties and this seemed like a good
      practical solution. I had no idea that it was not an acceptable thing to say, it
      felt like the right thing to do at the time.

      3. After I mentioned cash in hand  [737] told me that he thought 'we
      could come to some sort of arrangement' and proceeded to violently rape
      me. I mentioned something about reporting it, but  [737 just laughed and
      said 'Who would believe your word against that of a ######### .
      After hearing that I didn't feel confident to report the incident.

      4. I was in a terrible state when I left. My clothes were torn and I was
      bloodstained. I walked to my next door neighbour's house as I wasn't
      comfortable to go straight home and face my parents. My neighbour's name
      was ##### When I knocked on the door her husband answered.
      He exclaimed 'Oh my God' and went to get ######.
      ##### gave me some of clothes to wear so that I could go home.


      It is understood that one of the reasons for the "emergency" suspension of Jersey's Chief of Police because the net was finally closing.
      In future the Police will only investigate authorised crimes. It is thought best for the reputation of the great and the good.

      Delete
    5. It is understood that one of the reasons for the "emergency" suspension of Jersey's Chief of Police because the net was finally closing.

      Shame Deputy Sam Mezec has turned his back on the survivors by being friends with Andrew Lewis.

      Delete
    6. 'It is understood that one of the reasons for the "emergency" suspension of Jersey's Chief of Police because the net was finally closing.'

      So you are saying the States of Jersey Police are totally corrupt without Graham Power then?

      Delete
    7. @11:27 "Shame Deputy Sam Mezec has turned his back on the survivors by being friends with Andrew Lewis."

      Sam is not necessarily turning his back on the survivors, but I feel he could do more. Some will see his support for the AL proposition as a slap in the face or as doing a deal with one of Jerseys "little Hitlers"


      Sam will be criticised by some for playing 'Resurrect Option-B/Rehabilitate Lewis'

      Syvret was criticised by some for not playing 'ignore the flaws in the CoI'

      Of the two it is Syvret who would have my confidence. IMO Mezec has misjudged this and is mishandling the fallout -calling anyone who criticises his decision idiots and worse.

      However Lewis and his pro-paedo-cronies must be loving the infighting that people cannot seem to move above.

      Delete
  8. *How dare the Ex Health Minister who initially blew the whistle on the whole thing demand legal representation.

    Not true. The Police were investigating historic abuse over a year before he got to know about it and telling people he knew about a Police Investigation is hardly 'whistle blowing'.

    *You would have thought that after his secret trials and political imprisonments he would have come to understand that that is not the way we do things in Jersey.

    All his Trials are available on Jersey Law Reports so are hardly secret.
    One carried an Interim Injunction which according to the same Publicly viewable reports, he never bothered to challenge anyhow.

    *PS. Is that more Paedo-Trolling @09:40 ?
    Hilarious!

    As if any paedophile would have the audacity to come on a blog like this.
    Paedophiles live doubles lives and keep a very low profile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really are funny :-)

      Anyone can post anonymously on here including paedophiles or their supporters. But perhaps you can tell us how you are familiar with the posting behaviour of assorted paedophiles?

      BTW in Jersey paedophiles have even been appointed as honorary policemen and they have offended while on the job.

      Also, one does not necessarily have to be a paedophile to be a "Paedo-Troll". Perhaps one just has to post untruths and distortions of truths in order to support the child abusing authorities and attack child protection campaigners. Some JEP-believers may even be stupid enough to do this unknowingly.

      Moving on to the supposed facts of your post:

      "Not true. The Police were investigating historic abuse over a year before he got to know about it and telling people he knew about a Police Investigation is hardly 'whistle blowing'." ......indeed I understand that the police were undertaking an unpublicised investigation after identifying that a relatively massive number of ex-inmates of Jersey's "Care System" (of HDLG in particular) were committing suicide. Health Minister Syvret started investigating after he was approached by a constituent. He soon discovered that it was a serious and widespread problem. These were separate investigations by the police and the Health Minister. Initially neither was aware of the other's investigation.

      Health Minister Syvret honestly answered a question in parliament and all hell broke loose. But you say he is not a whistleblower.
      Gobbels would be proud of you!


      You say that Syvret's trials were not secret and refer to a near empty court record. -That's odd because it was referred to as secret in the UK Parliament.
      Something to do with it not being known about and people not being allowed to attend or see any supposed evidence or defence.
      It really is amazing how people across the world do not "appeal" against the result of political or show trials -especially in places with no separation of powers.

      Still hilarious.

      Delete
    2. Hilarious when you talk about protecting paedophiles and at the same time make excuses for people not to give evidence to a Public Inquiry into Child abuse.

      Delete
    3. this Public Inquiry into Child abuse is a £27 million sham

      Delete
  9. Wish this debate would get back to 2017.
    Stuart Syvret never partook in the COI so why go on about it?
    Fact is, lots of people did with lots of issues addressed and many of us await the conclusions.
    If people have no faith in the COI then that is up to them but for those who do lets stop raking over old ground and look ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can we please get back to current events? The COI is a current event. Mr Syvret refusing to give his evidence whatever the reason(s) is not. It has been done to death. Always going around in circles. There is nothing new to be said on it. Either by him or anyone else. Let us talk about the one thing we all probably can agree upon including Mr Syvret I would think. We need to finally win a separation of powers. Let us talk about how we might ever get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As someone said earlier. Hear! Hear!

      Delete
  11. When Stuart Syvret stood and answered the now 'famous' question from (I believe) Deputy Judy Martin as to whether he had 'faith' in the childrens services in this Island we have to remember that NONE of what has come to light was known to the general public. So all you folk who keep on giving Stuart such a hard time take a very long look in your mirror and ask yourself if YOU would have had the courage to say what he said on that day knowing full well that the might of the PTB would be turned in your direction. I have always supported Stuart and I fully respect his decision not to give evidence to the CoI. What I sincerely hope is that this CoI will not produce a damp squib. As a mature adult male I cannot for the life of me understand what would drive anyone to take the innocence from a small child, this act of evil is for me beyond comprehension. These creatures do not deserve any compassion whatsoever and will burn in hell for what they have done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As someone said earlier. Hear! Hear!

      Delete
  12. Interesting that the non-inclusion of my evidence and testimony in the CoI still provokes such discussion.

    Alas - equally predictable that much of the commentary continues to be ignorant nonsense.

    I'll respond in more detail later.

    For the moment - for anyone who is confused, yet genuinely interested in the subject of child-protection in Jersey - which - after all - comes down to one thing - and one thing only - "does the effective and real rule-of-law exist in Jersey?" - I recommend borrowing the Judicial Review Handbook, and Human Rights Practice, from the library - and make good use of the indexes of both books - and research such questions as rights to a fair hearing, legal representation, disclosure, legislative-purpose, practical steps, right to a family life, proportionality, burdens on signatory states, responsibilities of a public body, etc - etc - etc.

    We're interested in the real rule-of-law - yes?

    I can state now - for a stone fact - all of the above legal research shows my position to be in accordance with the rule-of-law - and the conduct of this so-called "public-inquiry" to be incompatible with the rule-of-law. Which - more significantly - shows the conduct of the UK authorities to be non-compatible with the rule-of-law. Let anyone who disagrees cite case-law.

    The real situation is this - the CoI - this fake "public-inquiry" - chose to unlawfully exclude me from giving evidence. It did so through the device of manufacturing fake - unlawful - coercive "conditions" - wholly illegitimate "protocols" - and taking unlawful actions such as refusing to provide a key witness with legal representation - and a number of other stark - overt - direct acts of witness-intimidation and harassment; for example - the extraordinary - wholly extraordinary - act of basing the "public-inquiry" in the office-block of a fatally conflicted and contaminated Jersey law-firm.

    Hey - the choice is yours - Jersey public - at the end of the day: you want the real rule-of-law? - Or you don't want the real rule-of-law?

    By accepting £25 million of laughably ultra- vires crap as a "public-inquiry" - you don't want the real rule-of-law. Well - you might think you do. But you don't. Not really.

    If you did - you wouldn't tolerate being humiliated in that way.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart, you are the ONLY person out of some 400 witnesses to the Inquiry who says its unlawful, ultra virus etc and lets be honest, are you a qualified lawyer? No.
      I gave evidence and will never understand or share your views on this.
      It is time you walked away from it all for good, and stopped pretending to know more about the legal aspects of the Inquiry and credibility of the people involved. You are not involved and in reality these views of yours have no bearing anyway.

      Delete
    2. Fair play.
      This reminds me of a bad loser, in a lost game, who says it was a stupid game anyway.

      Delete
    3. Please don't bother Mr Syvret. We have heard it all before.

      You turned out a bit like Blair's New Labour. You inspired so much hope. Then when it came to the crunch every time you found excuses not to deliver.

      You have been wronged and sickeningly so. But that does not disguise the fact that on this you are as wrong as anyone could be.

      Time to take the needle off of the record. It is scratched beyond repair.

      Delete
    4. I fully respect Stuart's decision not to go for it. If the CoI was any good, they would have ordered him in.

      Delete
    5. If he had any decent evidence he would have used it to screw the Island over years ago.

      Delete
    6. And if he was really any good he would have given his evidence to it anyway. As so many others gave their evidence without the protection or ego trip of legal representation his excuses just don't add up. Never did.

      Delete
  13. VFC, a previous commenter has stated that the COI cost 27 million, I thought it was nearer 14 million, can you shed some light on the matter, it is important that we have the FACTS as there has been so much unreliable propaganda put about. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without being able to check my notes I believe £23m is closer. I will soon be publishing an interview with U.S. Journalist, and author, Leah McGrath Goodman who explains how a majority of this money was spent. Suffice to say it wasn't spent on the Victims/Survivors or their Lawyer(s).

      Delete
  14. Stuart. Post off copies of all your files of evidence today. Even better deliver them personally. Then shut up and live your life. Threats of legal action/persecution never stopped you and a few others before. Why let it now?

    ReplyDelete
  15. VCR, when is the CoI report due to be published? What is expected to come out of it? Are the people who the CoI identifies as having committed crimes likely to be sentenced after it's release? Perhaps these are basic questions and I should know the answers but I don't. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one will be prosecuted as a result of the COI. Even those like our Bailiffs and Lewis who deserve it so much. The best we can hope for is more and more people recognising what spivs they are.

      Delete
  16. Still waiting.

    Still waiting - for so much as one comment - even one - which is based on legal fact.

    Still waiting for so much as one comment which cites a legal justification for the CoI - the "public-body" - ignoring a core part of its "legislative-purpose" - 'Part e' of the decision of the legislature.

    All those comments - "just co-operate - blah,blah" - "there's nothing wrong with the vires of the CoI - yada yada" - you're the only key witness who doesn't co-operate - blada, blada (I'm not. I'm the only one of that substantial number who openly says why he hasn't engaged with this "inquiry") - "you're irrelevant anyway! (No as admitted in writing by the CoI, I'm a core witness.) - "There's noting wrong with the CoI agreeing to work with directly conflicted witnesses who were - actually, civil servants directly involved in the CSA cover-us in 2006/7 - yip, yip" - "it was perfectly OK for the CoI to be THE ONLY STATUTORY INQUIRY to have taken place in all the British Isles since Profumo, to have ignored the Salmon Principles - and ignored the legally obligatory requirements of the ECHR - bladadee bladadeyip-yap-gurgle". Etc - etc.

    Still waiting.

    Still waiting.

    And we'll still be waiting in a month’s time - for any credible, legal, case-law based attempted rebuttal of my position.

    There will be no legally robust rebuttal of my position. Because no such rebuttal is available - in law.

    Look, I was there when Council to the inquiry lied - just straight-up - brazenly lied - in asserting the CoI "did not have the power to subpoena witnesses". - ! - That was a simple lie - a lie passively accepted in silence by the Chair & her panel members.

    I could write chapters on the ways in which this CoI is ultra vires. Well, I have, actually, for future use.

    In the mean time - for interested observers who don't know the law and legal principles involved, but who follow this debate. Judge who is right & who is wrong, based on legal principles and case-law. Comments which attack me - but which cannot cite credible legal argument to back-up their position - can be safely dismissed as the work of trolls.

    I carry a range of public-interest burdens which I have to consider. For example - serious doubt and uncertainties as to what impact the CoI process will have had on the outstanding issues of bringing certain overt - widely know - child-abusers to justice. That's an example of my overriding concern. I haven't given up - will never give up - on seeing known abusers - and other criminals, such as the rapist 737 - charged and prosecuted.

    Stuart Syvret

    ....CONTINUED.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still whining more like. Still stuck in the past. Re-living every day the mistake you made in not giving your evidence but not able to face up to the fact that regardless of all the many things you say that are true there was/is NO LEGAL argument why you could not do so.

      Delete
  17. ...CONTINUED FROM ABOVE....

    The refusal of the CoI to obey the requirements of the ECHR, and give me unconditional legal representation so I could take advice on such issues, and whether my testimony - and that of others - as witnesses may become "contaminated" or "spent" or otherwise "neutralised” in some way in respect of future criminal & civil actions, was the CoI constructively excluding me.

    Excluding me with no justification - they had £25 million of public money for just such purposes - they had no legitimate grounds to ignore Part e - no legitimate grounds to refuse effective legal representation - no legitimate grounds to run a process in which a room of full-time paid professionals were always present representing the state & Establishment - yet not one full-time professional was present representing the survivors, whistle-blowers & public-interest.

    The basic fact is this - I COULD HAVE BEEN - AND WAS GOING TO BE - a witness to this CoI - and wrote to it, to that effect, when it was first begun. It was the CoI - in its openly and startlingly ultra vires conduct and response - the sheer intimidatingly, unlawful, and threatening response of the CoI - that determined that - in fact - I would be excluded from the process.

    The choice that I should be excluded as a witness was the choice of the CoI, Eversheds and the Law Officers Department - it was not my choice.

    The interested can observe for themselves just how little confidence the CoI has in its decision to exclude me. You can do this by going to the CoI website and seek in the list of 'Key Documents' the "ruling" they produced in an attempt to "justify" their refusal to meet the requirements of the Salmon Principles and of the ECHR when rejecting my application for simple legal representation.

    Fascinatingly - that ludicrous and wrong document has been removed from the list of Key Documents - and you will have to dig through the site to eventually find it - hidden away from casual view. The CoI are embarrassed by it; embarrassed by such a disgusting, intimidatory ultra vires screed of witness-threatening cobblers.

    I was ready and willing to work with this CoI - and I wrote to them to that effect. But - in a number of ways - this CoI decided it preferred to constructively exclude me.

    Those who have a problem with me being constructively excluded by the CoI - take up complaint with the CoI. And if you don’t understand the law - here’s a simple tip; borrow the Judicial Review Handbook from the library. Look up the chapter on the Human Rights Act, (P.9) and at para 9.4.1 you will read of a “Public Authority [the CoI is a public authority] duty to act ECHR-compatibly.”

    The CoI has failed to do that.

    You could also read the chapter on “Frustrating the Legislative Purpose” (P.53) which explains that “A body [that is a public-authority such as the CoI] must act so as to promote the purpose for which the power was conferred.”

    The CoI ignored - unlawfully - Part e of the legislative purpose. And in broad terms - following pointless - un-necessary - disproportional - actually obstructive - policies which served to actually frustrate the legislative purpose. For example, obstructing a full and detailed - effective - public inquiry - by ignoring the Salmon Principles,and the ECHR, and thus intimidating and excluding vital core witnesses.

    I could go on.

    The list of ultra vires acts and omissions of this CoI are virtually endless.

    And are of dramatic seriousness.

    The mistake the Jersey, Whitehall & City of London mafia make, is thinking the passage of time fades their various criminalities. It doesn't.

    Rather - the ledger simply grows.

    And I want the Jersey child-abusers - and rapists - we know who they are - prosecuted.

    Nothing less.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its all listen to ME ME ME ME ME.
      This is not a Virtual Court Stuart but a Blog and I have to agree with a comment above, if you had anything worth using you would have used it long before this Col.
      All your Legal claims against the Col amount to nothing online, but what you should do is stop trying to wreck this Col for the others just because 'you don't like it'.
      The proverbial record is worn out.

      Delete
    2. Well I back Stuart Syvret's position 100%. He should have been granted paid legal advice of his choosing.

      Delete
    3. Stuart you keep on saying that people have to answer you with legal argument when you've already had your legal arguments answered when trying to sue the States of Jersey.
      They were struck out weren't they?

      And the Col's reasons for not giving you legal representation are publicly detailed and viewable online, so why are you asking people on here to explain it to you?

      This is like being lost in the twilight zone sometimes.

      Delete
  18. "I want the Jersey child-abusers - and rapists - we know who they are - prosecuted.
    Nothing less.

    Stuart Syvret"

    Then what are you hanging around for; or has your non action, but online meddling, actually stuffed some of these sickos being prosecuted? I thank VFC for allowing critical comments on here but are they just airing what others are thinking....The whole thing is too late and these feeble excuses are only irritating, the train has gone down the track and......... has been scrapped.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't believe Stuart's evidence would have made any difference quite frankly. Think back to the first Hillsborough inquiry. And that dreadful inquiry in North Wales where the abused were told what to say by the police.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Two questions. If Ex Senator Stuart Syvret had been subpoenaed, could he have chosen his own legal advice?
    And. Why wasn't Health and Social Services Chief Executive of that vital time (Mike Pollard) put before The COI?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good question indeed.

      We must not let the CoI or the mainstream media forget this question when the report is produced.

      Why did former Health and Social Services Chief Executive Mike Pollard not appear before the inquiry?

      Delete
  21. Is it possible for this response to be hyper linked?

    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Key%20Documents/Application%20for%20funding%20of%20legal%20representation%20for%20Stuart%20Syvret%20with%20documents.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty clear as to why you were refused legal representation Stuart.
      If you had counter arguments and were enthusiastic to be involved then you should have raised them straight away, rather than carry on moaning about it after the Col has finished.

      Delete
  22. It is a shame this Syvret pantomime gets to hijack a blog highlighting a variety of important stories. Seems like he just cannot let go of something that has already gone. best if he just kept quiet until the report comes out. Maybe then he will even be able to point to things and say 'I told you so'. in contrast maybe his critics will be able to point to things and say 'Look. We told you so. If Syvret had given his evidence X,Y and Z would be all the more undeniable. Personally I fear that the latter is more likely. Maybe time for a new post? Predictions for the Option B+ farce debate? Plenty of other good propositions around to debate too. Not least being all these about the double standards under which Constables are allowed to operate. All more relevant and interesting than listening to all my yesterdays again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed.
      We are where we are, and no matter what is said, Stuart Syvret chose not to be part of this Inquiry and never will be, so he missed the bus.
      We must move on.

      Delete
  23. If I may take us back to current political matters do people agree that this progressives and bloggers fall out with Deputy Mezec over the Lewis proposition is getting a bit heated and over the top? What does vfc think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Lewis has played a blinder. Pity others don't see it.

      Delete
    2. Yup, Reform Jersey have fallen for Lewis, hook, line and sinker.
      And its not over.

      Delete
    3. Keep cam otherwise we really do play in to the hands of the Establishment. beware trolls and THE troll especially trying to make gain out of this difference of opinion. THE troll has always loved Lewis for undermining the abuse inquiry. Now he is busy on facebook and on the JEp site as Kaz81 slating him just to get at Mezec.

      Delete
    4. I see a lot of parallels here.

      Divide and rule is as ever one of the stock tactics of the shysters

      We had a £23m CoI which failed to successfully engage with the Health minster (or subpoena him).
      We are told that this is water under the bridge and that we should "move on" and "he missed the bus" etc.

      We now have another establishment driven "bus" which is about to leave. Arguably the best/only chance of improving Jersey's democracy, at least before the next elections. And we have Deputy Mezec being vilified in some quarters for apparently climbing aboard this  P.133 bus despite it being seriously flawed and tainted.

      Can no one else see the parallels here? -Surely they can.

      Personally I have more confidence in Mr.Syvret's understanding and judgement than in Mr.Mezec's.

      There is an ongoing clamour for us to stop talking about the CoI not taking evidence from Health Minister Syvret (*and* others), but they did not despite their budget and apparent statutory powers. This remains a fact and that elephant shall still be in the room when the half baked report comes out.

      A basic defence to mitigate against the divide and rule tactic is to keep calm and agree to disagree and accept that the alternate opinion has some merits.

      The establishment has not played a blinder. They merely own the ball, the pitch, the umpire and they write the rules.
      Did anyone notice the goalposts shift?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Shame you removed your comment Gill because it was something that had to be said.
      Stuart Syvret has let survivors down and there is no going back.

      Delete
    7. Two matters here - firstly I do strongly feel that Reform are sadly misguided on the matter of the Lewis proposition, and in the process of supporting it they will undo a lot of what the have achieved thus far. Forget about the 'Troll' - he is insignificant and irrelevant in all this. People have him sussed out and take little notice of him. What Reform need to take heed of is their supporters who do NOT agree with what they are doing for very valid reasons.

      Secondly Stuart - Stuart please do not bore us any more with your continual 'poor me', 'ultra vires' comments. I too was a big supporter of yours, but sadly your actions in regard to the CoI have left a bitter taste, not only for me, but many others as well. You were never afraid of coming forward, even though you knew it may mean many steps backwards. As far as I am concerned, you have not only let the survivors you claim to care so much about down, but in the process people who put their faith and trust in you. You can explain as many times as you like the reasons why, but your forthrightness and courage has never left you before. I personally still have faith that the report will deliver and forgive me if I am wrong, but your negativity is getting quite frankly boring.

      Could it be Stuart that the CoI were able to access all your blogs and read your evidence that way, and could it be that the contempt with which you held the CoI team also meant that it was not worth you hi-jacking the whole process with your rather forceful and some times unacceptable behaviour.

      Think about it Stuart.

      Delete
    8. 'Agree to disagree'. Very true sentiments if somewhat ironic as Stuart Syvret demonstrated again and again over the years if anyone disagreed with him they were against him. Now on this P133 proposition - a lousy, ill-considered and undoubtedly engineered only to try and rehabilitate a vulgar coward as people say, we see Sam Mezec slipping in to the old Syvret if you are not with me you are against me paranoia. People are sick of your excuses Stuart Syvret. No wonder the establishment win. As to myself I am tired of Syvret's excuses and even more so his inability to let go on something he quite legitimately decided not to do. In regard to the young Deputy I like him to as I did the former. He has made his decision. It is his right. I would just say accept how strongly many people feel about you aid Lewis by default. Perhaps you will be proven correct that it was worth it in the long run. Please just don't turn in to a self-obsessed echo chamber like your political predecessor.

      Delete
    9. Well and bravely said Gill. That must have hurt but telling the truth often does. You have been such a big supporter of Stuart and the handful of others who have fought from the cesspit of the States. I hope Stuart listens to you.

      Delete
  24. If Sam Mezec is getting grief then add me to the list of trolls because I am equally angry at his association with Andrew Lewis and the timing of it sucks.
    It has taken Sam ages to admit his involvement, we have heard not a murmur from Monty and I was flabbergasted to see Sam calling people silly names for having views against P133. Maybe Sam needs a few years to mature a little more, because his interaction online over the past week by saying people talk out of their backsides among many other things has been embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The saddest thing in all of this is that whatever the long-term merits might be with regard to making the town/country imbalance fairer this largely crap proposition will get thrashed anyway. So all this fuss and fallout for nowt.

    ReplyDelete
  26. To be fair to RJ they have been caught in one of these;-
    Zugzwang - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang
    Zugzwang (German for "compulsion to move", pronounced [ˈtsuːktsvaŋ]) is a situation found in chess and other games wherein one player is put at a disadvantage because they must make a move when they would prefer to pass and not move.

    Andrew Lewis is a dangerous 'Yond Cassius' he is willing to be a chameleon to get what he needs , that is the game being played out here.

    This is someone with all the 'pleasantness ' of Julian Assange , dangerous because he cannot know if he is about to be pilloried by the CoI and skilled enough to start positioning himself for power if he is not 'destroyed' by it.

    Do not blame Sam and the others , blame yourselves if you have been taken in by his game , your gullibility will give him power and destroy whatever vestiges of democracy remain in Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Almost forgot. The comment about 'moving the goalposts'

    With apologies to Billy Bragg from a song with the same name.

    I put on my raincoat to make it rain
    And sure enough the skies opened up again
    I dreamed of you as I walked to the shops
    You were dancing with the wallies on top of the pops

    Once in a while
    Andrew Lewis drops his smile
    And you can see that his aim's
    A portfolio pregnant with gains

    He's been up all night
    Moving the goalposts



    Read more: Billy Bragg - Moving The Goalposts Lyrics | MetroLyrics

    ReplyDelete
  28. When is the next post coming? Had enough of the bickering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me to, but this will not go away until P133 is defeated.

      Delete
  29. Why is the Jersey CoI reporting this?:

    "Jersey Inquiry ‏@JerseyInquiry · 55m55 minutes ago

    #Iran's ex-President #Rafsanjani dies at 82"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They also tweeted about Andy Murray on 18 December 2016 but it was quickly removed. The source of both these tweets was the BBC.

      All very mysterious.

      Delete
  30. Case-law boys and girls - case-law?

    Where is it?

    Or even this?

    Cite for me one other statutory public-inquiry post-profumo which refused to provide legal representation to a core witness?

    Or this?

    Cite for me one other statutory public-inquiry which incorporated into its staff - and agreed to used as a single point of contact for "evidence-gathering" - individuals who were directly conflicted, involved, core parties themselves?

    All thinking people will notice the previous - and ongoing - failure to answer those questions.

    All we have - and we will have - is further diversion.

    Fact - the so-called Jersey "public-inquiry" is a fake - an ultra vires sham - which has failed to meet basic legal tests - and which constructively excluded and intimidated a key witness. Fact.

    And to answer Gillian above - and it saddens me that this day has come - but it always had a certain inevitability about it, given the divide-to-rule strategy of the establishment - Gillian, tell me - how many campaign groups - how many core-participant representative organisations - would have sat through the entirety - THE ENTIRETY of a statutory public-inquiry - whilst the room never had less than seven - SEVEN - full-time paid professionals on the side of the culpable public-authorities - and 99% of the time not so much as one paid, professional present representing the members, victims or public-interest side?

    None.

    That's how many.

    No campaign organisation anywhere else in the British Isles would have failed so catastrophically.

    Sadly - tragically - you & others failed Gillian. Failed. Failed in ways which are unique in their sheer extremity - unique in modern British administrative history.

    I don't blame you Gillian. I truly don't. I could see from the very get-go how you and others were simply miles - miles - out-of-your-depth - and the Jersey mafia were running rings around you. Just don't blame me for your failures Gillian. No other campaign-group in the British-Isles would have let an inquiry-panel intimidate and refuse to give legal representation to one of their cause's whistleblowers and vital core witnesses without so much as an e-mail of objection.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And please stop blaming everybody else for your own crass stupidity and self-induced failure.

      You've played a blinder since 2010 haven't you Stuart. Everyone out of their depth but you.

      Even Nick Le Cornu doesn't blame others for his failings as much as you do.

      Delete
    2. Case-law?

      Facts?

      The previous questions were plainly too difficult for the spin-doctors; a touch too intellectually challenging perhaps?

      OK - try this: - cite for us any other jurisdiction in modern Europe - let alone any supporting British case-law - which deems it acceptable for directly - directly, personally - conflicted individuals - such as Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, William Bailhache, Tim Le Cocq, etc - to control, operate and appoint their own "prosecution" and "judicial" systems to oppress their political opponents and those who are exposing their child-abuse-cover-ups?

      For example, as explained in the following posting and especially the appended formal 2008 Report to UK Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw: -

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/jack-straw-and-the-illegal-jersey-child-abuse-cover-up/

      Perhaps those interested in the dissemination of the evidenced history and facts will make a link for us?

      The interested international audience won't be holding their breath for the factual, case-law based answers we seek.

      They've long-since known what we're dealing with in Jersey is the quasi-legal liminal sewer of the British legal establishment.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. Stuart,

      You simply do not understand how we do things in Jersey.

      Always have and always will.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      Delete
    4. Stuart we've heard it all before and you have to ask yourself what this has achieved for you personally?
      You lost your seat in the States, you failed to get it back twice, you were raided, you went to prison twice, you were threatened with bankruptcy etc etc. At the end of it all you could have had some dignity and at least attended this Inquiry all guns blazing, but no, you've ended up looking like a fibber who never had anything to give in the first place.
      So stop attacking others who have attended and given evidence because it only makes you look more ridiculous.

      Delete
    5. And this is exactly the type of response I expected Stuart, and why I removed it in the first instance. So what 'failures' are we talking about Stuart? The JCLA and others went the extra mile in particular in regard to the Inquiry. We tried and succeeded (I hope) to engage with the Inquiry team in a civilised manner if we had any concerns, and not alienate ourselves.

      Is the failure you talk about a pre-empting of a report that does meet your expectations? None of us know what the report will say, but was not the process of the Inquiry a cathartic exercise for the survivors to be able to have a voice, for the failures in the system to be revealed, and for the doubting public to realise that shocking crimes did take place?

      We will have to agree to disagree Stuart, and as you say it is sad it has come to this. The Report is yet to come and none of us know what it will contain. Neither you nor I or anybody can change that, but to call the hard work we did a failure is insulting to all. At least we did our best. Try working with people Stuart, not against.

      Delete
    6. Jill, I regret to inform you that we can be pretty certain about what the CoI final report will contain (and what it will not contain)

      A detail which we are currently unsure of is whether Lewis will really be nailed as the fall guy to let the real organ grinders off the hook.

      It is just possible that the CoI will accept the validity of 'alternative versions of the truth'. Failing that they may dwell on the mitigating circumstances that Lewis was merely a caretaker minister (after the previous one refused to play ball) and he was "inexperienced" and had only been in the job for a few weeks.

      The above will be wrapped and hidden in layers of hand wringing and ultimately empty platitudes which some will accept as cathartic

      I do hope that these predictions are wrong and that the lame duck will lay a golden egg.

      Which way has the tide been flowing since day 1 of the CoI ?

      Delete
    7. I too hope and pray your predictions will be wrong. None of us know at this stage, and if they do prove to be as you say I will be at the head of the queue of the baying mob.

      The tide has been ebbing and flowing many times since Day 1 of the CoI, and I am still optimistic.

      Delete
  31. @23:01 Look how ridiculous Trevor Pitman looked when the fake CoI asked him about his time as youth worker AND NOTHING ELSE.

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-witness.html

    "On Wednesday 18 November (day 109 of Inquiry) anti Child Abuse campaigner, and former Jersey politician, Trevor Pitman, gave his, much anticipated, evidence as a public witness to the on-going CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY.

    Mr. Pitman's substantial statement, with some 20 plus supporting documents, was believed to be a damming, and scathing, indictment on Jersey authorities, not only in Child Protection failures, but in the corrupt and politicised "justice" system which, it is believed, is at the heart of the Child Abuse cover-ups.

    In the video interview below Mr. Pitman talks of his shock after being asked by lawyers to the Inquiry to familiarise himself with a number of documents because he was to be asked questions on them. Only to discover that NO questions were asked on the documents he was provided. Why would the Inquiry Team apparently mislead, or waste a witness' time like this?"

    ReplyDelete
  32. What Stuart Syvret says bears repeating:

    "Cite for me one other statutory public-inquiry which incorporated into its staff - and agreed to used as a single point of contact for "evidence-gathering" - individuals who were directly conflicted, involved, core parties themselves? "

    This inquiry totally blew its credibility when it granted an evidence-gathering role to two longstanding senior civil servants from the Health department.

    There you have it, The Jersey Way, in plain sight.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, William Bailhache, Tim Le Cocq, etc - to control, operate and appoint their own "prosecution" and "judicial" systems to oppress their political opponents and those who are exposing their child-abuse-cover-ups?"

    Oh for God's sake if it was like you say it is then why doesn't anybody else ever publicly agree with you?
    Besides they have no need to oppress political opponents exposing child-abuse-cover-ups because you never put any of your words into action.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Happy Serf has a point difficult to refute. Ex Deputy Pitman's witness statement was damning by anyone's standards as anyone who managed to read it all between its many disappearances would have to attest. And yet just as THS says come his public appearance, which I believe I am right in saying he returned to the island specifically for, he was treated with utter contempt. Why would Syvret want to go through that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Stuart Syvret was a former HSS Minister who had a duty to give evidence to an Inquiry that covered his tenure of office?

      These excuses for his non attendance are getting just as boring as his ultra vires nonsense.
      What is not done, cannot be undone, so it is time to move on.

      Delete
    2. @14:03 is right. The Ex health minister who was the first to publicly blow the lid off the unfitness and state sponsored abuse occurring in Jersey children's services should endure the death threats, the "data violation" imprisonments, the destruction of his relationships, home and career and just DO HIS DUTY of testifying before this mock CoI.

      A real CoI would have subpoenaed the Ex health minister ....and therefore provided him with the legal representation that they prefer to only lavish on their own side.
      ......but @14:03 is apparently happy with accepting the inevitability of a fake CoI costing £23m and it is "time to move on" because Jersey has proved time and time again that if you don't fix a problem it will just go away on it's own.

      These excuses non-acceptance of an unfit CoI are getting just as boring.

      Delete
    3. That seems right. That's what I don't get about all this argument. One of the 'big things' about the whole idea of a public inquiry is that it's like a court when it comes to its powers to have witnesses dragged before it. If it wasnt that way, how could any public inquiries ever get to the truth? But didn't I read somewhere that a lawyer to the COI claimed they didnt have the power to subpoena witnesses? If that was said then that's obviously a false thing to have said because we all remember the whole point of having a public inquiry was the power to get at all the truth no matter what?

      So why didnt they subpoena Syvret? Now I think about it why didnt they subpoena the social worker I told about my abuse? Why didn't they subpeopone a load of other people from in the establishment I can think of? When you stop to think about it it makes no difference whether Syvret is an uncooperative bastard or not that's not the argument. The argument is why didnt the COI use its powers to force a load of witnesses who were no-shows? Why? That's the real argument.

      Delete
    4. 'So why didn't they subpoena Syvret?'

      Jill may have hit the nail on the head earlier. Stuart has been so disruptive and scathing of the Inquiry Team that they probably thought he would never co-operate with them even if they tried to force him to. The Col have done their best to get people to come forward and give their accounts but sadly Stuart and his vendetta against the whole system has got the better of him.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous @11:20 has really hit the nail on the head as to "why the CoI didn't they subpoena Syvret".

      The £23m CoI was scared that the Ex Health Minister might be "disruptive and scathing" .......Poor, poor CoI

      Stuart and his vendetta against the whole Jersey child abuse system really has got the better of him.

      It is also good that The CoI pretty much refused to engage with that aggressive and rude Daniel Wimberley's 13 concerns published at:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html
      "Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry A Fake, Partial, Incompetent?"


      That Trevor Pitman can be quite "disruptive and scathing" too!
      Repetition is sooooo boring , would you like the link?

      Delete
  35. Is P133 debated at next week's States sitting? I couldn't see it on the list?

    ReplyDelete
  36. When is the Leah Goodman interview going up? This post is being ruined by the same old repetitious Syvret excuses. It would be good to hear what Ms Goodman has to say. For once there is actually loads of interesting and important stuff coming up in the States. How about interviews with Deputies Higgins and Tadier on their propositions? Playing devil's advocate what about doing an interview with Deputy Mezec on this P133 proposition and all the animosity Reform Jersey's support for it has sparked? Got to be more stimulating than Syvret just going over and over the same old ground. Respected the man loads years ago but I have never heard someone go on and on moaning about a decision he himself made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope to publish my interview with Leah McGrath Goodman within the next couple of days

      Delete
    2. Leah McGrath Goodman is HOT! A babe with brains and a social conscience. Think I am in love LUV!

      Delete
    3. I think letting that comment through was a poor judgment VFC.

      Women should be treated with more respect than that. LMG is a talented journalist. Such tacky, sexist, objectification should have no place here.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    4. I read it as a compliment in that the commenter was saying Leah had brains, beauty, and a social conscience. That was why it was published.

      Delete
    5. I'm a fan and it made me smile.

      Time to lighten up.

      What does Leah think?

      Delete
    6. Me too. Joking that someone has a social conscience (a good and rare thing in Jersey) has brains (even rarer in Jersey political circles) and happens to be attractive (not essential in life but which of us would turn such good fortune down?) is hardly being derogatory or sexist.

      Perhaps the former Senator is feeling a bit unloved? So here we go. Mister Syvret you have brains. You also clearly have a social conscience. And although you aren't my type I am sure you float someone somewhere's boat and get them all excited too! Happy New Year!

      Yes, I know its now the second week of January but its my first visit to the blog since before Christmas so ya boo shucks.

      Delete
    7. Personally I do not have a problem with the "Leah McGrath Goodman is HOT! A babe with brains ......."

      I guessed it to be light hearted and complementary.
      Boys will be boys and girls will be variously .....flattered, insulted, dismissive, eye-rolling etc. etc. depending on their circumstances, their character and their mood etc. etc.

      What matters of course is what Leah thinks. 
      If Leah is insulted she does have a right to be. 
      My guess is that she has more important things to think about but I hope that the comment gave a smile and maybe a warm feeling for the rest of the day.
      VFC has met Ms McGrath Goodman on a number of occasions and I expect that he has made a reasonable judgement on this.

      The Ex Health Minister's objection to the comment is entirely consistent with the way he used to administer his own blog. On at least one occasion Mr Syvret required a comment of mine to be re-drafted because he judged it to be misogynistic. I did not think that it was, but I duly toned down my criticism of a BBC "babe" who was (literally) a past bedfellow of at least one of the Kray twins.
      The Kray twins were friendly with many pillars of the community including MPs and one of the Kray twins was known to be a prolific child abuser.

      Mr Syvret is an uncompromising man. He deserves our respect and thanks for that because otherwise during his long political carer he would have been absorbed by the establishment like so many others


      On a lighter note; I too have long admired Ms McGrath Goodman's intellect and ............ errr.....she does scrub up well, doesn't she?
      ;-)

      Delete
    8. Mr Syvret lost all my respect after he snubbed the Col and we tried very hard on here and Rico's blog to get him to reconsider and I recall he even resorted to calling us Trolls for trying.
      It is impossible to command respect when you say you are going to do so many things and then end up doing nothing.

      Delete
    9. @13:03
      Luckily the Ex Health Minister breathes air does not breathe your respect so I expect he will survive.

      It is a dilemma wither or not to willingly engage with a flawed and skewed situation. Sam Mezec is currently being slated for willingly cooperating with 'a smooth talking satan'. This is the only chance, the bus/train [generic public transport] is leaving, yadder yadder.....

      Mr.Syvret has provided his reasons, and if you don't like them you should get over yourself.

      If/when the CoI report is not all you had hoped for when you take of all the wrappings of sugar paper it will largely down to Mr.Syvret's stand that your war will not be over.

      A final report largely consisting of empty platitudes would be an act of further wicked cruelty inflicted upon survivors and campaigners.

      The CoI lost all credibility when it failed to subpoena the Health Minister and others.
      The CoI can only give closure if the final report is adequate. with the catalogue of failures and bias already, I can't see how it can be.
      Time will tell, followed by careful analysis.

      Delete
    10. With all due respect the JCLA have stated that they are angry by the way Stuart Syvret has gone about this so I think you had better get over yourself!

      Besides you keep on linking his blog which is only that, a blog.
      To get things done in this World you have to go much further than writing blogs otherwise we would not have needed any Col.

      Delete
    11. I’m not sure the JCLA have stated it is “angry by the way Stuart Syvret has gone about this?”

      As always I do stand to be corrected should the reader/commenter wish to point me in the direction of where the JCLA has said this?

      Delete
    12. I stand corrected, angry is probably the wrong word, displeased maybe better.

      Delete
    13. Can you show me/readers where the JCLA has said it was “displeased?” I’m not saying it didn’t say that, I’m saying I am unaware of it.

      Delete
    14. I too look forward to the commenter providing a link to the JCLA stated it is “angry by the way Stuart Syvret has gone about this?”

      If he can, then goof for him. If he can't then he is probably being 'economical with the truth'.
      [EDIT: I see that "displeased" is now the link we await]

      It should be noted of course that the JCLA is a survivor's association and not an individual. As an association there will no doubt be a wide variety of opinions among it's members. It should also be noted that many care and abuse survivors are not members of the JCLA.

      The commenter objects to me linking to the Ex Health Minister's blog. Why would that be? and why should we suffer the Ex Health Minister being endlessly denounced by one or more commenters?
      In any case the vast majority of the links I provide are to other pages of the VFC blog. Perhaps He would rather I desisted.

      Oh, Here is a link to VFC's all time top posting:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/stuart-syvret-rule-of-law-and-bbc.html

      I can't tell you who it features because I would like you to have a good day
      :-)

      Delete
    15. I'd say Gillian's post of the 8th January shows the JCLA hardly supports Stuart Syvret stance when they say he has left them with a bitter taste.

      Delete
    16. But in reality “They” (JCLA) have made absolutely no comment whatsoever in regards to Stuart giving evidence or not. You must be careful not to start spreading conspiracy theories.

      You shouldn't read into things that aren't there.

      Delete
  37. I wish this Blog would get away from Stuart Syvret and his constant attacking of the Jersey Care Inquiry.
    I am bored of reading about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! Yes! Yes! But in closing the Syvret never ending circle of repetition can I just say this? IMHO he is a babe. he has brains and he has a social conscience. Now jog the fcuk on!

      Delete
    2. Born not to do this10 January 2017 at 15:00

      PLEASE put the Leah blog up! Please put anything new up! I too like just about everyone else are sick of SS and two apologists banging on about him not being subpoenaed for the evidence he had no intention of giving, probably even under torture.

      Surely everyone accepts no matter how much they disagree with his stance that this was his perfect right. But this was over a year ago now. There is nothing to be gained by allowing him and his two supporters to infiltrate every blog post with rehashes of the same thing.

      Quite possibly SS will be proven right in what he thinks of the COI. Then is the time to do an interview with SS and let him say "There you go wallies!". Trouble is it will still not justify his non-giving of his allegedly crucial evidence in the eyes of just about everyone it seems.

      Just get over yourselves as the third rate DJ and circus hypnotist said in the States.

      Delete

    3. Really @14:12 ?

      If you genuinely are "bored" of reading about criticisms of the "Jersey Care Inquiry" you have perhaps come to the wrong website by mistake.
      The VFC site is largely [90%+] "about criticisms of the Jersey Care Inquiry".

      Would you like us to provide a link to direct you to the JEPaedo site where they do not entertain an such nonsense?


      The "Jersey Care Inquiry"  was actually meant to be a Jersey ABUSE Inquiry and current indications are that inadequate representation, outsourced and secret analysis of the multiple non prosecutions etc etc etc. will potentially heap further ABUSE onto victims after they have stripped the sugar coating off the final report.

      I so hope to be proved wrong.

      VFC provides a quality fact based blog and a forum for open discussion. If you do not like open discussion you should go to the JEPaedo site.

      -------------------------------------

      @ 14:43

      Fabulous! I wish I could be that concise :-)

      The irony that Mr.Syvret is the interviewee of VFC's all time top posting is lost on some

      Delete
    4. Anon at 15:00

      "I too like just about everyone else are sick of SS and two apologists banging on about him not being subpoenaed for the evidence he had no intention of giving, probably even under torture."

      Why didn't Mike Pollard give evidence voluntarily?

      Why wasn't Mike Pollard subpoenaed?

      Did Mike Pollard receive a large golden handshake from the States? Erm, yes...

      Did Mike Pollard's compromise agreement prevent him from giving evidence? Unlikely, the inquiry would almost certainly have the power to override some nasty little cover-up clause in a private agreement, should such a clause exist.

      But the biggest question of all....

      Are you not in the least bit curious about the above?

      Syvret was the politician. Pollard was the Chief Executive. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

      Questions, questions, dear reader...

      Delete
    5. Questions, questions dear reader...

      For those trying to portray Syvret's non-appearance with that of Pollard it seems one very important point eludes them.

      One can well imagine Pollard dreading a request let alone a subpeona to give evidence dropping through the door in the middle of a taxpayer funded guitar lesson. You can even imagine him pushing off to Australia on a sabbatical until it was all over. He would not want to answer questions period.

      Syvret on the other hand having already put every bit of evidence on his blog with no fear of legal repercussions you would have expected to be outside the COI door, ringing the bell on the first Monday morning screaming "Me first! Me first!" with a trailer load of lever-arch files.

      But he wasn't. And he didn't. He has to have legal representation for fear of more 'legal strife'. The 'legal strife' he had never bothered about before fearlessly writing/saying everything he felt needed to be aired.

      Sorry. Just doesn't add up.

      Delete
  38. Agree with a lot. But not that VFC is 90% about the Jersey Care Inquiry. This site has always been about the far wider issues that underlie, and led to this. The blog, like Rico's is one of very few that can hold its head up high by its record. With it must be said about 6 or 7 mainly former States Members. How shameful a ratio is that? This blog will hopefully go on long after the Care Inquiry report is done and dusted, good or bad. Certainly until such time as we have a few more decent people in the States. All opinions should be welcome. I think so many people are just tired of the same old issue going around and around with no end or exit point in sight.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anon at 17.03 so true .

    ReplyDelete
  40. See former and disgraced Deputy Gooley 'Don't leave your emails where I can find 'em' Power is upping is own desperate attempt to get his seat in the States back.

    Everyone knows building the finance centre that will plunge Jersey finally in to the abyss will go ahead anyway. Power is only doing this to raise his profile. A pathetic, desperate man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has connections to other developers who want the business, don't be fooled by the act.

      Delete
  41. Sent a comment earlier today that doesn't seem to have been published. Wasn't offensive. Just highlighting my thoughts on the differences between the contentious non-appearances of Pollard and Syvret. Any reason?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Crieky! Ignore that. Notice it is up the page. Sorry chaps and chapesses.

    ReplyDelete