Friday, 17 March 2017

Ian Gorst's Guide to the Galaxy.



Chief Minister Ian Gorst.


The meaning of everything, according to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was/is 42 but Chief Minister Ian Gorst has his own version.

After the scandal of the Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) was exposed serious questions needed to be asked, or more importantly answered, of those politically responsible i.e Senator Philip Ozouf who signed off two of the loans, and Senator Lyndon Farnham, along with Senator Alan Maclean who between them signed off five of the loans and last but not least Chief Minister Ian Gorst who surely has ultimate responsibility for the actions/in-actions of his Ministers and Assistant Ministers?

We reported HERE. how it looked like Senator Ozouf was being slung under the bus for his part in this fiasco, and in fairness to him, he resigned as Assistant Minister So we know he did "The Honourable Thing." What we DON'T know is if Senator's Maclean and Farnham have also offered to do "The Honourable Thing" or if Chief Minster Gorst asked them to?


Deputy Montfort Tadier.

Reform Jersey's Deputy Montfort Tadier attempted to find this out on 14 February 2017 by tabling the following Oral Question to the Chief Minister:

“Given that Senator Ozouf was not the only Minister to have signed off loans from the Jersey Innovation Fund, will the Chief Minister also be asking Senators Farnham and Maclean to 'step aside' from their Ministerial duties until the relevant investigation has fully reported back?”

This is where we discovered that senator's Farnham and Maclean signed off the majority of the loans but we DIDN'T get an answer to Deputy Tadier's question. So on 14 March 2017 the Deputy attempted once more to get his question addressed if not answered where he tabled the following Oral Question to the Chief Minister.

“Will the Chief Minister state whether, following the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report entitled ‘Jersey Innovation Fund’ (R.3/2017), Senator Farnham and/or Senator Maclean offered to resign as Ministers or whether he, as Chief Minister, asked them to resign?”

Again a pretty straight forward, clear and concise, question? But this is where we discovered that Chief Minister Gorst has his own version of "42" which appears to be "the former Assistant Minister did the honourable thing."

If this (edited video below) didn't make such a mockery of our so called "Democratic Process" it could almost be funny. The fact that the (unelected/unaccountable) Chair(s) of the States Assembly rule it perfectly acceptable for the Chef Minister (and by implication ANY Minister) to "come out with their own version of 42" in "answer" to any question makes the whole so-called "Democratic Process" that much more (almost) laughable and tragic............ 




226 comments:

  1. That 4:25sec is just plain crazy.He might as well just said that his wife makes a nice cheese cake.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gorst will not acknowledge either question asked. If Farnham and Maclean had offered to resign, Ian Gorst clearly did not accept the resignation Why? If he himself asked them the named Farnham and Maclean to resign then that would admit his own failing he is boxed in to the situation and we as the public are not entitled to the information.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Deputy Tadier, you are a mischief-maker. CM Gorst and gang donot like mischief-makers! Keep up the good work Deputy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The states is a farce these days. At least Higgins and the Reform Deputies try to get straight answers. Trouble is there is now no one in the Chamber like Trevor Pitman who would have treated these insulting non-answers with the contempt they deserved, going straight for the jugular. Our backbenchers have to stop allowing our Bailiff to silence them so easily. It is question time but rarely any answers time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good blog from Rico Sorda on the other channel. Team Voice what would we do without them?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The only reliable news sources for political matters now that we don't have the blogs of Stuart, Bob Hill and Trevor's Bald Truth blog and videos. You two knock the State Media into a cocked hat. Long may you both continue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't know how old you are at Voice but if you want to see what most of Jersey's ministers are like without the civil servant written scripts seek out and post a short clip of the Gumbies from the old Monty Python TV show.

    ReplyDelete

  8. The Bailiff in frustration, once reminded Deputy Anne Pryke to answer the question, why did he not ask Gorst to do the same. If nothing else this would have been a formal and recorded slap on the wrist for Gorst.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The man without a spinal column obviously has a problem with letting his one grey cell compute a straight forward question. what is of interest is that in all the attempts by Deputy Tadier and Mezec to get an answer it is noteworthy that Philip Baillache and Paul Routier seemed to find something very interseting in thier feet? Bring on the next election PLEASE!

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is without doubt about as clear an example of the total bias of the (unelected) Bailff in not telling CM Gorst to answer a legitimate question. This is why nothing will change until these unelected spokespersons are removed from our government. It is sad to see the new Queens Governer already 'toeing the line' instead of standing up for the ordinary islander. Come on your Majesty smell the coffee!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I got the impression that Her Majesty was happy with the situation hence her most recent representative telling us that the States are jolly good people and to be 'obeyed'. After all, that's the idea of democracy..

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
  11. Kaz D Bumblebee19 March 2017 at 11:15

    Gorst is appalling but then so are the ministers generally. Personally I would really like to see Montfort Tadier become Chief Minister with Sam Mezec as his Deputy. I would also like to see those who have served the island so well over the years get some proper recognition from the UK instead of all thses establishment stooges, such as former Chief Ministers and jurats. A good example would be Deputy Mike Higgins. I would really like to see him get a well earnt OBE for his political work and his wonderful development of the Battle of Britain Air Display. Possibly a Knighthood would be even more appropriate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This an early April Fool?
      Made me giggle :-)

      Delete
    2. Jurats getting OBEs? I agree that must be an early April Fool! Court cases should be heard by a cross section of the mebers of the public. Not establishment party lackeys who are always old, white and wealthy.

      Agree on Dep Higgisn and his stirling work with the air display. Probably brings in more visitors and cash to our island than all of the idiots like Farnham, Ozouf and Locate Jersey spongers with their £13.000 air jollies.

      Delete
  12. Like it or not, Chief Minister Gorst is doing a good job for the Establishment. He is following well in the footsteps of Walker and Le Suere. Realistically who could replace him or take him out at the next years elections? Any ideas or predictions anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point is he is not doing a good job for the majority of Jersey.

      Delete
  13. That any individual involved in Jersey's bent Royal Court and so called justice system can be awarded an OBE by the Crown or UK government demonstrates just how far up the line the corruption goes. Paedo protectors and anti democrats like Bailhache and Birt already have their kinghthoods. How much more blatant could it get?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jimmy Savile got knighted and he was Jerseys Mr Battle three times.... How more blatant could that get!?

    ReplyDelete
  15. See in the Rag some 62 year old in court for riding his motorbike through red lights when a mother was nearby with her young children. All well and good but how strange that when a man knocks down a well known anti-Jersey Way politician on a zebra crossing with the lights red and against him Bowron's police don't even charge him and our bent court don't prosecute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes.

      That's absolutely right. Well observed.

      What passes for a "Police Force" in Jersey is - repeatedly - pro-actively engaged in shielding criminals - that is, the "well-protected" - Jersey oligarchy approved - criminals.

      I've been trying to make formal statements of criminal complaint to the Jersey "police" - of child-abuse - of corruption - of perjury.

      They won't even take a statement.

      States of Jersey Police Force - since being illegally hi-jacked via illegal suspension of Graham Power = a criminal enterprise.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    2. I waatched the interview about the case referred to above on vfc. Former Deputy Shona Pitman was the victim of the Bowron Keystone Cops and their selective charging mantra. That the police should claim that what had happened was "just an accident so nobody;s fault" was incredible.

      Yet shocking as what happened to Shona Pitman was the most mind-boggling part still was when Deputy Higgisn brought this up in the States and the Home Affairs minister Deputy Moore just made excuses on the lines of "Well, this is a person we all know". As if who the victim was made the police behaviour irrelevant.

      I seem to recall the police then "mislaid" the witness statements and would not even give the victim her own! I hope Stuart, Trevor, Shona herself and even bloogers like you and Rico are careful when you are out walking. As for refusing to take Stuart's statements WTF?

      Delete
  16. The baloney is ozzing out of Ozouf again with this Soft-Bank garbage. Him and his JEP chums are trying to spin this fund being 'managed' by one of our tax-dodge specialists as being huge for the island. Truth of the matter is that a few people will make loads of dosh but the benefit to the island generally will be zero. I just hope for their sake Soft-Bank don't ley Ozouf himself, or Farnham and MacLean manage any of it. Fund will be bolloxed within a year.

    ReplyDelete
  17. At least Philip Ozouf is in a different tree to his neighbour Deputy Peter McLinton .
    His latest political tweet on #therealpetermac is this ;
    Our cats enjoy eating bananas? fb.me/10MB4mA3m

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't know about a different political tree? After seeing Smashy (or is it Nicey?) McLinton's I was born for this meltdown in the States I'm more inclined to believe he probably fell out of a tree and bumped his bonce.

      Won't get re-elected. He has done bog all in our district and unlike the equally useless Chubby Macon he doesn't have the benefit of the old ladies liking him. Come back Beardy Duhamel and his sharing the bath water ideas.

      Delete
  18. Any more news on when the COI report will finally be published? Haven't seen any updates anywhere and certainly not on the COI's website. Talk about treating the victims and the public like mushrooms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No news is good news? Or so the old saying goes. We can only hope.

      Delete
    2. With barely a week left of Marxh it is a really poor show that no indication has been given. Very worrying too in my personal opinion.

      Delete
  19. Interesting case, for followers of the States of Jersey, its civil service, and our broken system of justice.

    https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/[2017]JRC043.aspx

    Clearly, Mike Higgins has been doing his homework on this one.

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyQuestions/2017/(168)%20Dep%20Higgins%20to%20SG%20re%20criminal%20charges%20brought%20in%20the%20Magistrates%20Court%20without%20assistance%20of%20the%20Law%20Officers.pdf

    We live in interesting times. All power to you, Mr Neville...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would imagine a rather notorious individual who was afforded taxpayer's monies to take Mr Syvret to court should now be feeling somewhat worried about the issue of perjury?

      Delete
    2. But only if Bowron's police don't illegally refuse to take a complainants statement? But then that surely could not happen in a democracy with an honest court system?

      Delete
  20. I see you are promoting Deputy Tadier's Trews News video on your sister blog. Why did he not do any more of these? If people want to get a lot of people watching they need to do these things regularly. A good example of this was the Bald Truth videos former Deputy Trevor Pitman used to do. These were up on a weekly basis and like a lot of people I know who are interested in politics we used to look forward to them. Deputy Tadier needs to make it a regular thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hoping to publish episode 2 of "The Jersey Trews" in the next few days. Readers might also be interested to know that a return of "The Bald Truth Review" has not been ruled out..................

      Delete
    2. Is this second bit of news your 'Leak of the Week'?!

      Delete
  21. This is good news. I hope Lord Reginald will be making a guest appearance? Perhaps Deputy Tadier could interview him to scotch the ridiculous rumours that they are one and the same?

    A return of the Bald Truth would be even better. But I don't see how or why it would happen now? Trevor Pitman is gone from Jersey politics sadly, and I can't really see him behaving like some former politicians who just can't let go.

    Having said that the Bald Truth was often absolutely first class in both content and style. A political overview of the Jersey Way from someone who was one of our political heavyweights could be interesting. Look forward to the Jersey Trews regardless. So little good political comment out there these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't Trevor Pitman based off island at the moment?

      If so a return of "The Bald Truth / The Bald Truth Review" would be brilliant because the Jersey based bloggers operate under the constant threat of abuse by the misused Data Protection Law and now the even more dangerous "telecommunications law":

      https://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/p192016-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.html

      http://tomgruchy.blogspot.com/2016/05/harmful-electronic-communications-and.html

      Delete
  22. Stuart Syvret should do some videos too. How about Posts from a Potemkin Village?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is Philip Bailhache asleep in the photo accompanying this blog? Or is he just doing a Terry Le Main impression by pretending to be? Gorst's speeches are so rivetting aren't they!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Three years in to their four year terms have you heard anything from your local representative during States debates? There must be at least twenty states members who I haven't a clue who they are or what they do. They may as well be stuffed or showroom dummies. As just a couple of examples what does Deputy Truscott do? Has he ever said anything since election? What has Deputy Wickenden ever done or said? Who are eight of the Constables? Does Deputy Andrew Lewis ever say anything you can believe? These are the sort of questions that need answering in the lead up to the next election.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sir Cecil Bottom-Thwaite (former Constable of the island's 13th parish22 March 2017 at 17:50

    Looking forward to this new Lord Reg Tadier video.

    ReplyDelete
  26. When is the new Lord Monty Trews video to be published?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hopefully should have it published by (if not before) Monday.

      Delete
  27. Looks like Stuart is in a 'put up ' mode.... This could get interesting with the timing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like he wants to put up but the cops want him to SHUT UP.

      Delete
    2. Re the JEP piece (as posted at your link):

      Seeing as how the SOJP appear to be corresponding with Stuart, might he ask them to clarify if Mick Gradwell ever did interview Person 737 under caution as a suspect, what was the outcome, and is this the "investigation" to which they are referring.

      The SOJP response, seeking an unprotected email in advance of the protection of a formal complaint seems to echo the Inquiry's refusal to underwrite preliminary legal advice for Stuart, forcing him onto the hazard, before he submitted to one of their protocols.

      It does appear to me that he has something to say which neither the SOJP nor the Inquiry, both in Frank Walker mode, want to hear.

      Could Stuart perhaps indicate whether Andy Sibcy has fairly and comprhensively reflected his submitted material in the full JEP piece? He has intimated on Twitter that this would not be the case.

      Delete
  28. It seems the SOJP would like him to outline the case before they will take a statement, although the comment about requiring more and more information in correspondence is a little worrying. It could be that they want to know the claims beforehand so that they can consult with their masters, or should that be legal advisers, and have a strategy to reject the call for investigation pre prepared.


    If Stuart went down to the front desk though preferably with an independent witness such as Voice in tow, at least at the front desk, then would they not have to provide a reason why they will not take a statement. The first time that could be there is no one available, but then that would raise the question as to whether Stuart is receiving special treatment, and if a concerned member of the public with information on a totally unrelated crime would also receive the cold shoulder. Either way that is not good policing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Could Stuart declare an affidavit in front of a solicitor under oath and have that formerly sent to the police and receipt acknowledged? It would have the same effect surely? Maybe Sinel would oblige pro bono?

    Either way the police would have sworn statement that they cannot deny having received. Then when the shit hits the fan later the proof will exist that they were told and did nothing.

    Also I cant help thinking that if the current delay to COI report is in anyway related to additional information received by the police then if they failed to pass on similar serious issues declared under oath, they would be setting themselves up for a fall.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Has Stuart really tried to give a sworn statement to the SOJP before and if so does he have anyone who can veryfy that? If the police haven't acted and won't do so now this is something that really should be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Its a bit fishy that the jep/rag, would at this late and vital stage and after all that Stuart Syvret has been through, (which they know about). Would all of a sudden, be siding with him!?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I agree with anonymouse at19.13 while the JEP grab any news ( no matter how trivial ) and I dislike conspiracy with a passion, the fact that this is being taken seriously by them, means that they must have been provided with some serious proof to stick their necks out.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If SS could say that there were witnesses to his efforts to have the police take a statement from him, such as a lawyer of even members of the States, this would add a lot of weight to his claims that the police are not acting as they should.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Let's get this right. ...no matter what is claimed it is a fact .... He was not arrested by a squad of 8 police officers. He was arrested by one officer accompanied by a supervisor. The additional officers were Search Team officers who did an expert job in obtaining the evidence required . Those present were then subject to a plethora of his lies, condemnation and associated unnecessary stress. All from an individual whom although not completely daft doesn't seem to be able to function without lying through his teeth. ...believe it ..I was there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately your comment will (should) not hold much weight. Notwithstanding the available evidence online against your assertion of events (you forgot to mention the search was conducted without a warrant) but the fact that you posted anonymously.

      You have attacked Stuart Syvret by calling him a liar but don't have the courage of your convictions to allow him the same opportunity. My belief is that you were there (the raid) but by posting anonymously you and your argument might be seen by some readers as a cowardly tolling comment not backed up with any evidence.

      Delete
    2. Without knowing who has made this comment Stuart has been accused of lying in the past by States Members and members of the Public online. The fact that Stuart Syvret never gave evidence for cross examination raises questions about his version of events in many areas and its his fault that there are many more doubters out there than before.

      Delete
    3. Calling somebody online a liar is not trolling.
      Robust debate.

      Delete
    4. Anonymously calling a named person a liar online has the whiff of cowardice and trolling about it. Having the courage of your convictions (as Stuart Syvret has) by posting under your own name doesn’t have so much of that whiff and could easier be termed as robust debate.

      Delete
    5. "Stuart has been accused of lying in the past by States Members"
      .....indeed. And invariably it turns out that Stuart was right and those "upright members" were errrr... *mistaken*

      Delete
  35. Parry G
    March 24, 2017 6:36 pm
    JEP, Let's get this right. ...no matter what is claimed it is a fact .... He was not arrested by a squad of 8 police officers. He was arrested by one officer accompanied by a supervisor. The additional officers were Search Team officers who did an expert job in obtaining the evidence required . Those present were then subject to a plethora of his lies, condemnation and associated unnecessary stress. All from an individual whom although not completly daft doesn't seem to be able to function without lying through his teeth. ...believe it ..I was there!

    That said...if he has the evidence he claims ...let him have audience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And your role was what? on this fishing trip without a search warrant?

      How many officers?
      strange now that there is apparently no one available to take the Ex Health Minister's statement alleging serious crimes.

      couldn't make it up.

      Delete
  36. Why not take the report from the JEP down when he makes the complaint? Then the reporter can inform the public of the true situation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Error above. Should read, why not take the reporter from the JEP

      Delete
  37. It quite possibly is one of the cops who was present in the massed raid who is commenting above - given how politicized - corrupt - and dishonest - and protective of child-abusers, rapists & murderers certain sections of the Jersey Police have been.

    The facts of the raid are as follows. And - after some initial lies by then Attorney General - the criminally conflicted Barking Bill Bailhache, who tried to down-play the scale of the massed raid - these facts became - quite quickly - the accepted version of events - not even disputed by the police and the AG in court: -

    On that morning I left the front door of the house to obtain an item from my car.

    Immediately three unmarked police cars sped up the drive - each containing two officers. I was surrounded by these 6 officers, and was then grabbed by the wrist by one who said, “your under arrest for allegedly breaking the data protection law.”

    In addition to those 6 officers - there were a further 2 specialist search officers out side in a van - along with another 2 officers equipped with a battering ram type of implement which they were going to use to smash the door down if I had not come out.

    Thus - there were ten officers involved on the ground at the house in this massed raid - along with at least that number controlling events back at HQ.

    I was taken into the house to get a clean t-shirt, and I asked if I could have the search warrant. The arresting officer paused - was going to say something - then changed his mind and said - “you’ll be shown the search-warrent back at the station”.

    This was an utter lie.

    No search -warrant was issued.

    And that made the raid in illegal act - as searches under the data protection law cannot be conducted - WITHOUT A SEARCH-WARRANT.

    I repeat - the raid was an illegal act.

    The cops then spent about 6 or 7 hours turning the entire property over - from top to bottom - supposedly search of one single document - which they all-ready knew I had - because I had previously e-mailed it TO THEM - ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS - asking for them to re-open the case in question.

    Had a police officer simply knocked on the door - I WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM OR HER A COPY.

    But - of course - such a course of action would not have served the purpose of terrorising me and other opposition politicians - and would have enabled the illegal trawl.

    Facts.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  38. Does any know if Mr R Brocken still owns the Kensington Place hotel that will be bought by the States for building the new hospital? What's the betting the price will be a good one, I look forward to the row when the time comes.
    Yes - this one http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/of-chancers-and-spivs/
    I wouldn't have even thought about it, had it not been for one Laura Brocken (daughter?) laying into Stuart Syvret on the JEP's Facebook story about Stuart recently :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Brocken passed away in 2015. I would guess his family still own the hotel.

      Delete
  39. Just to correct a typo in the above, of course the last paragraph should have said "wouldn't" - as thus: -

    "But - of course - such a course of action would not have served the purpose of terrorising me and other opposition politicians - and WOULDN'T have enabled the illegal trawl."

    It was just that - an illegal trawl - essentially engineered to assault democracy - and protect dangerous criminals - and prevent opposition politicians from doing an important part of their public-interest duty - namely opposing police and Crown officer and judicial corruption.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  40. There must be hundreds of us, all-told, in Jersey who know the truth of how the States of Jersey Police covered-up child-abuse for so many decades. The organisation was usually just as corrupt as the honoraries who they ultimately obeyed. My attack walks free in Jersey to this day. I even see him sometimes in the street. I know some of his other victims also see him. The Police know who he is. They know he walks free. They know he's guilty. And they, the cops, carry terrorising those who try to get justice and children protected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was only a matter of time before Jersey became the subject of international scholarly study into political, moral and legal corruption:

      https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mesjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT333&lpg=PT333&dq=stuart+syvret&source=bl&ots=5ZMtJq-JVp&sig=E9yNbhlTxn7f7rTMK6z-_VLkjgI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN24fU1vLSAhUpJcAKHchXBsI4HhDoAQhAMAY#v=onepage&q=stuart%20syvret&f=false

      With thanks to "Gladiator":
      http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=212.msg61320#msg61320

      Delete
    2. Published British book scrutinised  The Jersey Child Abuse  inquiry by practising Australian barristers, researchers and Senior lecturers  of Socio-legal studies and in the faculty of law at the University of Sydney.

      Secrecy, Law and Society – 2 June 2015
      edited by Greg Martin, Rebecca Scott Bray, Miiko Kumar

      [14] Secret isle? Making Sense of the Jersey child abuse scandal. (pp 251 – 272 )


      https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mesjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT333&lpg=PT333&dq=stuart+syvret&source=bl&ots=5ZMtJq-JVp&sig=E9yNbhlTxn7f7rTMK6z-_VLkjgI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN24fU1vLSAhUpJcAKHchXBsI4HhDoAQhAMAY#v=onepage&q=stuart%20syvret&f=false

      This book chapter about Jersey’s secrecy culture is not light reading for the judiciary, civil servants, politicians , the news media, the finance centre and church leaders of Jersey but supports the information published by the blogs of Rico Sorda, Voiceforchildren, Stuart Syvret, Leah Mcgrath Goodman.

      Ex Senator Stuart Syvret’s role as a whistleblower and victim of Jersey’s unusual data protection law interpretation, Mr Power’s suspension,  the Jersey States Members voting to keep the tape secret regarding the debate about Mr Power’s suspension, the  conflicted roles of the Bailhache brothers, Victoria College abuse, Jimmy Savile at Haut de la Garenne, the Jersey’s Nazi past and link to London city are just a few of the interesting issues the authors have researched and put into context. They have not shied away to link Jersey’s “secrecy culture”to other international institutional child sexual abuse scandals and writing about corruption and cover-ups. They even quote the Dean of Jersey, Very Rev Robert Key who warned of “ over-inquisitiveness, false sensationalism and prurient curiosity” in his prayer.

      One of their conclusions was the need of the news media to play the critical public interest role in scrutinising the police and political authority which the State’s media has clearly failed to be.

      In my humble opinion this book of law professionals underlies that there is substance to the concern of a white wash of the Jersey Child Abuse inquiry.

      REVIEW OF THIS BOOK:

      "Lawyers, scholars and most certainly journalists and feature writers doing research in any of these areas will find this book, with its extensive and meticulous footnoting, a treasure trove of references to follow up as interesting and authoritative avenues for further enquiry. What is especially refreshing about the book is its plain-speaking and quite often hard-hitting approach to the various aspects of this topic about which the individual contributors have strong views. As a contribution to the ongoing debate on the often insoluble problems inherent in issues of secrecy, security, free speech and the law, this book with its diversity of opinion is first class." - Phillip Taylor MBE, Richmond Green Chambers

      Delete
    3. Wow!
      Can you do a series of blogs on this?

      Delete
  41. Brocken hotel sold to owner of the revere hotel a few years ago so not in Brocken family ownership

    ReplyDelete
  42. Russian Opposition Leader Arrested: -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39398305

    How does this differ to what the Jersey, Crown empowered oligarchy did to Stuart Syvret? It differs this way; the Russian opposition leader will be able to obtain legal representation. And the judges won't be chosen by directly conflicted government officials.

    Jersey: more nakedly corrupt than Putin's Russia.

    ReplyDelete

  43. Just read the section about Jersey from the publication called

    Secrecy, Law and Society

    They ain't going to like it, serious Australian authors from universities and other professions that have researched the subject that is Jersey and how it handles secrecy and institutional child abuse.

    This underlines a victory for the amateur non paid blogs who were mostly correct in their / your reporting all along.

    Get out of this one Bailhache's …… both of you. Let us see you use the Data Protection law to sue them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that chapter on the net somewhere? I couldnt find it. I feel guilty asking for this, because the authors & publishers deserve reward for their work in writing this stuff, so there should be a load of us ordering this volume & paying fairly for it. But, really, this is so much a public interest matter, can that chapter be found somewhere the average reader can find it?

      Delete
  44. A few people appear to be having trouble but GeeGee explains how to find it.

    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=212.msg61327#msg61327

    ReplyDelete
  45. The Bailiff Bailhache at it again, this time protecting the Chief Minister from further questioning by Deputy Tadier:

    Bob Hill

    "At present the Bailiff is responsible for approving requests from Members when lodging questions, both oral and written, propositions, amendments and making personal statements. If the Bailiff rejects the requests there is no ability to appeal against that decision. I have personal experience and the current arrangements should not continue."

    http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-terminological-inexactitude-of-sir.html

    Time to remove the Bailiffs veto ( on stopping questions he does not like, but are legal )

    http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/time-to-remove-bailiffs-veto.html

    ReplyDelete
  46. Replies
    1. I see the parties have declined to comment.

      Surely a cue for a link to the video of John dodging behind the baloons.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Neil & Tom.

      Great entertainment.

      An evergreen.

      Delete
    3. I must be missing something.
      What is the interest in a former employee of the Jersey BBC who now works in the UK and was involved in a UK disciplinary action by a colleague?

      Delete
  47. Who took over from him? Because the listening figures have gone down even more since he went/moved. He took away Talk Back (public involvement) and started the removal of a Political Hour. His replacement doesnot believe in either, and has destroyed BBC local Radio. Gagged, giggling young bimbo DJs = Low listening figures!?

    ReplyDelete
  48. I wonder if the COI has read that chapter on child abuse in Jersey ... perhaps they should before publishing their report

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry. Not deemed to be within their terms of reference.

      Yeah, I'm sure no one will notice!

      Delete
  49. Glad to hear the States will be holding a special sitting with regard to the findings in the most important Report of the Century -

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/03/29/states-sitting-to-follow-abuse-report-release/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking forward to it.
      149 days of evidence giving, over 400 witnesses and all key players given a chance to have their say.

      Delete

    2. 149 days of evidence giving, over 400 witnesses.
      All key players such as MIKE POLLARD given a chance to have their say and subpoenaed if they just don't feel like errr.... "having their say".

      Expenses predominantly directed to advice and welfare of the victims and not the perpetrators or responsible departments.

      All evidence and submissions made clear and available on the website for all time, not just MISSING and then hidden away in the Jersey Archive.

      And the assurance that things are soooo different from ten, twenty or thirty years ago

      Well you can't  have everything for £21+ million  can you.


      Everyone is looking forward to it. But can it deliver?

      Delete
    3. We already know what's been said at the hearings so it cannot pull any punches in the report and whatever recommendations they make will be compared to the modern checks implemented since 2008 already.
      This is the last and only report of its kind because we will never get so many people connected to the subject of historic child abuse either indirectly or directly put together ever again.

      Delete
  50. the States will be holding a special sitting with regard to the findings in the most important Report of the Century

    Will a certain William Bailhache be presiding perchance?

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

    Or will Mr K's golf buddy use this as an opportunity to resign?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And will Person 737 be named under privilege?

      Delete
  51. I like the name Danny as in the song " oh Danny Boy " any committee of enquiry would for the sake of honesty and transparency not have one witness called 737, Mr K and a mans name all being the same person.

    Why would they do that if the man called by three different headings has done no wrong. Would it be the case, if he had been a fine upstanding member of staff.

    Whats actually going on ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To correct the above, "witness 737" is NOT the same person as "Mr K".

      My knowledge is that both are, for their own crimes, the most despicable of foul criminals.

      My knowledge is that both have been - multiple-times - and in the most crazy, shameful - and illegal - of ways - protected - massively - by all arms of the state in Jersey.

      My knowledge is that if the victims of "737" and "Mr K" - or now or in the future any further victims of them - or victims of any similarly state-protected criminals - approach in desperation their elected representatives for assistance in an effort to gain justice - the elected representatives of those victims will be illegally oppressed by those culpable - criminal-shielding - arms of the state - as happened to me.

      Those are the evidenced - evidenced - facts.

      Do not expect the CoI to produce any credible move against the corrupt Culture-of-Concealment. The CoI is - itself - on the evidence - a part of it.

      For example - shielding criminals such as "737" and "Mr K";

      Unlawfully ignoring Part (e) of the legislative decision;

      After unlawfully ignoring Part (e) - inventing a raft of ex cathedra "protocols" which - because of the ignoring of Part (e) had no legal vires - in addition to being, in and of themselves not compliant with uncontroversial settled law, such as the ECHR, and settled methodologies such as the Salmon Principles;

      Attempting to unlawfully coerce the key whistleblower and key witness from within the administrative polity - the former Health & Social Services Minister - me - the person who held legal and political responsibility for child-protection - into surrendering a raft of my legal rights, and my ECHR rights by refusing to give me any legal representation - unless I signed away my rights - and, crucially, those of others - by signing their unlawful protocols;

      Constructively-excluding a vital key witness in the above way;

      Engaging in unambiguous witness-intimidation and harassment by basing the CoI actually in - utterly extraordinarily - THE office-building of a directly involved and conflicted law-firm;

      Engaging in unambiguous witness-intimidation and harassment by running the "proceedings" in a way which resulted in a room full of full-time professionals - heavily resourced and equipped - ALL representing the state and the culpable departments - whilst having - precisely ZERO - full time professionals present representing whistle-blowers, survivors, or the public-interest;

      Engaging in unambiguous witness-intimidation and harassment by agreeing to accept as "central-point-evidence-providers" - two centrally involved - and profoundly conflicted civil-servants - one of who was enabled and provisioned to be sat in the room all the time - amongst the heavily resourced government-side - where he was routinely to be witnessed laughing & joking with CoI-staff;

      Unlawfully allowing Council to falsely - FALSELY - claim the CoI "did not have the power to subpoena witness";

      Failing to subpoena dozens - DOZENS - of obvious key witnesses - of which large number I am merely one - thus failing to obtain vast amounts of core evidence & testimony;

      Ignoring - and breaking - the requirements of the ECHR;

      Ignoring - and breaking - the requirements of the Salmon Principles;

      Banning - and this has no precedent in a statutory public-inquiry - banning - wholly extraordinarily - the process of cross-examination - thus ending at a stroke any possibility this process had of actually being a "public-inquiry".

      I realise a number of people who comment here don't like the facts - don't like inconvenient truths - but - there you go.

      Facts.

      The survivors, the vulnerable, the whistle-blowers - were denied - unlawfully denied - the benefit of my testimony - BY THE illegitimate and unlawful acts and omissions of this CoI.

      Don't expect anything of real meaning and effect from it.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    2. I think that you are mixing up two different witnesses ... it was my belief that witness 7 and Mr K were the same person ... 737 I thought was someone else ... is this correct?

      Delete
    3. Stuart can't you walk away from it all?
      You repeat the same bitter vires stuff over and over again and sorry, it is boring.
      You think the COI is unlawful, fine, 400 witnesses disagree, so please turn it in.

      Delete
    4. Some simple question, if I may, to the writer of the comment 19:55? Do you think Mr Syvret is wrong in the legal arguments he advances? If so could you please state legal argument as to why he may be wrong? Honestly, I'm not trolling the writer. I'm genuinely interested in these matters from a pure legal perspective and would be actually grateful to read the purported jurisprudence the author relies upon?

      You see, I'm afraid that whilst the arguments of the former Health & Social Services Minister may well be 'boring', and could even differ to that of '400 witnesses' but if, in law, Mr Syvret is right, and so far as my moderate (but legally qualified & practicing) understanding has it, he happens to be right.

      And at law, 'being right' is all. No matter how 'boring'. I do hope for some legal argument as to why the former Minister, and indisputably a vital & core witness, Mr Syvret is wrong. Let's hear it, by all means.

      Delete
  52. When I said "Witness 737" and "Mr K" were two different people, I was referring to the above comment at 12:18 which says the following, and could give the erroneous impression that "737" and "Mr K" are the same person: -

    "I like the name Danny as in the song " oh Danny Boy " any committee of enquiry would for the sake of honesty and transparency not have one witness called 737, Mr K and a mans name all being the same person."

    That comment gave cause for confusion, which is why I corrected it.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  53. If I may say so, as someone who's long followed events in Jersey from a London based legal perspective, I presume the 'Big Plan' if one may call it that, is to wait for the Report of your public inquiry and then formulate a big, final, Armageddon type of legal action to be taken in London against the London authorities? Obviously, any attempt to do so would be brushed aside (but not necessarily correctly) whilst your public inquiry is still to report, on the ground that such legal challenges may be an unnecessary use of the court and of resources whilst it's possible the inquiry report might address the many wrongs in sight.

    I have to say I get the sense that former Senator Stuart Syvret is waiting for something like this, or waiting to do something like this. Certainly, his understanding of the appropriate legal principles, and plain evidenced ultra vires failings of the Jersey processes, appear to be spot on. And I imagine he's unlikely to mugged again, as he was last time, by Philip Bailhache's friend Tugendhat and the alleged, but acquitted, but therefore contaminated, accused "flasher", Stephen Richards? I must say, this is looking like it could get very very messy indeed. I'm getting the popcorn in, and taking some days of work to come and watch events on the Strand if this is how it goes!.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does this all mean ... tugenhat and richards?

      Delete
  54. Have you had any kind of response from the Jersey Police yet Stuart?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 20:53 asks, "Have you had any kind of response from the Jersey Police yet Stuart?"

      Oh yes.

      Several.

      The States of Jersey "Police" Force cleary need someone to hand them a "a bigger spade". Down on there - in the bottom of the hole.

      It's quite fascinating - the stupidity of this conduct by the Jersey mafia and its London protectors - in the face of horrifying evidence - evidence that even their fake "public-inquiry" couldnt bury and disguise (its there - sadly plentifully - in evidence, in testimony - there to be seen on the record).

      And - in some ways - even more problematically for this whole oligarchy - we're now told -yet again (and how many times have we heard this already over the years?) "oh well - yes, the Jersey system may have failed - may have had weaknesses - may have made mistakes - back then - back in the 1960s - then 1970s - then 1980s - then 1990s - then 2010s - then 2015s - etc - etc?

      And we'll obviously be being told the same from now till eternity.

      Until the system does get fixed.

      But - consider the stark - undisguisable - brazen - horrifying - child-abuse-facilitating - child-abuse-enabling - child-abuse-concealing - reality - in the UK government shielded Crown-Dependency of Jersey - IN APRIL 2017 - whilst a supposed actual "public-inquiry" into child-abuse is still at work: -

      Consider this: -

      Today - what passes for a "police-force" in Jersey - not only made false - perjured - statements to that "public-inquiry" against core anti-child-abuse witnesses and whistle-blowers - but that supposed "police-force" is actually - still - today - simply flatly refusing to take and record formal statements of criminal complaint against child-abuse and against child-abuse cover-ups.

      Refusing to even take statements of criminal complaint.

      Even though so many of the crimes - crimes of child-abuse - and of illegal child-abuse cover-up - now sit there - in plain sight.

      A child-abuse-concealing "police" force. In April 2017.

      And we're supposed to accept the notion that this £26 million "public-inquiry" has exposed and cured these foul ills?

      Whilst the cover-ups - the Culture-of-Concealment - is still going on?

      In April 2017?

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  55. I have to wonder at the ‘sincerity’, as in the ‘actual existence’ of the person who asks, ‘What does this all mean … tugendhat and richards. Anyone who has followed ‘the Jersey events’ closely knows that back in 2008 then Senator Stuart Syvret wrote a detailed Report to then Justice Secretary Jack Straw. Syvret has published that Report & it can be found here,

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

    That Report by Syvret is a fulcrum document in the whole Jersey case, and it would be literally astonishing were it not produced somewhere in the records of the COI, and its contents, the issued raised, dealt with by them.

    The then Justice Secretary Jack Straw chose to ignore the Report Syvret had written on behalf of Jersey’s many child-absue victims and other vulnerable constituents. So Syvret, under the auspices of Justice for Families, took a Judicial Review application, which he represented himself, to the Royal Courts of Justice. That case was heard by, quiet interestingly 2 judges, Michael Tugendhat and Stephen Richards.

    Both were obviously conflicted. Mick Tugendhat through being a friend and former Jersey courts colleague of Phil Bailhache, a core, named party in the Report to Straw and in the JR application. And Rich Stephens, obviously being permanently conflicted from any kind of case in which alleged sexual improprieties were a core factor, having himself being accused and acquitted of sexual abuse. Such traumatic events placing him very firmly within the scientifically robustly established exclusatory ground of ‘unconscious bias’. So, of course, Syvret’s JR application was thrown out. On grounds that were plain nonsense. The notion that a UK Minister of State is not accountable to a UK Court, for the whys and wherefores of the discharge of his or her public office, in the UK, is plainly utter nonsense. Nonsense on stilts.

    But never mid that! Personally I feel the most fascinating issue arising from that JR application, which, most interestingly and seriously and frankly unwisely Jersey’s allied and captured Whitehall coterie still insist on citing (very, very unwisely in my considered judgement) as ‘the leading relevant case law’ whenever their startling failure to stop the Jersey establishment from being a gangster system in plain sight is raised, is to be found in some of the evidence come out in your COI. Evidence which reveals that the UK authorities, especially the Secretary of State for Justice, were already involved in discussions with the Jersey establishment and had had actual meetings with no-less centrally conflicted characters as William Bailhache and Bill Ogley at least from early 2008! Had had such meetings, and, amazingly, given the Jersey crew a type of de facto ‘approval’, ‘authorisation’ and ‘blessing’ to carry on running Jersey in what were plainly, plainly, wholly unlawful ways. But yet, crucially, none of that factual background evidence is mentioned in the JR judgement rejecting Syvret’s application. None of it. It’s referred to nowhere!!! I’m hazarding a guess from that fact, that those core facts, that utterly centrally relevant evidence, that they'd already committed to supporting the very people Syvret was complaining about, was not, in fact, disclosed by the Secretary of State to either the other moving party or the Court itself?

    It could have been, disclosed that is, and perhaps Syvret, not a lawyer, failed to see its profound import, and didn’t raise it??? Possible, yes. But I’m guessing, very very unlikely.

    A Secretary of State for Justice. Breaking all rules & requirements of candour. Failing to disclose plainly vital, central, evidence. In a matter of ‘justice’. To the other side. To a UK Court.

    Yikes.

    And Wow.

    Exciting times, boys & girls! Exciting times! It doesn't get any more apocalyptic than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to 21:30 -

      A hole in one.

      My, my - some people really have been paying attention.

      Congratulations.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  56. Thx for that answer..... I don't get why you doubted the sincerity of the questio

    ReplyDelete
  57. Can someone explain to me what is going on during the inquiry day 87 -13 line 11 this is regarding le Chenes Anton Skinner giving evidence states, quote (I think we had a conversation before we came into this room as to why this might be) does this mean he was discussing matters with the inquiry team prior to coming into the inquiry room? was he being told what to say? and is this normal practice?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well. Dead line after dead line have passed for the CoI to have produced their findings/results.
    Not a whisper from them and no questions being asked of them by our Government.
    What is going on? Time and money well spent? Time may tell.

    ReplyDelete
  59. In response to 31st 21.15
    When I gave evidence at the inquiry, just before I went in, the barrister came to the witness waiting room and spoke to me, this was more a case of allaying my nerves ,telling me what to expect etc. I saw nothing sinister and untoward in this in fact I was treated with consideration and respect. Remember these barristers had an in-depth knowledge of your statement and supporting documents. Lengthy interviews had taken place with Eversheds solicitors prior to the statement being drafted. The panel members also had an in-depth knowledge of the material hence their questions were very much to the point. At no point was I put under pressure and told what to say. This was my experience. Now I had nothing to hide ,some witnesses may have been at pains to be selective in their statements and more guarded in their comments, some had their own legal advisors advising them on what to say. I thought the whole inquiry team were very professional, but at the same time supportive and approachable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you @09:11
      Your case and experience is reassuring.

      What is not so reassuring is that this considerations, and more importantly

       this in-depth knowledge of statements and supporting documents and to the point questions does not seem to have extended to witnesses such as Trevor Pitman, Bob Hill etc.

      Also, we must not overlook the witnesses who were absent.
      Some with no explanation whatsoever.

      Did Marnie Baudins give evidence and/or statement?

      Delete
    2. The Care Inquiry made it clear from the offset that it could not be used to settle old scores and evidence would be only relevant to the TORs which were thorough.
      Some statements I believe went off on a bit of a tangent.

      Delete
    3. "The Care Inquiry made it clear from the offset that it could not be used to settle old scores". Old scores is sorely part of their remit?

      Delete
    4. I'm sorry to disabuse you, at 09:11 - but Eversheds LLP are a plain and overt set of gangsters.

      Consider:

      Where is the commercial - and profoundly conflicted - organisation's declaration of interests?

      Such declaration of interest being an unavoidable and automatic requirement of any party involved in a quasi-judicial process;

      E.G, a major global player in the tax-dodging industry?

      E.G, a major player and component in the City of London Commune (the real controlling power over the Jersey population)?

      E.G, legal representatives of Special Branch?

      E.G, legal representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service?

      E.G, legal representatives of the Metropolitan Police?

      E.G, legal representatives of MI5?

      Where?

      Where - in all of the publications of the CoI are those declarations of interest?

      No-where.

      QED.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
    5. At 14:48, a reader says this:

      "Some statements I believe went off on a bit of a tangent."

      What a load of bollocks.

      Utter - Utter - Bollocks.

      At heart - the cause of the Jersey Child-Abuse Disaster is the structural and profound - and total - breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey; a collapse in anything even faintly resembling effective checks and balances - meaningful scrutiny - proper oversight - genuine accountability - absence of fear of apprehension - and an accompanying near-total 'confidence' on the part of all the profound and dangerous criminals - and all those who are then called upon - and paid handsomely - to shield them - that "The System" will protect them from their corruption.

      In that sense - and in profoundly significant - and startlingly obvious ways - the actual Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" must be cited - in-and-of-itself - as THE most clinching item of evidence in the whole scandal.

      Certainly, that's the position it occupies in my 1370 page (so far) affidavit (plus a vastly greater amount of supporting evidence) - A document which UK survivors and campaigners are awaiting hungrily as a part of THEIR evidenced submissions to IICSA - etc.

      I'm fully aware of the extent, scope and nature of evidence given to the make-believe Jersey "public-inquiry" - given nevertheless in good-faith - by witnesses such as Mike Higgins, Graham Power, Trevor Pitman, Philip Sinel, Lenny Harper - and a number of others - which some are wont to claim "covered matters not within the ToR or remit of the CoI".

      But such claims are - I repeat - Utter Bollocks.

      Do you hear that, CoI Panel, Council and Eversheds LLP? - Utter Bollocks.

      All of the variety and scope and extent of evidence - of scandalous matters raised - just for example, in the statements of Trevor Pitman, and of Philip Sinel - all constitute that which is "similar-fact-evidence"; evidence of disgusting and shocking and despicable scandals - crimes - the most monstrous and disgusting of crimes - which - sometimes - might not themselves involve - directly - child-abuse - but which nevertheless do - DO - go to evidencing the very same collapse in public safety - profound and stark breakdown in the very rule of law - which facilitated, enabled, under-pined - and then concealed - the child-abuse cover-ups.

      Any "public-inquiry" panel, its solicitors, or Council - which then attempt to claim such similar-fact-evidence - evidence of disgusting and reprehensible crimes and cover-ups - was "not relevant" to the public-inquiry - "not relevant" to the child-abuse atrocities - will only show the true and profound nature of the utter decadence of Crown authority in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

      And the ever more inescapable - and apocalyptic - arrival of modern reality.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    6. Stuart, why persist with this hate campaign against a COI which you refused to partake in?
      I see you are attacking witnesses as above which is out of order.
      You are not in it, you are not part of it so do something else.

      Delete
    7. Stuart. Not doubting you and sure you will have proof of and maybe the facts have been forwarded, that Eversheds LLP are involved in these blatant conflicts of interest.
      Maybe that's why the concluding report has missed the deadline?

      Delete
    8. I get the impression that Stuart sees every Judge, the Police, every Law Firm, the Media and connected party as corrupt.

      Well good luck with that stance Stuart whilst the rest of us await the Report with optimism.

      Delete
    9. A few years back we used to have a guy who came in the Post Horn, was working for some construction Firm but lost his job after disagreements with them. Every Friday he would sit at the bar and slag the place off. It was corrupt, people were stupid to trust them and work for them, they were cowboys etc. Until one Friday somebody turned around and said why don't you shut up, stop sobbing and get a ****ing new job, to which everybody laughed.

      Delete

    10. I would just like to point out that the commenter persisting in his hate campaign against the Health Minister and Whistleblower is LYING.

      About every line is laced with lies/misrepresentations.

      People like you make Jersey look like a rabid den of child abusers and shysters.
      You really are a sad waste of everybody's time "so do something else".

      The Paedo-Troll's says: "......I see you [Syvret] are attacking witnesses as above which is out of order....."

      In the comment above Stuart said "I'm fully aware of the extent, scope and nature of evidence given to the make-believe Jersey "public-inquiry" - given nevertheless in good-faith - by witnesses such as Mike Higgins, Graham Power, Trevor Pitman, Philip Sinel, Lenny Harper - and a number of others - which some are wont to claim ~covered matters not within the ToR or remit of the CoI~"

      NB This is Mr Syvret's only mention of witnesses and it is patently *not* an attack.

      You would not expect a Paedo-Troll to be anything other than a liar.

      If you feel that I am being unfair then please do provide a different explanation of your hate campaign and trolling against the ex Health Minister.

      Delete
    11. I gave evidence and you are calling me a paedo-troll and then linking up a worthless blog written by somebody who never gave evidence and could have buried paedophiles.
      Your slurs mean nothing to me.

      Delete
    12. I am an abuse survivor. I hope you will let me use your blog to say my disgust and disagreement with whatever clown is writing this stuff attacking Stuart Syvret and slurring his blog which was has an article in praise and memory of a Jersey government child-abuse victim Dannie Jarman. I knew Dannie, she was a friend of mine. And like me she had nothing but praise for Stuart because he was the first person in authority who listened to us and believed us and took our side. Ooh, just ***** you bastard! We all know the COI in truth blocked Stuart from attending by refusing to give him a lawyer. I'm sick sick of coming here of all places and reading this sh*t from this w*nker! And we all know who he is! Please stop VFC. This has upset me so much seeing this little b*ast*d slagging off a wonderful article about my poor friend Dannie. Please stop giving space to this piece of sh*t VFC.

      Delete
    13. Sorry to butt in but if somebody called me a pedo-troll I'd probably punch their lights out so name calling is not good debate.
      Think the point people are making is that Stuart's Blog should have been presented to the Care Inquiry to give it proper credibility and that chance is lost.

      Delete
    14. Its the unnecessary name calling that always let Stuart down.
      As the infamous Iron Lady once said - 'if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.'

      Delete
    15. Threats of violence from someone who has the sheer bravery to post under "Anonymouse" @07:19 are just unconvincing  
      #hilarious!

      I find the real abuse survivor posting @22:03 far more credible.
      Don't you?

      This is the blog page the Paedo-Troll described as "worthless":
      (Jon S Worthless might appreciate the apt irony)

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/dannie-jarman-in-memory-tribute/

      "A SURVIVOR WHO SPOKE OUT TO PROTECT OTHER VULNERABLE CHILDREN

      Dannie Jarman – 18th December 2015 – R.I.P

      Dannie has died. Her needlessly damaged – her cruelly wrecked life – ended on Friday 18th December 2015. A Person too young – too good – to die.

      .........[more]"

      with a link to BBC Panorama 2008 in which she was amongst those interviewed.

      https://youtu.be/fO4IME4g1kw

      Delete
    16. 'Stuart's Blog should have been presented to the Care Inquiry'

      With backed up evidence and Stuart allowing himself to be open for cross examination on all it's contents.

      Delete
    17. I too attempted to give evidence to the COI like the person says at 09:11 on April 1st, but I was treated with hostility and contempt. I was told I couldn't give evidence to the committee because the Barrister said some of what I was saying didnt matter much, and mainly that because I couldn't prove I had been there, which was not surprising seeing as they knew the records had been destroyed on orders of the places bosses. I felt like the lawyers of the COI were abusing me all over again. I felt from them just like I felt when first trying to get cops to take my complaint seriously. It was like 'who do you think you are you little worm?' I wonder if the Barrister who the troll speaks of so good was the same one who lied to the COI saying it didnt have the power to subpoena?

      Delete
    18. That's a stupid statement 10.43 saying 'Stuart's blog should have been presented to the inquiry'. What did it need to be 'presented' to them for? It's there for the whole world to read. Why didnt the COI just read it, take it in? If they didn't that pretty much proves the inquiry has been fake. If they ignore evidence there for the taking allready in public. And if they thought Stuart's blog was wrong then they should have summoned him like they had the power to. But juts reading that comment agains I suddenly see that it really is from the torll or the committee spin doctors. Know why? because it says 'Care Inquiry'! What a dead give away! Anyone who uses the fake spin-doctor name for this farce, and even gives it capitals instead of calling it whta it should be 'a child abuse public inquiry' is a crook.

      Delete
  60. Quote - we must not overlook witnesses who were absent.

    Were these people actually called by the Inquiry Panel to give evidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question @17:59 "Were these [absent witnesses] actually called by the Inquiry Panel to give evidence?"

      Do you mean people like Mike Pollard?????

      One would expect a £20,000,000+ CoI to do a proper and thorough job

      Why has it not done so??????

      This does make it look like just another layer of damage control which just delays the day when the island's children have the protection of the proper rule of law.

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

      Delete
  61. Mike Pollard ex Chief Executive of Health and social services.

    The Verita report heavily criticised management at the hospital under his watch for various reasons. Link below.

    Oversaw the sad case of the nurse Rouke death during basic surgery, and over children's services. A later serious case review of children abused criticised many staff for failure under his management.

    He was health executive in charge of a shambles of a department working in 2006- including the Simon Bellwood affair where there were problems at Greenwood and the whistle blower was sacked not rewarded.

    Now retired and resigned in 2009 with a £130,000 golden hand shake and big pension.

    Not called - to appear in front of the child abuse enquiry.

    Why ?

    https://www.gov.je/pages/search.aspx?query=Mike+Pollard&page=2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet during the same time frame Stuart Syvret who was Minister of Health and Social Services refused to attend the COI when he was called.

      Delete
    2. Yes @09:42 it is shocking that the CoI did not even question the Minister of Health and Social Services either.

      Are they incompetent or are they deliberately trying to control the evidence they consider?

      A bit of both I think.

      Delete
  62. From what I read the only person trolling the Jersey Care Inquiry is Stuart Syvret himself.
    All he has done so far is try to derail it, nobody else on here or elsewhere has remotely endorsed anything he's had to say about it but have said they look forward to it.
    If I were Stuart I'd take Rico's advice and walk away before the real news takes off.

    ReplyDelete
  63. We might believe you @19:50 but you keep saying things which are patently untrue e.g.: "..nobody else on here or elsewhere has remotely endorsed anything he's had to say about it ..."

    A good number of people including Daniel Wimberley, Advocate Philip Sinel and Trevor Pitman share a good deal of Ex Health Minister Syvret's concerns and have said so:

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry but after following a lot of the Inquiry these views are frankly out numbered.
      I would have preferred to have seen Adv. Sinel present these views to the COI in person which I understand he did not.

      Delete
    2. I do not regard any witness who has insulted people online as credible because we are trying to irradiate the abuse, bullying, grooming of children so what assistance do adults who write hate about others actually give to this cause? Nobody has ever turned around on the Blogs and said 'hang on a minute should adults be doing this to one another?'

      Delete
  64. Can we please get away from the minority held views and attacks by Stuart Syvret and focus on this Care Inquiry Report for all the people who do have faith in the Panel and did give evidence.
    Has there been any clues as to when Report will be released?
    They need to get it out there.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The establishment always get it their way. Why are there so many here believe some COI is going to change that. Most of the money goes in ensuring the story goes their way. Lessons have been learned etc. End result....no change. Loosers are the survivors who get very little indeed and are made to sign gagging clauses to access miserly compensation. Sums so small, it's like blatant laughing in survivors faces. Also the COI never subpoenaed Syvret. What! And it's got ToRs that avoid 95% of the stuff that would really really embarrass Jersey. So what in my book. Better to acknowledge and reform....except in jersey. And.... As the police aren't prepared to receive a statement from Syvret, it just shows what a mess jersey is. Hopefully it will all come tumbling down soon and jersey reforms into a model that meets 21st century standards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an independent inquiry.
      It was Stuart who made every excuse in the book not to attend when a lot of us imagined on Day 1 he would be breaking the door down to get in.

      Delete
    2. This inquiry is so independent that it is independent of ECHR,
      independent of the Salmon Principle
      independent of subpoenaing witness
      independent of (therefore) swathes of vital witnesses
      independent of the process of cross-examination
      independent of selected parts of Part (e) of the legislative decision

      independent of independence, even!

      In addition to being branded as "independent" it is also branded as an inquiry into "care"
      .......which is odd because it is abuse that is the problem
      and will continue to be the problem because apparently anything really meaningful from many witness statements is declared "not relevant" by the the inquiry ToRs and protocols.

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      "Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry A Fake, Partial, Incompetent?"

      Delete
    3. For the last time Stuart WALK AWAY!
      People who have given evidence and are awaiting the Report are not interested in your gripes with the COI anymore. Why the Police won't take a Statement off you and the COI never subpoenaed you is another debate.

      Delete
    4. Take some beep breaths @07:00
      If Stuart can cope with death threats he can probably cope with your use of 'caps lock'

      Surely "why the COI never subpoenaed Syvret" and multiple other critical witnesses is absolutely central to whether the CoI report will be fit for purpose or whether it will amount to £20,000,000 of hand wringing and nest feathering.
       
      You need to get used to the idea that this is utterly relevant to mention whenever the CoI is discussed. Shouting will not change that.

      If you don't like other peoples views then don't read them.

      Delete
  66. Why do people who disagree with Stuart Syvret's comments get abused so much on here when he claims to have his own freedom of speech removed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. disagreeing  with Stuart Syvret's comments is one thing. Endlessly saying that the Ex Health Minister should keep his views and experience to himself is quite another.

      Delete
    2. Do you think Stuart Syvret's constant bitter campaign against the Care Inquiry actually helps any of the Survivors who found the courage to give evidence?
      It is a serious question and how on earth can Stuart think that his perpetual smearing of the COI is of any help to the people involved?
      This Inquiry is not about Stuart Syvret. It is about acknowledging the past and putting protection in for the future and I really wish he would back off.

      Delete
    3. As an abuse survivor who speaks with Stuart often I'd like to say that not only does his stance for proper procedures to be followed help my morale, I know his target is to secure proper rule of law in Jersey so that kids are protected into the future. And he's right that a COI which doesn't follow the rules is not going to fix the culture of concealment. The truth is Stuart wrote to the COI at the very start an offered to be a witness. The COI basically excluded him bay saying they wouldn't give him legal representation unless he first signed all of those complicated protocols they wrote. I don't blame him. those protocols stopped me too from giving evidence. And I'm sure Stuart will write here if what I say is wrong but one of the reasons he needed proper human rights effective legal advice is because he didn't know if he could even speak to the COI at all without the risk of the States just turning up at his flat and carting him to prison again for another 3 months without any kind of public trial like they did last time. Remember the secret trial super injunctions? If this COI wanted to have Stuart as a witness they could have had him. Wouldnt have even needed to summons him. He would have gone right along, as long as he had legal representation, so he could double-check what the protocol meant, and if he could speak to the COI without risking being jailed again.

      Delete
    4. Thank you.

      As to certain issues you raise - I couldn't possibly comment.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    5. Every day the subject seems to fall back onto Stuart Syvret and as he is not part of the COI what is the ruddy point?
      Anon 18:19 is right, this COI is not about Stuart Syvert and his issues with it but its about Abuse Survivors who have a lot more faith in this COI delivering than Stuart may ever have.
      This constant going back to why he never gave evidence is exhausted and should be moth balled.

      Delete
    6. 'Remember the secret trial super injunctions?'

      None of the cases involving Stuart Syvret either in the Magistrates or Royal Court have anything to do with giving evidence to a Public Inquiry into Historic Child abuse. Are you sure these are not being used as an excuse to not give evidence?

      Delete
    7. Interesting points raised by 20:37, points I hadn't considered previously. In contrast with 21:42 which for obvious reasons is self defeating boring nonsense. It is not possible to take any meaningful view, no matter which position one takes, no matter what 'side' one is on, which seeks to ignore the very very serious question mark over the bona fides & robustness of a Jersey child abuse public inquiry which failed to secure the attendance of an unarguably central testimony of the then actual Minister for Social Services who blew the whistle. No respectable public inquiry can fail to even make a serious attempt to secure the testimony of a witness who is possessed of knowledge, of testimony, which goes to the heart of how the Jersey governance system failed, in some ways that are more significant than the terrible experiences of individual abuse survivors. A public inquiry isn't about Stuart Syvret, but neither is it about individual survivors. It is about 'How Did The Jersey System Fail To Protect The Vulnerable'. And Syvret's testimony is indisputably vital to that question. Were I a legal representative of any Jersey survivors, I'd be strongly advising that we challenge the COI for failing to question this vital witness. In fact, now I think about it, it's pretty disturbing that none of the survivors' representatives appear to have done that?

      To return to the comment at 20:37 I had not previously considered the impact of the super-injunctions which we're not supposed to know about, but which the Jersey system was so incompetent as to actually publicise themselves shortly before they last imprisoned Syvret. The reader makes a very good point. And if those are the fears Syvret expressed to the author of that comment I have to say he appears well justified.

      It seems to me as a lawyer that the 'dispute' if one may term it that, would be which 'body' or 'public authority' had the dominant power? Yes, on the face of it a statutory public inquiry like your COI carries certain 'privileges'by which witnesses have the protection of 'privilege', so can't be sued for things they may say before the body. But, what if an actual court, say the court which issued the super-injunctions against Syvret by which they had him jailed last time, were to be asked to come to a ruling as to whether the 'powers' and 'standing', and thus the orders of the actual court were 'superior' to the powers of the quasi judicial body the public inquiry? Especially with regard to 'orders' the court had issued before the public inquiry even existed? It is hard indeed to view the court in Jersey taking any other view than that the powers and decisions of the court transcended powers & decisions of the public inquiry. If that happened, then yes, Stuart Syvret would be arrested and summarily imprisoned again, for breaching the super injunctions if he spoke about those matters to the COI.

      My advice as a lawyer to Syvret would be that the first thing he needed to do, or ask the COI to do on his behalf, would be to ask the court for a ruling as to whether Syvret could speak freely to the COI without risking further actions and being imprisoned again for speaking on behalf of victims but against the super injunctions.

      Without a prior court ruling that he was so free to speak, my advice to Stuart Syvret would be to do exactly what he's done. Remain non-engaged with the COI lest he risk being jailed again.

      Yes, looking at the situation from that perspective the failure of the Jersey public inquiry to have given any encouragement, support or comfort to such a vulnerable yet vital and central witness as Syvret begins to seem more and more appaling.

      Delete
    8. Indeed. "What is the ruddy point" **** in a COI  which does not gather all the evidence and testimony from all the important witnesses?????

      Delete
    9. @21:42 Clearly you do not speak for all survivors so please stop pretending that you do.

      Whenever the CoI is discussed commenters are .....free to mention evidence which is missing or deemed not to be within their make-believe Terms of Reference.
      ......free to mention critical witnesses who are missing or constructively excluded,  whether they be Mike Pollard or Ex Health Minister Syvret.

      What is exhausting about other people stating their reasonable and considered opinion?

      These short comments telling other people what they should and shouldn't discuss are so reminiscent of the trolling on the JEP site.
      The JEP is basically a "troll zoo" because you are not permitted to post links to inconvenient evidence or alternative opinions like:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html
      "Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. Statement of Advocate Philip Sinel (1)"

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

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

      Delete
    10. At 21;52 the following assertion appears,

      ''Remember the secret trial super injunctions?'
      None of the cases involving Stuart Syvret either in the Magistrates or Royal Court have anything to do with giving evidence to a Public Inquiry into Historic Child abuse. Are you sure these are not being used as an excuse to not give evidence?'

      I followed the oppression and suppression of Stuart Syvret as closely as any person not directly involved was able to, and I can state with authority that claim in that comment to the effect the politicised abuse of the data protection law and the suppressive super-injunctions against Syvret are not relevant to the question of him giving testimony to the COI is the opposite of the truth.

      The subjects involved in the suppression of Syvret went to the heart of such questions as whether public safety in Jersey was dangerously compromised because of politicised and partisan failures to enforce the law. Whether dangerous criminals were shielded by the feudal "court" which is the Jersey polity. Whether police force corruption existed and whether bent cops were used by the powerful and then protected by them. Whether politicians were enabled to, and protected in, speaking freely on behalf of their constituents in seeking to protect those constituents from the foregoing type of actual danger represented to ordinary powerless members of the public by a wholly corrupted and Masonic public administration.

      All, unquestionably, issues and questions at the heart of any effective and real child-abuse public inquiry. Do not let anyone be misled by claims that the politicised data protection suppression against Syvret was 'not relevant' to the question of whether he could give evidence freely to your public inquiry. The truth is that that issue is both centrally relevant to whether he gave evidence, and, even more relevant to the actual evidence and testimony I imagine he would have given.

      And a moments thought shows it could not be any other way. How could such issues as the following NOT be centrally relevant to any real public inquiry in Jersey into child abuse? The ability and freedom to whistle-blow, the burden of mandatory reporting which was on the shoulders of the Ministerial Office holder, the safety and freedom to speak-out against concealed wrongdoing, the power and right of vulnerable members of the public to seek the support and assistance of their elected representatives, whether crimes which should have been prosecuted were instead covered-up, whether 'the system' actually promotes and protects public safety etc, etc. Any child abuse public inquiry which failed to examine such questions would indeed be an obvious failure.

      And those are all matters, questions and issues which indubitably attach to the unlawful and abusive suppression of Stuart Syvret by you local establishment and their London protectors.

      Delete
  67. First an S.Wickenden in Petty Debts now PDMcLinton .Could we be seeing some competition for Treasury Minister in 2018?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ID%20JG%20PDCTableWeek%2014.pdf

      Delete
    2. Unless we know the full story it could only be disputes.

      Delete
  68. 22:55 "as a lawyer" you might have considered that Mr Syvret would have attracted "absolute privilege" if he had given evidence to the COI as if he had been speaking in the States Chamber, end of story. The super injunction argument is a load of baloney. He should have given his "evidence". See Article 34 of the States of Jersey Law 2005:
    34 Immunity from legal proceedings
    No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of the States –
    (a) for any words spoken before or written in a report to the States or a committee or panel established under standing orders; or
    (b) by reason of any other matter or thing brought by the member before or within the States or any such committee or panel by petition, proposition or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pasted from below:

      "Firstly, the Article 34 cited by the troll has the disconvenience of applying only to "members of the States". Mr Syvret is not a member of the Sates, so that matter can be safely disregarded. It would provide, even hypothetically, zero protection to Mr Syvret. You see, "as a lawyer", generally one has to have the really quite useful skill of being able to read. Never discount its usefulness!"

      Paedo-trolls are morally illiterate too!

      Delete
  69. In addition to Regulation 8 of the STATES OF JERSEY (POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY)
    (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2007:


    8 Privileges and immunity of person appearing before or producing
    documents to a committee of inquiry
    (1) A person asked or required to give evidence or produce documents before
    a committee of inquiry shall be entitled, in respect of such evidence and
    documents, to legal professional privilege and privilege against selfincrimination.
    (2) An answer given by a person to a question put to that person, or an oral or
    written statement made by that person, or a document produced by a
    person in the course of his or her appearance before a committee of
    inquiry shall not, except in the case of proceedings for the offence of
    perjury or for an offence under these Regulations, be admissible in
    evidence against that person in any civil or criminal proceeding


    No excuses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No excuses
      Yes, Syvret and various other critical witnesses should have been subpoenaed.

      #20million fake

      Delete
    2. Oh my! How we all laughed! At the comments left at 12.21 and 12.26 - which cite the supposed "protections" available to all witness under the States of Jersey Law with regard to Committees of Inquiry. The claim being, apparently, that Stuart Syvret could have spoken to the COI even though he had zero legal advice and representation!

      Firstly, the Article 34 cited by the troll has the disconvenience of applying only to "members of the States". Mr Syvret is not a member of the Sates, so that matter can be safely disregarded. It would provide, even hypothetically, zero protection to Mr Syvret. You see, "as a lawyer", generally one has to have the really quite useful skill of being able to read. Never discount its usefulness!

      Then we turn to the second comment, which advances Regulation 8 - as though that would provide absolute comfort and undoubted protection to Stuart Syvret. It would be nice at this point to boast of the usefulness of all my dry academic years at university, law-school, and at pupilage in deriving the following decisive point. Alas, it again is based upon the more mundane talent of being able to read.

      Shall we point it out to him, boys & girls? Yes, I think so.

      "A person ASKED or REQUIRED...."

      "An ANSWER GIVEN by a person TO A QUESTION PUT TO THAT PERSON, or an oral or written statement made by that person, or a document produced by a person IN THE COURSE OF HIS OR HER APPEARANCE BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY".

      Mr Syvret has not been "asked or required" to answer specific questions, provide specific evidence, or furnish specific documents by the COI. He was therefore being expected to approach the COI, and VOLUNTEER WHATEVER ISSUES, QUESTIONS SUBJECTS, MATTERS ETC - that he, without the benefit of legal advice remember, might have guessed or estimated the COI to be interested in. You see? Cart before horse. It is far from clear that 8 (1) provides its protections to a person who voluntarily advanced, without prior, specific request, by a COI, un equested matters or issues.

      And, again, it is far from clear that the protections of 8 (2) applies so as to provide protections to a person who is, initially, outside of the formal processes of the COI, as Stuart Syvret was, crucially, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUBPOENA. It might have stronger claim to provide some forms of protection to a person in Syvret's unique position, had the COI summoned him. Had the COI used its power of subpoena, he would, indeed, have then fallen within the ambit of the protection described in 8(2). But in the absence of such subpoena, it is b no means clear those protections would apply. But had he been subpoenaed, he could have claimed to fall within the COI proceedings, and was "being asked questions, or for statements, or document, by the Inquiry body.

      But, for other various and obvious reasons, even if those protections cited above, even if they did provide protection in a general sense (far from clear they do), there are all kinds of other legal questions and doubts which arise in the particular, case specific circumstances of Stuart Syvret. Just for example, as I suggested previously, it is in fact very far from clear that those cited protections would, in fact, trump a prior existing super injunction.

      In my considered legal opinion, Syvret was absolutely correct in wanting and requiring his right to unconditional legal representation to be met, before he took any kind of risks. Especially when at the mercy of your comically bizarre 'judicial' system.

      But, look, given that Syvret is unique, in having already been imprisoned 3 times by your conflicted political courts, so had understandable fears that might happen again, why not just do what the law requires (ECHR), and the Salmon Principles, and provide him with unconditional legal representation funding?

      Delete
    3. 'In my considered legal opinion, Syvret was absolutely correct.'

      What Firm do you work for?

      Delete
    4. I work at chambers in the Inns of Court. 'Jersey Events' are quite the topic of discussion in these old lanes & quadrangles. Wagers are taken upon how much longer 'events' can continue is this vein? And no, I have no intention of identifying myself or my place of work to an anonymous internet troll. But let me make you an altogether more useful offer! If you should have any legal argument to advance, to the effect I'm mistaken in law, that I have the jurisprudence wrong, the authorities upon which I rely in my argument have become obsolete, or my subtle interpretations of issues are in error, then do, by all means, offer up such debate! And let's have at it!

      There you are. Law at its best can wonderfully depersonalise arguments, and instead decide them upon facts, the philosophy of logic, the application of law, and the development of law. So much better, I hope thinking people will agree, than the irrationality of a disputant who repeatedly & obsessively attacks Stuart Syvret for the supposed 'sin' of not being a witness to your public inquiry, whilst never making the same criticism of the not insignificant number of other missing yet very important witness. Just from my occasional and distant interest, witnesses such as Mike Pollard, Emma Martins, Marnie Baudains, Ian Dyer, Christopher Pitchers, Jonathan Sumption, Jack Straw, Michael Wilkes, Jane Pollard, Michael De La Haye, Paul Matthews, Iris Le Feuvre, Sean Power, Judy Martin, Christopher Chapman, Geoff Southern, Carolyn Labey, Alan Breckon, Debbie Le Mottee, Jimmy Perchard....actually now I think of of it I surprise myself at the numbers of missing witnesses even my faint and removed interest can recall. I'm sure there are more!

      So yes! Should my interlocutor be ready to exhibit a little rationality & logic, and accept that all missing significant witnesses are a problem, then I do by all means look forward to him advancing onto the legal argument. Let's have at it!

      Delete
    5. Yes my friend, is that so, is that so? 22:17 Well observed. It is going to be most interesting, is it not, if Eversheds' terribly lucrative screed were to attack or criticise Stuart Syvret in some way, for non-attendance, but omitted to make such criticism of the other many missing witnesses?

      Most interesting indeed.

      Not least because I've seen it reported that one of Eversheds' Council to the public inquiry was permitted to lie, quite openly, lie to the Panel in public session, without challenge or correction, to the effect the public inquiry did not have the power to subpoena witnesses?

      Now, if that is so, it's going to be a brave, brave, brave - or astoundingly stupid - Panel and Solicitors who enter so much as one word of criticism against any missing witness. Is that not so now?

      My my. What grim entertainment. Eversheds were once known as a reasonably competent outfit. Word going around is, it's looking unlikely their transnational reputation is going to survive this debark. Dear oh dear. I mean, really? A statutory public inquiry, which fails to secure the attendance of the person who is quite possibly the core witness to the failure by the administration? The actual centrally relevant former Health & Social Services Minister? And is then reduced to lying about a supposed 'absence of power to subpoena'?

      And what has this farce cost? £26 million I seem to recollect from somewhere? I know this isnt a new idea, but a popular movement along the lines of "We Want Our Money Back From Eversheds etc" - could well form a viable electoral platform during your island's next election.

      Delete
  70. Replies
    1. Voiceforchildren, thanks for putting up a link to Leah McGrath-Goodman's latest Newsweek piece.

      Both you and Leah McGrath-Goodman have to know that this article is hyperbolic and blatantly inaccurate in several important respects?

      Delete
    2. tdf....23:50....

      claims the article by Newsweek senior writer & finance editor of Newsweek is "hyperbolic" and "blatantly inaccurate".

      Could we ask for tdf to actually state in what way the article is "hyperbolic" or "inaccurate"?

      Such assertions are easy to make, and could be influential upon people who are not familiar with the issues. Which is why I am surprised that VFC lets such empty spin be published without questioning it?

      Unevidenced empty assertion is the enemy of the truth. And therefore the enemy of justice. The enemy of the vulnerable. The enemy of children.

      I call 'lies', upon tdf. Lies and spin doctors' falsehoods, unless they explain in detail exactly what it is they refer to.

      It will be a sad day when sites such as this acclaimed Jersey blog descends into being a poster-board for cheap, false, empty claims, which then sit there unchallenged.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 21:00

      The article states: "In 2008, police unearthed the remains of at least 10 children, ages 6 to 12 years old, under a shuttered residential care home, on the island of Jersey—a territory of the British Crown, off the coast of France."

      Hyperbolic at best, given that the former deputy head of the Jersey police Leonard Harper has publicly stated that there was insufficient evidence to bring forward any homicide investigation.

      "Mr Harper, now living in Ayrshire, told The Daily Telegraph: “I have been saying for some time that the most likely outcome was that it would be impossible to date the bones accurately and so there would not be enough evidence to launch a homicide investigation. "

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3441862/Jersey-abuse-case-police-rule-out-murder-at-Haut-de-la-Garenne.html

      The article goes onto state (in relation to sailing trips allegedly conducted by the late Ted Heath and the late Jimmy Savile, even though I'm not aware of Savile having any interest whatever in sailing....but whatever)

      "A few of the island’s residents who witnessed these rides have reported some of the children never returned."

      However, the link in the article itself only quotes ONE person who has alleged that a child disappeared during these alleged sailing trips:

      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eleven-boys-went-edward-heaths-6209310

      Even the links provided in the article itself contradict its own claims!

      Thirdly but not necessarily finally:

      "One survivor who published a book about his time at Haut de la Garenne says he witnessed another child (who was trying to fight off his abuser) boiled alive."

      ^ Anyone who believes that assertion needs help. Anyone who profits from such a bizarre claim is a liar and a fraud.

      Accordingly, in other words, the article is a complete load of shite.


      Delete
  71. Can't believe Deputy Sam Mezec praising Channel Television as doing a great job! Is there anyone from the establishment this 'progressive' won't suck up to? Bailhache, Andrew Lewis and now the mouthpice media. You won't be getting my vote if you stand for Senator again Deputy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is he doing this?

      Delete
    2. In the States I believe?

      Delete
    3. Called kissing ***.
      Elections are looming soon so Mezec with others will be creeping to the MSM.

      Delete
  72. Reform Jersey need some candidates at the next election who have both quality and standing/reputation. Otherwise it will be just the three of them getting re-elected again.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Sean Power has a new party set up for introduction.
    Watch this space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Going to the dogs then?

      Delete
    2. The Dandara Party

      Delete
    3. Surely it must be called the S.E.P? The Stolen Email Party?

      Delete
    4. Come on who would work with Power? Deputy Lewis probably? Deputy Mezec maybe? Constable Pallett possibly? The man is widely loathed and distrusted for his past lies and behaviour. I doubt my fellow parishoners of St Brelade would even take him back as a Deputy.

      Delete
    5. The 'I'll take this off the photocopier Party'.

      Delete
    6. 'No I don't get backhanders from Dandara Party'

      Delete
    7. Sean Power won't get elected again.
      He got nowhere when trying to stop the Finance Centre.

      Delete
  74. Sean Power !! Say no more gone off " new " party before announced

    ReplyDelete
  75. You must be mistaken. It is to be a relaunch of the old SDP - Jersey style. The Stolen Data Party!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Surely this Jersey Action Group is going to split votes for Reform Jersey? Also hear that Sir PB wants to form the Jersey Conservative Party. Interesting times ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need more opposition because Reform Jersey have failed to make any noticeable ground against the Establishment. Sadly young Mezec has fallen out with too many people online, Dinosaur Southern needs to call it a day and Tadier hardly ever gets support for anything and probably because he has fallen out with too many people in there.
      It cannot carry on like this because currently the Establishment have Reform Jersey owned.

      Delete
    2. No I don't think so Jonnie. They just need to get a few more people willing to be brave enough to say what they know. Party politics is what we need.

      Delete
    3. I suppose people are bound to fall out with others when they know they are right most of the time? Whatever I think of the Reform Jersey Deputies they are at least trying to do their best for the majority. That they will fall out with a majority who are just in their to look after the wealthy or to feel important is probably inevitable.

      Delete
    4. Shouldn;t Power call his group the Jersey Reactionary Group? He has never done a single thing of value in his whole political career.

      Delete
    5. Sam Mezec will already be linking up with Sean Power on this despite what he's done in the past.

      Delete
  77. This thread is well worth another read:
    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=212.msg61320#msg61320

    The academic work called "Secrecy, Law and Society" which has a chapter covering the bizarre political and legal abuses in Jersey is available for download from £28
    Paperback £29.99 and hardback £95

    www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Secrecy-Law-Society-Greg-Martin/1138826855

    If anyone can find it for less they can post a link


    Review

    "Lawyers, scholars and most certainly journalists and feature writers doing research in any of these areas will find this book, with its extensive and meticulous footnoting, a treasure trove of references to follow up as interesting and authoritative avenues for further enquiry. What is especially refreshing about the book is its plain-speaking and quite often hard-hitting approach to the various aspects of this topic about which the individual contributors have strong views. As a contribution to the ongoing debate on the often insoluble problems inherent in issues of secrecy, security, free speech and the law, this book with its diversity of opinion is first class." - Phillip Taylor MBE, Richmond Green Chambers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Secrecy, Law and Society". Is a gem especially pages 252 to 267. Which is on Jersey and its unstudied and unpublished (until now). Jersey Way.

      Delete
  78. People need to stand together if they are against the Jersey Way no matter their other differences. Otherwise before long people like Stuart Syvret will be in prison all the time having water dripped on their head and a ball and chain attached to their ankles like he had in that video.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Impossible to stand behind people who refused to give evidence.

      Delete
    2. What video? Sounds devastating. Is a link available?

      Delete
    3. Have you got a video?

      Delete
  79. Unbelievable that Andrew Lewis, Sean Power and Ben Shenton are being intertwined with Reform Jersey.....Does the past count for nothing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Three of the seven political dwarves, Shifty, Boozey and Lazy? All we nned now is Smashy and Nicey joining up!

      Delete
    2. None of them are anything to do with Reform Jersey as far as I can see.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous9 April 2017 at 15:03
      Where does Reform Jersey stand against this Jersey Action Group Party?

      Reply
      Replies

      Deputy Sam Mézec9 April 2017 at 23:16
      We don't stand against them.

      We worked with them under their previous name on other campaigns and we might again.

      Delete
  80. Anybody know where the Facebook Group - Channel Island Name and Shame has gone?
    It had over 7,000 members and a full list of Channel island Perverts for children to avoid.
    Please don't tell me this Group has gone because of the new Telecommunication Laws....

    ReplyDelete
  81. I like the Urban Dictionary definition of JAG
    Jag
    an irritating individual with no sense of a social filter and no realization of the implication of his actions; socially inept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like the the basis for being a Jersey Bailiff. Or an Attorney General.

      Delete
  82. Anon 8.06 - The Internet is being controlled by the State by the day and this includes the Dark Web which has been decimated.
    CINAM was on the Police radar for years and people were known to be cautioned for posting up to date details of a child abusers who had fallen off the Sex offenders register.
    It's removal comes as no surprise.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.