Monday, 7 July 2014

A Witch Hunt.........In The Public Interest? (3)




With all the fancy footwork, Book-cooking or creative accounting akin to money laundering used by the Treasury Minister to appease Philip Bailhache, the State Media, in recent days, has reported on little else other than the acquisition of Plemont.

A subject covered very well by fellow Blogger Bob Hill where he raises the points, and asks the questions, an independent mainstream media would if we had one. Bob's three part series on the Plemont debacle can be viewed from HERE.

Of course this massive public interest, and newsworthy, story has been a convenient distraction from some of the other items of business being discussed (or not) in the Island's Parliament. Not least the oral question lodged by the Chairman of Jersey's latest Political Party (Reform Jersey) Deputy Sam Mezec.

Deputy Mezec's question (below) sought to make sense of conflicting messages being given out by the Viscounts Department and the discredited and disgraced ITV/CTV.

Regular readers will be aware that the Viscounts Department, in an unprecedented move, gave access, to the state Media, of former Deputies Shona, and Trevor, Pitman's financial affairs, following their being made en-desastres,  reportedly because it is "in the public interest."

Channel Television ITV/CTV who published/broadcast parts of this sensitive data claimed; 

"It is the first time that the Viscount's Department has had to deal with a bankruptcy case involving politicians. The department says it has released the information because it is 'in the public interest".

Indeed The Viscount Department told Mr. Pitman; "it takes the view that the media have a public-interest right to inspect the claims, given the high profiles of Mr. and Mrs Pitman" and mentioned NO caveats/restrictions on reporting the details of the claims. However after further explanations sought by Mr. and Mrs Pitman concerning the Viscount's unprecedented decision to give this information to the State Media, the Viscount then told the Pitman's that there WERE caveats attached to the decision in giving the information/data to the State Media.

According to the Viscount the media were given access to the list of claims subject to certain conditions and those conditions (according to the Viscount) included that the information;

Was provided confidentially, and off the record, to keep the media updated.

Was provided on the basis that it would not be broadcast.

Was clearly stated to be "not for re-publication."

But as we know CTV/ITV DID publish/broadcast the information and if, as the viscount claims, those caveats existed then they were ignored by CTV/ITV.

Naturally Mr and Mrs Pitman require some kind of explanation as to how their privacy could be so invaded and what options are open to the viscount to pursue CTV/ITV now that it appears to be in breach of the caveats allegedly set by the Viscount.

Deputy Sam Mezec, and others, attempted to get this clarity from the Solicitor General last Monday 30th June 2014 and, in true fashion, answers were not forthcoming. 

Questions need to be answered by ITV/CTV, the Viscounts Department, and the Law Offices Department as to how State Media can carry out a witch-hunt (in the public interest)? and not be held to account.

The Solicitor General needs to learn how to answer questions.

Part 1 of this series can be viewed HERE.

Part 2 of this series can be viewed HERE.










47 comments:

  1. If they don't want this getting any attention then why carry on the story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fingering the Jersey Nazi Party7 July 2014 at 11:54

      First the information was disclosed in the "public interest".

      Then they re-wrote the rules (and the history?) and state that the information was "Was provided confidentially" AFTER it had been broadcast amongst much fanfare and gloating.

      Are they just incompetent or simply dishonest?

      Another function of administration shows itself to be part of the party machine.

      Delete
    2. Do only Nazis ask challenging questions?

      Delete
    3. Pro Paedophile Jurats8 July 2014 at 10:08

      @09:46 & 17:23
      No, Nazis do not ask challenging questions.
      But they do like the opposition to crawl away quietly after the latest roughing up by the partisan authorities.

      Delete
  2. This is yet another example of States time being wasted on pointless questions.
    The parties involved, the Viscount, the Media and the Pitmans are not a States issue and clearly that was the answer.
    My god we need some change in October.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some people are too in-bred to understand the huge implications of the cavalier actions of some of our politicians and legal departments. By our silence we are complicit and thank god there are people do care and will keep asking questions. If any right minded person fails to see the duplicity of the Viscount's Department in this sorry tale, they are either stupid or complicit. Harry

    ReplyDelete
  4. We certainly do need change because at the moment ,the few who will ask awkward questions are being fobbed off , and the establishment are taking the p.... out of ,not only those politicians but the electorate also!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not wanting to get the story any 'attention' is clearly not the issue here. The damage has been done in that both Article 8 of the ECHR and the Data Protection Law have been breached and quite clearly, deliberately so by someone. This is of huge importance for all Islanders who might find themselves, at some point in the future, at the mercy of our unfit for purpose 'justice' system. Either the Viscounts Department or the media - quite possibly both - must be held accountable and - as yet - this is not happening. But it will. Meanwhile, look out for a favourable Jersey interpretation of both Article 8 of the ECHR and the Data Protection Law to try and get them off the hook. You heard it here first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you have hardly done yourself any favours by the way you've mocked the MSM online.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure "mocked" would be the most accurate terminology. Perhaps "EXPOSED" might be a bit closer?

      Delete
    3. The fact that the Viscount "invited the media" to read a public document is the real joke here. They can't post a public document, that anyone can read and then embargo the media from covering it. Another inept attempt to distract from the real story which is simply that the Pitmans lost a court case, lost repeated attempts to re-write history in appeals and then owned up to not being able to afford the case they started. The only judgement in question here is the Pitmans, and why they thought it was a sensible use of time and money to pursue an estate agent over a satirical cartoon in a Christmas advert and then entered a sociopathic period of denial, delusion and ultimately self harm.

      Delete
    4. Or Jersey is incapable of convening an Article 6 compliant COURT/TRIBUNAL and we have a politicised and corrupt "justice" system where the court(s) convened for the Pitman's had more conflicts than Syria so never were going to get a fair hearing?

      Delete
  6. The actions and unprofessionalism of the Viscounts department and the cowardly bullying of CTV are truly sickening. If anyone would try and argue that how the established protocols of handling matters were manipulated against the Pitmans - two of only a tiny minority of politicians who ever stood up for the abused and the oppressed we should not forget - then all I can say is they must have a hidden agenda. Or quite possibly be the kind of intranet troll which spoils such a potentially beneficial medium for justice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's called running for cover.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Have CT/ITV issued a comment regarding the issues you have raised???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not aware that ITV/CTV has issued any comment/statement on the issues raised predominantly by Deputy Mezec. But it (ITV/CTV) should be saying something. It needs to either deny the claims of the Viscounts Department regarding the confidentiality clauses or explain why it breached them and issue a public apology to Mr. and Mrs. Pitman.

      After all ITV/CTV is "accredited" media and accountable..................Isn't it?

      Delete
  9. Has anybody else noticed how the deputy bailiff was on a rescue mission for the SG? He did all he could to help the SG not answer the questions. Good try by Higgins Tadier and Mezec but they were up against the bent judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  10. All well and good but the horse has already bolted so its a bit late to be closing the stable door.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are some very serious problems here, are there not, for your 'Viscounts' Department?

    I've observed under previous posting on this subject that the 'public interest' publication justifications used as excuses at the time did not appear compatible with Article 8 of the Convention. Those excuses attempted to argue that the publication of the personal information of Mr & Mrs Pitman was 'legitimate' because they had previously been politicians. There are circumstances when the publication of information concerning current or former politicians may have a 'legitimate purpose', and might then go on to attract 'justification'. But the publication in question, a unique step from what we can gather of Jersey practice, had neither legitimate purpose nor justification.

    But now we learn that, allegedly the data in question was provided by the 'Viscount' to a TV news company, but on the strict understanding the data in question was private, confidential and not for publication.

    That is extraordinary.

    The Viscount's new excuse is worse than the original breach of the law.

    However thin, and plain wrong in the given circumstances, the 'justification' of the decision of the Viscount to 'publish' the data in question, (for that is what giving it to a third-party, let alone a news media, amounts to) the 'justification' at least had some semblance of logical coherence: 'I adjudge that there is a deep and particular public interest in publishing this usually confidential data therefore I have taken the step to publish.'

    A wrong judgment, certainly, but at least coherent.

    But now? Apparently the excuse is, 'I took the decision to publish this personal data to third-parties, but only the grounds that it was secret, confidential and not for publication.' ?

    Whatever may be claimed for your public administration in Jersey, one thing it is not is 'the rule of law'.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is amazing. Essentially, it's: "You can ask the question but we are not accountable to you. Answers at our discretion! Too bad for you. So, deal with it, we're in charge and we're doing what we want."

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's worthwhile your readers in Jersey and especially internationally, observing just what remarkable low-calibre, low-competency, low-ability are the two oligarchy figures who feature in the recording - the Solicitor General Howard Sharp and the Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache.

    Even setting aside the many other issues - it is very clear that both men are simply of limited intelligence.

    The only factor that distinguishes the performance of one from the other in that recording, is that Bailhache has had a long time to imbue the Jersey oligarchy knowledge that "it's-a-confidence-game".

    "Plausibility" - "confidence" - "assuredness" - "natural authority" - you must - simply must - exude it at all times - as though you were the greatest actor who ever lived.

    No matter how fictional - how crazed - the script - no matter the 1001 lies it contains - no matter that you must take the stage, and deliver as though fact a concoction of the utmost fantasy - that is what you must do - in the name of the theatre - lest the fourth wall be breached - and the illusion shattered.

    Play-act - with the utmost confidence - act for all you're worth.

    The stumbling mumbling player Howard Sharp just can't quite deliver to himself that necessary self-delusion - the actor's hypnosis - whereby he "becomes" the part; instead he can scarcely hide from the audience the fact that he knows he is acting, and he knows he knows he is acting - and cannot hide in himself from the fear that everyone else will too see that he's acting. It cannot be easy to put out of one's mind the facts of the racketeering relationship between 7 Bedford Row - and the fancy-dress charade that passes for Crown prosecution and judicial functions in Jersey.

    But even that experienced old ham William Bailhache could never quite obtain the levels of plausibility the casting required - and that was before his actual actions became wholly non-compatible with the requirements of the fictional role, those of appearing "good", "wise" and "on the side of the rule of law".

    Barking Bill Bailhache retains yet - but barley, and the cracks are showing - a thin plastering of 'confidence' over the howling, empty void behind; but hubris can act as such a prop - if only for a limited time.

    In truth - not only are these two emperors naked - so are all their courtiers.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not so amazing, Elle. It is simply the Jersey Way in operation as a tool of oppression to be used against anyone who threatens the corrupt State. If all or any of this was innocent then you would really expect the Bailiff to be demanding one of his underlings apologises and that the media take the illegal broadcast down.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Once again we see the naked incompetence of the clown officers, if this data was deemed 'confidential and not for publication' by the Viscounts Department why on earth would they release it to the MSM? if they could not 'use' it, perhaps it was so that all the girls and boys could have a good old laugh? What a bunch of total clowns, clown officers and they wonder why we the general public don't bother to vote after this sad performance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Candid BBC 1995 archive interview with Tim Fortescue, Tory whip in the Heath years, explains the cover up of paedophilia:

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/08/watch-former-tory-whip-boasts-about-paedo-mp-cover-up/

    “Anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, “I’m in a jam, can you help?” It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help. And if we could, we did. We would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but one of the reasons is, if we can get a chap out of trouble, he’ll do as we ask forever more.”

    Jersey is in the loop.

    The time to say enough is enough is long past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - that's what I term the "Currency of Concealment" - and that is "How Things Work", in Jersey.

      Even to the extent that a violent serial rapist - an out-and-out psychopath - can have engineered himself into such a position of power & invulnerability - those he has "currency" over will engage in the illegal suspension of the Police Chief so as to de-rail investigations into the rapist.

      The question - in that particular case - is this: has the rapist overreached himself - become too reckless in his hubris - or is he 'safe' and will the very highest institutions of the British state permit themselves to carry on being used, humiliated and damaged by the maniac?

      Stuart

      Delete
    2. You ever thought of writing new scripts for Bergerac?

      Delete
    3. You keep on telling us these scare stories but nothing ever happens.
      You are not making them up are you?

      Delete
    4. I thought about writing a script for Bergerac starting with a story of how the BBC was filming the series up at Haut de la Garenne while children were still resident and how the BBC would rather this KEPT QIUET.

      Delete
  17. if we can get a chap out of trouble, he’ll do as we ask forever more.”

    Jersey is in the loop.

    The time to say enough is enough is long past.

    Says it all about Jersey does it not!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. If there wasn't a currency of concealment, they would have sung like canaries years ago....

    Right again Stuart!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Makes you wonder what hold the maniac, has over the very highest institutions of the British state?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi VFC.

    Just put up a few of the speeches from today's Debate on Civil Same Sex Marriages. You and your reader's can listen HERE

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In view of the SG not answering questions, along with other ministers, I believe some members should get together when an answer to a question is being avoided and walk out of the chamber to the rest room and bring the session to a halt for some minutes as there would not be the right amount of members in house to allow the sitting to continue, this action would be as a means of protest.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If this disgrace wasn't just another establishment attack to try and destroy the Pitmans through one of their lap dogs then surely the Viscount will be taking ITV to court for deliberately breaching the rules in publishing private details illegally?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure if it was a Blogger (Jersey's only independent media) who breached these rules they would have been put through the courts by now. State Media won't be asked to answer for its actions.

      Delete
  23. Stuart S - Maybe its time to stop threatening to "out" the rapist and actually do it? If you really believe that this is the fulcrum of the culture of concealment then you need to do the right thing or withdraw from this topic. To be actively concealing something, based on what you value you believe you can personally extract from it by waving the threat around, while criticising a culture of concealment is beyond hypocritical. You can chose to be a blackmailer or an agent of truth...which one is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As has been explained before. Stuart has named this individual at a public hearing, shouldn't the onus now be on the establishment to name him?

      Delete
    2. Which public hearing? Where can I get a copy of the minutes? A list of the delegates etc.? If it is in the public domain why so shy to repeat the evidence here?

      Delete
  24. My god the JEP have seriously twisted this around today - http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/07/09/members-accused-of-being-homophobic-swung-the-gay-marriage-vote/
    Nick Le Cornu is hardly clever though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Out of all the Headlines the discredited, and disgraced, JEP could have ran with from yesterday’s debate it chose to run with one attacking a progressive politician. Now there’s a surprise (not)

      Then again any “News”paper who describes a potential criminal, who was allegedly leaking confidential police information to a national journalist (with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles) during a live Child Abuse Investigation as a “whistle-blower” instead of reporting him (Mick Gradwell) to “Operation Elveden” can not really be taken that serious in the journalistic world.

      Delete
    2. Stop throwing your toys silly man.

      Delete
  25. "Portsmouth Council to get pervy MP Mike Hancock to cough up for the legal costs of the extensive cover up instigated by the old LD regime in the city?"

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/08/cross-party-councillors-go-after-hancock-for-cover-up-costs/

    This is interesting.
    I wonder if Jersey taxpayers could recover perhaps £20 million from the Jersey Shysters and cover up merchants spent on their cover ups and persecution of child welfare activists.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi VFC,

    As you know, there is an earnest Twitter effort to include the Ch. Islands in the national overarching inquiry. The goal is also to demand survivor and non-establishment public oversight and to see that evidence of child sex abuse and cover-up will be followed wherever it leads, which would include Jersey. Anyone interested in following developments or offering support on Twitter can follow the general hashtag #CSAInquiry, and the campaign hashtag of #aVoice4all

    Thanks,
    Elle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think this suggestion is particularly helpful. Let the COI run its course and do its job before giving them an escape route by bundling it up with a UK enquiry that will get bogged down for years. We should concentrate on supporting the Jersey victims first and foremost, anything else comes later.

      Delete
    2. The UK Inquiry is completely independent from the Jersey Inquiry and will not impact the progress of it. According to the Chair, Frances Oldham QC, taken from the Inquiry's website.

      "The independence of the Jersey Care Inquiry has been underlined by the chair, Frances Oldham QC. Mrs Oldham was speaking after the announcement by the Home Secretary Teresa May of a national review looking at historical cases of child sex abuse. The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry is to begin public hearings later this month on 22 July.

      Mrs Oldham said: ""Our inquiry is independent of the review announced yesterday and we proceed as planned."

      Anyone with experience of the island's care system, including those who were abused or worked within it, is invited to get in touch with the Inquiry team.

      Contact details: https://ijci-public.sharepoint.com/giving-evidence"

      Delete

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