Thursday, 26 March 2015

Chief Minister Ian Gorst Interview. (P.20/2015)

It is very rare that I am able to be proud of our States Assembly and congratulate it for doing the right thing. Yesterday was one of those rare occasions when 34 of Chief Minister Gorst's fellow politicians supported him, the Child Abuse Inquiry, Victims/Survivors and the Island of Jersey as a whole by VOTING in favour of his PROPOSITION and secured extra funding so that the Child Abuse Committee Of Inquiry is able to continue its work and I feel able/compelled to congratulate the States, as a whole, for doing the right thing.

Chief Minister Gorst stuck his neck on the line bringing this proposition against powerful forces in the background and had he lost the vote then surely his position, as Chief Minister, would have had to be questioned? This proposition, as mentioned in our interview (below) was seen by some as a "Gorst V Bailhache battle" and winner takes all. Now it is Senator Bailhache's position as External Relations Minister that should be questioned.


What the States did yesterday was to put Jersey back on the map for the RIGHT reasons. It (hopefully) sent out a message to the rest of the world saying that we will no longer cover up Child Abuse, we are ready to face the "mistakes" of the past, the Island is (to quote the Chief Minister) "grown up." If Senator Bailhache had of got his wish and halted this Inquiry, mid-flow, then Jersey's reputation (if it's possible) would have taken such a dive that it could have been impossible to recover from. Is this the kind of message we want an External Relations Minister to convey to the rest of the world on our behalf?

Senator Gorst, and the States of Jersey, have been the subject of much criticism on this Blog because we question authority and attempt to hold it to some kind of account, and will continue to do so, but credit must be given where it is due and it certainly is due here.

VFC thanks the Chief Minister for agreeing to an interview and having the confidence in this Blog to report fairly and accurately. Most of all we thank him for having the courage to bring his proposition, we thank the 34 other politicians who supported him, and the Victims/Survivors of horrendous Child Abuse on this Island. Yesterday was a proud day for Jersey and sends out a message of hope that the Island has turned a corner and "The Jersey Way" could soon be a thing of the past?..............Or am I being too optimistic?








138 comments:

  1. What a milestone this is in confirming that Jersey's Citizens' media is now a news medium fully worthy of respect as a serious and generally well researched and balanced vehicle for reporting on the real political issues.

    It will be interesting to see what nonsense the usual suspects in the troll community come up with to try and discredit this development. Certainly credit and respect is due both you VFC and to CM Ian Gorst. Thankfully the Senator may at last be proving that he is of a different ilk to the likes of the disgraced former Bailif Senator Philip Bailhache.

    With everything the likes of yourselves, Rico and that tiny band of politicians who have championed the struggle for truth being proven as accurate and truthful with every passing week and revelation from the Inquiry maybe there is hope that Jersey will eemerge from under the Jersey Way blanket of fear and corruption before very much longer.

    Well done once again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey can at last begin to hold it's head high26 March 2015 at 14:31

      Well said 12:29

      Well done Neil McMurray and team voice; fabulous interview, but only one of many milestones you have passed on your road to a better Jersey

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-1.html
      &
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-2.html

      and so many others.

      Delete
  2. Good to see Chief Minister Gorst giving Jersey's political bloggers the respect the vast majority of you so ricchly deserve. Belated as this is it is still very significant. For example I listened to the tripe BBC Jersey was telling its listener today (I was doubling their usual ratings!) and I must say what a chasm there evidently is between the Jersey's political bloggers and the sensationalist mush spouted by those who bask in the term of being somehow 'Accredited' journlalists. All the more power to your elbow (or typing finger?) team Voice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very good interview so much respect for that. One criticism however. I really would have liked to see our Chief Minister come out and condemn the highly offensive, and let's be honest here, ignorant speeches made by the likes of abuse apologists such as Bailhache and ministerial disasters like the useless Suzi Pinel, Edward Noel and co. really these people and others like Constable Refault and Lord bailhache himself ought to be ashamed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This proposition never had any chance of losing so not sure why you think it would have been so close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It very well could have been lost. Back in the day when Philip Bailhache still had his cloak of fear and credability. To my mind this vote showed the old bully's days are coming to an end.

      Delete
    2. @13:05 "This proposition never had any chance of losing ...."

      Really? .........Well such a shame you didn't think to tell your good friend Mr. Bailhache.
      Perhaps he might not have made such an embarrassing last stand and finally admitted that he just might maybe possibly be conflicted and unfit.

      btw, Was it perchance you who said "Bailhache isn't worried about the findings of this Inquiry, where is this nonsense coming from?"

      at:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/open-letter-to-all-states-members.html?showComment=1427364498049#c8036131169541716838

      For how much longer will your super-injunction against Ex Health Minister Syvret remain in place?

      @13:17 Perhaps not just Bailhache's cloak of fear" :-)

      Zero tolerance

      Delete
  5. Sorry but I respect people who have spoken out against the cost of this inquiry because its the GST payers who are coughing up the money.
    People saying its not about money are forgetting that its not the abusers who are paying for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the people who most definitely AREN'T paying for it are the tax dodging banks, 1 (1) ks and non 'local' registered companies pissing themselves laughing at us from behind the likes of Zero/Ten. If things had not been covered up by Crown Officers for decades there would be no need to pay out a single penny now. Put blame where it is due.

      Delete
    2. Its the Trust companies and the devious people who work for them who help all tax avoiders.

      Delete
    3. No, the abusers are not the ones paying for it but those who abused children and those who aided the cover-up, and even those who turned a blind eye, are the ones responsible for the increased costs associated with having to belatedly address decades and decades of child rapes and coverups. Only in Jersey would vulnerable survivors and their supporters be in openly blamed for the cost of a government forced to confront its own criminality.

      Elle

      Delete
  6. I just want to say "well done" to Deputy Montfort Tadier for his speech. It was so refreshing to hear someone saying exactly what needed to be said and in an eyeball to eyeball, no step back fashion once again. This type of articulate and couragous politics has been so sadly lacking since the island was robbed of Deputy Trevor Pitman a year ago. Please keep it up, Deputy Tadier and maybe you can fill the void? Remember what Corporal Jones used to say "They don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring!" Keep the villains on their toes and keep them afraid that someone will be highlighting their failures.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fantastic work VFC. Lets hope Rico can get back blogging. You two have led the way concerning this whole sorry episode. Taking risks with no protection. The 6 should hang their heads in shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. We need all of the established bloggers back on board. Without them all we would never haave gotten to where we are now. Come on, Rico. Hope Stuart and Trevor are reading this too. Victory may be just over the horizon even after all that people have gone through.

      Delete
    2. Oh yes! Hasta la victoria siempre! as that Wolfie Smith used to say...

      Delete
  8. What a scoop. The jersey bloggers are still leading the way. The whole child abuse cover up has been exposed on the Syvret - Sorda blogs as well as this one. The states of jersey did something right by showing up that strange man senator Bailhache

    ReplyDelete
  9. Very disappointed in ian Gorst talking to bloggers. He should have saved this interview for our professional media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey's "professional" media could have interviewed the Chief Minister on this subject. They could have done so very easily. I saw him and a few other States members leaving the States building yesterday - and there was not a "professional" journalist to be seen.

      Instead - about 15 minutes after the debate had ended - a BBC Jersey hack finally showed up with a camera. She then spent 25 minutes filming the chamber door and the crest above it, for generic filler-footage, no-doubt to add to the other 500 hours of exactly the same footage in their files already.

      It was like something out of Drop the Dead Donkey - only with less competence.

      Couldn't make it up.

      Stuart

      Delete
  10. Jersey political leader in Open and Frank Interview Shocker!
    Is this a watershed ? I think Ian Gorst has come of age (Politically).I wish him all the best,not just on this issue but on the many others that we face as a community.Not easy in that den of vipers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hardly a scoop.
    Its just a re-run of what he's said before.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi,

    "Hardly a scoop"

    Really?

    Well here's "a re-run of what he's said before"

    http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

    Don't forget to click play on the audio

    Would you like it on continuous loop?

    Remind us, who are you going to "Fu@k"

    Now wash your mouths out with bleach you silly boys

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gorst and the States did the right thing and deserve credit for it which they have been given by this blog. VFC deserves credit for getting the interview with the island's Chief Minister and the Chief Minister deserves credit for giving the interview. The abuse victims have still got their enquiry and those accused of abuse will be given their right to reply. It is a welcome positive story all round and long may it continue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Extraordinary, blog scoops face to face personal interview with leader of the States of Jersey's parliament.

    If any proof where needed that a) Bloggs are read by interesting and interested people. b) The local politicised weak media especially the hyped BBC and ITV channel no longer enjoy the full confidence or support they feel they deserve.

    Well done VFC first rate, honest, and exactly the way forward for Jersey and those that really care about the island. CM Gorst showed courage by stepping outside of normal ( biased ) reporting and deserves credit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What developments have there been concerning what is the apparent leaking of the former Deputy Police Chief, Lenny Harper's statement to the CoI to Sir Philip Bailhache?

    It was remarked on under the previous posting and I think the situation is of such gravity we should be kept informed.

    The words Sir Bailhache used in his speech were clearly a thinly disguised threat not only to Mr Harper but more significantly I sensed, to other possible witnesses in particular. Even if those witnesses understand that they are protected under the public inquiry, and have faith in that protection (which might be doubtful) it seems to me that people in Jersey have an understandable fear that, whatever the 'law' might say, if you cross the Jersey "Establishment", one way or another they will have their vengeance on you and your family.

    Looking in at events it seems to me that your public inquiry body has to do something, take some very robust steps of some kind now, to re-establish the integrity of their process in the eyes of the public. I would imagine they have to as a minimum identify fully the pathway of the leak, publish that evidence and if an 'Interested Party' was involved withdraw that Interested Party's status and access. The inquiry body must also have to issue a published warning to Sir Philip Bailhache that his conduct amounts to witness-tampering in that it seeks to harass and intimidate potential witnesses to the inquiry.

    It is, after all, very obvious to neutral observers that an immediate and dramatic reaction would have occurred if, say, it was Stuart Syvret who had acted in the way Sir Philip Bailhache has. Syvret would probably have been subjected to another Police Raid, and arrest by now whilst the Police searched for 'leaks' before having him prosecuted.

    Events seem to have been more positive recently and perhaps, as you say in your interview with your Chief Minister, things are beginning to turn around now in Jersey. But that suggestion is never going to appear convincing to us observing what takes place on the island until the rule of law is depoliticised.

    Could you keep us informed of events surrounding the leak of Mr Harper's statement to Sir Philip Bailhache?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has Lenny Harper issued a statement on this leaking of his report and Philip Bailhache's actions?

      Delete
    2. When is Lenny coming over, I would love to meet him.

      Delete
    3. So would Special Branch.

      Delete
    4. Jersey really is astounding. A ship of fools. That comment is another, yet another, direct and overt threat, an attempt at witness harassment and intimidation, by Jersey Establishment supporters directed against a key witness to a statutory public inquiry.

      It becomes clearer by the week that only intervention by London can rescue the population of the island from an intimidatory and criminal regime.

      Delete
  16. Ian Gorst is best pals with Sir Philip so don't get too excited about interviewing him.
    He was never most peoples first choice of CM anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am aware of the speech made by Philip Bailhache during the debate which included attempts by some to shut the child abuse committee of inquiry down. I am also aware that he did not vote to keep the COI going. People will make their own mind up about that. I see that he claims that I have made an 80 page “memorandum” to the inquiry which I "would not dare repeat without the protection of a public inquiry.” Bailhache is of course the caring individual who made the disgraceful speech a while back in which he claimed that the real scandal was not that defenceless children were abused and brutalised, but that Jersey's name was being dragged through the mud, (presumably by those children thoughtless enough to be raped, battered, and abused, as well as myself.) I have news for him.
    Firstly, I have not submitted a “memorandum” to the COI. I have made a statement which contains a ‘Declaration of Truth.’ I will give evidence of everything in my statement, under oath to the Committee of Inquiry. With the documents I have supplied to the Inquiry, including emails from the Attorney General’s Office, and other supporting exhibits, people will be able to make up their own mind as to the truth of what Bailhache refers to as “lurid material.” His comments about “facing down wild and inaccurate headlines in the Tabloid Media” betray a man who senses that he and others may be facing a moment of truth.
    Secondly, my statement is substantially more than 80 pages.
    Thirdly, why should I rise to his infantile provocation and give his cronies the chance to subject me to the same kangaroo courts as went after Stuart Syvret, Shona and Trevor Pitman, and others who dared to stand against child abuse? Why do I need to do that when I will give my evidence to the COI under OATH and in public, allowing the media to report fully the manner in which the Jersey authorities covered up the abuse for so long and how they tried to sabotage our investigation?
    As for his apparent breach of the confidentiality of my dealings with the COI and a rather crude attempt to intimidate myself and others who may have given evidence to the COI, (although in truth I find him as intimidating as Winnie the Pooh,) I have been in touch with the COI and am heartened by the seriousness with which they appear to be taking the matter. I believe others have made similar points to the Committee. We await the result of their investigation.
    It seems that some apologists for paedophiles and child abusers are getting seriously worried about what the COI might discover. That's why they wanted to wreck it, and why they continue to try and discredit the truth. LENNY HARPER

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for updating us Mr. Harper in a comment I couldn't have put better myself and I hope you are right about the Committee Of Enquiry taking Bailhache's threat against you seriously. Thank you for all you have done and are still doing to support victims of abuse. God bless you.

      Delete
    2. For those who wish to hear Senator Philip Bailhache's speech during the debate, where the alleged threats/intimidation took place and much more highly offensive utterings, It will be posted on Rico Sorda's BLOG this evening.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Mr Harper.

      I too saw Bailhache's words as an attempt at intimidation, a fact which only confirmed to me these Jersey establishment people aren't very bright.

      Anyone with any brains would have accepted several years ago by now that you (same with Graham Power and Stuart Syvret) will be intimidated by nothing.

      It's as though the 'culture-shock' to the Jersey establishment circle, of encountering men with integrity and strength, is too much for them to grasp. It just 'does-not-compute', so they have no experience or ability to deal with it.

      That's why Philip Bailhache's speech was the sound of a beaten and lost man. No humility, no idea, no answers - just ill judged ravings that only served to further damage his own reputation and to create yet another huge problem for himself and his circle who must now be investigated for this leak and these threats.

      It really was that misguided and that damaging.

      It's been said before but it bares repeating, a lot of Jersey establishment people will have to wake up one day and come to terms with the fact they've let their institutions and themselves be led down a path of folly by a pair of clearly very eccentric sociopaths in Philip Bailhache and his brother William. A path of folly that will yet take down a number of other careers as collateral damage. Really, just look at the situation? All of it, in addition to the child-abuse cover-ups. So much craziness. How on Earth did Jersey and its institutions and reputation end up in this mess?

      Well, perhaps, albeit too late, the Jersey establishment are starting to wake up from the nightmare. Just 6 votes. Only 6 votes, in a nearly uniformly traditionalist and deferential chamber for a figure of no less standing than a former Bailiff, who was making a desperate last stand.

      He gambled everything, he threw his integrity out the window by speaking even though even he had to conceded he was conflicted, and he took the madly damaging high risk of revealing he possessed leaked statements, and then compounded the gamble by threatening the witness. A last stand, he threw everything into an attempt to rally troops to his flag.

      Only 6 answered.

      It was a disastrous outcome for him.

      He's finished.

      Delete
    4. Well said Mr Harper.

      Delete
    5. Lenny is absolutely correct. After what our corrupt Royal Court cronies did to Stuart, Shona and Trevor wwho in Heaven's name would risk that kangaroo justice? The best news is that no matter what they do brave people like lenny and the above won't be intimidated no matter what. Look forward to hearing his evidence in person.

      Delete
    6. I still want answers as to who authorised our lowly External Relations gofer to meet with the Inquiry Chairwoman anyway? Surely Bailhache did not learn about other people's submissions there? Another question to put to the Chief Minister?

      Delete
    7. brilliant riposte Lenny. Always have the greatest of respect for what you attempted to do during your tenure here during the HDLG investigations. The fact you are pressing hard to assist with this enquiry, even after all the unwarranted negative publicity you received really does show the courage of your convictions

      Delete
  18. I was shown some evidence today , which has nothing to do with the child abuse enquiry , and its made me conclude that Mr Gorst is a good man upon a comment he has made in regards to a particular issue with an alleged sex crime last year.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lenny Harper and Graham Power have both been visible ever since the child abuse investigation and you would think anybody with anything to hide or fear would crawl under a rock and not be heard of again. As an aside when was the last time anyone heard from Mick Gradwell and David Warcup?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I heard a bit of Deputy pryk's speech the other day and must admit I was surprised that she was supporting the inquiry. What I would like to know if someone can tell me is this. Wasn't the Deputy's late husband linked to some of the abuse investigations and if I am correct what and which were they exactly? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe her husband went running to HDLG when Operation Rectangle went public. I think his reason was that he wanted to collect some items that he'd left there previously. I'm sure it's on Stuart's blog- well on his old blog that the Jersey authorities tried and eventually succeeded in taking down. Another disgrace to add to the pile. I will see if I can find the link on his new blog.

      Delete
    2. That's not correct.

      Anne Pryke's late husband - DS Roger Pryke - died some years before Operation Rectangle began.

      DS Pryke's involvement in child-abuse cover-ups relate to the Victoria College / Jervis-Dykes child-abuse episode.

      Some of the evidence for that can be read in the following posting: -

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/letter-from-exile-11/

      Perhaps someone can make a clickable link for readers?

      The confusion of the commenter is understandable.

      When Operation Rectangle publicly made clear it was regarding HDLG as a crime scene, Anne Pryke went to the institution, in an evening I think going from memory - in the company of a civil servant - for the purpose of gathering and removing documentary evidence from the site.

      They were prevented from so doing by the States Police.

      The civil servant Anne Pryke went to HDLG with - though it must be emphasised she may not have known this - was, and remains a core, priority child-abuse suspect - having been named by many survivors to the Police back then - and since, to the CoI.

      I repeat, Anne Pryke may well not have known that. Also, she may well have been very badly advised ('told', perhaps, by certain parties) to go to HDLG to attempt to remove evidence, not realising what it was she was doing.

      No doubt she'll wish to disencumber herself of all of that knowledge in testimony to the CoI.

      She - like many others who have been pulled into involvement and entangled with the wrong side in this wretched episode - would be well-advised to spare and protect no-one - and instead turn "Queen's-evidence", so to speak.

      The war is lost.

      All that will be served now by attempting to protect the real villains and the architects of the scandal will be to be destroyed along with them.

      It's over.

      Those who still can must look to try and redeem themselves - by now doing what is right.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  21. O dearie me! You really have got the Trolls on PJ hate fest forum confused with this excellent interview with Chief Minister Gorst. They just don't seem to know who to attack and why? probably still in slack-jawed meltdown at their mad hero only getting 6 lousy votes?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just a quick message to congratulate VFC on this excellent (as always) blog post. You and other Jersey bloggers are on the mark as you always have been. Without Jersey bloggers, I dread to think how ill informed we would be. I look forward to hearing Sir Philip Bailhache's car crash of a speech due on Rico's blog shortly. Also if you or Rico have Monfort's speech and the rebuff by Len Norman, I for one would be pleased to hear it too.
    Thank you VFC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Montfort's speech was probably the speech of the whole debate, full of truth and powerful evidence against the record of Senator Bailhache in his various roles through the years and his disgraceful record when it came to child protection/abuse issues. Will hope to publish that audio in the next couple of days.......It is/was Monty at his best!

      Delete
    2. Really?
      I heard he had lost it.
      Out of interest, how many States Members are on your side on all this?

      Delete
    3. The speech referred to was Deputy Tadier's speech on the main proposition which won. There are 35 States Members on our side.

      Delete
  23. Replies
    1. Its a good speech.
      Obviously you and Rico prove once again that you have difficulties in dealing with views not shared by yourselves.
      You cannot gag him because we are not in Zimbabwe.

      Delete
    2. Nobody is attempting to gag him........We published his speech! In fact he should talk more often because every time he does he disgraces himself further and displays why he his not fit to hold office.

      Delete
    3. Hi again @9:01

      "Its a good speech"

      No. It was an EXCELLENT SPEECH.

      Probably couldn't have been much better. Starting off all hesitant and even after 2/3 way through when 'Sir' Philip got into his stride it was still packed with mistakes and contradictions and mad irrelevant numbers like "£30 BILLION".

      Difficult to say what the best bit of "Sir" Philip's was....

      -that he only convinced 6 out of the usually pliable buffoons?
      -that he even made the speech, having mumbled that he was conflicted?
      -that he was so desperate and scared that he finally shed the implausible delusion that he could be without conflict while he begged the house not to spend money cleaning up the mess he had helped create?
      -that in his desperation to buy himself time he even (implausibly) claimed that he would welcome inclusion of Jersey in the UK abuse inquiry?

      There is so much to choose from; Which was your favourite bit?

      Delete
    4. What a revolting little man in that audio at that link! Is he the notorious state-sponsored troll who harasses Jersey's bloggers?

      My God, if that's a representation of the Jersey establishment side I think you've been too generous in your depiction of them.

      Shameful. Simply shameful.

      A concerned mother.

      Delete
  24. VFC,

    Congratulations on another Team Voice milestone in securing this interview.

    Although it may still seem like a long hard road to get here, in the long view you have made enormous strides in just a few short years of blogging. I do not doubt that many, or even most, of the elected officials have been forced to recognize the better evidence and more informed dialogue presented on these blogs in contrast with the extreme inadequacy of the mainstream media.

    Perhaps Jersey politicians are also getting a glimpse of what their UK counterparts are undergoing in their own uncomfortable confrontation with previously covered-up CSA evidence posted online. There is a sea change now, to be sure. With the internet, much evidence is destined to emerge sooner or later regardless of government spin.

    The writing is on the wall for the Bailhaches, too. Some of us thought Senator Bailhache was a veritable Lord Voldemort, but now we have it on a good detective's authority that he is just another little naked emperor, or even "Winnie The Pooh," soon to be seen as just the tired wrong-headed relic of a less informed era.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have been rereading Stuart Syvret's last blog post (Formal Submission to the Inquiry - October 2014) in which he called on the Committee of Inquiry to resign. It is a very disturbing post and one of the most disturbing aspects of it is the Committee completely ignoring it, along with their refusing him legal advice in advance of him committing himself to a pig in a poke.

    I have been distracted in more recent times by the efforts of Philip Bailhache to undermine the enquiry and it has been easy to see the Chief Minister emerge as the hero of the hour and forget the very substantial questions raised about the basis and conduct of the inquiry to date.

    The Committee has refused to acknowledge the failings of which it is accused and has not been able to offer any rebuttal, or promise of reform, strong enough to ensure the participation of the widest range of witnesses including some of those whose tertimony is key.

    The danger presists, therefore, that despite everyone else's best efforts, the results of the Inquiry may well be undermined from the word go.

    This would be a sad outcome given that, short of a proper UK+ wide enquiry, this is probably Jersey's last chance of coming to grips with an appalling tragedy which has haunted it and undermined the integrity of its administration for decades.

    Having said all of that it is encouraging that a wide range of people have come forward and that officialdom is getting increasingly nervous at the progress of the inquiry. And it is also encouraging that the bloggers have proven their credentials in their reporting and criticism of the inquiry and have exposed the complicity of the mainstream media in the ongoing cover up.

    It is very difficult to see how the faults of the inquiry can be remedied on the fly, but there is a need for pressure on the Committee to face up to such deficiencies as may be remediable in order to increase the chances of its outcome serving the purpose for which it was intended.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Discussing this posting with colleagues this morning, it was suggested around the water cooler that the now deceased father of one of Jersey's judges, the father, I emphasise not the judge, was a child abuser and that this fact was know amongst social services and policing circles.

    Have you heard anything of that sort VFC?

    If true it might explain some of the conduct of the Jersey judiciary and prosecutors and their habit of being soft on some child abusers and silencing some campaigners. Imagine how personally damaging that information would be to the judge and his family name and the Jersey judiciary in consequence if it came out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's very interesting. Has anyone else heard of that? Jeez, imagine how crazy bad it would be if that judge had played any official judicial role in any of the controversies of the recent years? That would be too insane, yeah, even for Jersey? Boy, just imagine the fall-out for TPTB in London from that?

      Delete
    2. I, like others, have been made aware of what you mention and it could be that the Child Abuse Inquiry has received evidence to that effect. As things stand, as far as I see it, this remains hearsay and until I see evidence of the claims it will remain so.

      Delete
  27. Listening to Sir Bailhache's speech on Rico's blog I thought there was a kind of serendipity in it, that this is the same week the bones of the reviled Richard III have been entombed.

    Bailhache could have ended his speech with the words "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

    That's like the ending we're witnessing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Just read Bob Hill's excellent posting.

    Looking at the photos of the maleficent seven, someone needs to have a friendly chat with that Deputy Truscott and offer him some words advice as he embarks on a political career: 'ditch the wig, mate. It's fooling no-one.'

    Pip Pip.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There's a point I think people are missing in this discussion. Suppose there is a huge additional cost. Suppose it does cost another £20 million, or for that matter even £50 million as Philip Bailhache claims. Isn't it obvious where 75%, at least, of such funds would have been spent?

    The king's ransom of all of the funding will be spent on heavy London lawyers, by Jersey's Crown Officers, in a desperate attempt to defend themselves, to defend the indefensible.

    So most of the costs will be incurred because of the individuals largely responsible for the disastrous mess.

    I mean, let's have a guess of how much public resources, time and money has been spent so far already to the purpose of defending Philip and William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq and Michael Birt etc. Then add to that the millions more that will be spent on the cream, no doubt, of London QCs to run the Bailhache Brothers and' Birt's and Le Cocq's cases as the public inquiry unfolds?

    These people do not intend to spare a penny of other people's money in their attempts to hide from the consequences of their own misfeasances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An extremely important point, Anon @ 16:55! Well made.

      Elle

      Delete
    2. Yes.

      And the Inquiry is penny pinching in the case of Stuart Syvret who seeks legal advice and justifiably so as the other crowd are clearly out to get him by any means, fair or foul.

      Delete
    3. It would seem most unlikely a statutory public inquiry refusing to give legal representation to an un-resourced key witness would be doing so for reasons of 'penny pinching'.

      There has to be other motivations, surely?

      Delete
    4. From what I've gleaned from reading the various sources, especially Jersey's blogs, the motives of the public inquiry in refusing to give Syvret legal representation funding seem clear.

      Isn't it the case they'd give him such funding but only after he'd accepted the binding conditions of 'Interested Party' status? Syvret, not unreasonably, has refused to sign-up to be so bound by those 'Interested Party' conditions unless he can take legal advice on the consequences of so doing, before he signs up.

      If I'm correct in my summary of the situation, Syvret's position is entirely understandable.

      The more interesting issue is what, indeed, are the motivations of the public inquiry in adopting such an obviously unreasonable policy?

      I suspect the answer to that question will be found in those binding conditions they seek to impose, as laid out in the inquiry's protocols.

      If the effect of those conditions is to somehow restrict Syvret's rights or the rights of those he has worked for or is allied to, then that would be the motivation of this pubic inquiry: to restrict and lock-in and restrain future activism.

      And why would they wish to do that?

      It seems quite obvious to me: to prevent the same degree of investigation, challenge, research and scrutiny, of the kind that's been done by Jersey's bloggers, being carried out on the work, and the reports and findings of the public inquiry itself.

      If the Committee of Inquiry's protocols do bear such a reading, then there you have it.

      That is why they will not give Syvret legal representation, unless his future ability to freely scrutinise, challenge and write gets restricted first.

      The public inquiry, I suspect, know perfectly well that if Syvret was able to employ competent and independent legal advice that advice would tell him that the Protocols did, indeed, amount to abuses of his human rights and the rights of others.

      Delete
  30. http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-serious.html

    Is there any connection with the tampered mail of Lennie Harpers?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Why are people pretending this is a Trial?
    Its an Inquiry with no legal binding on anybody.
    If people accused of abuse say they are innocent then that's that, there is no jury for prosecutors to sum up to for a verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Neil. you're so right to point out to Gorst that you used to be proud and speak well of Jersey. I was the same and I'm sure there are many more like us. When abroad I was always proudly boasting about Jersey, it's beauty and the friendly way of life.

    But the Government-led occurrences of the last few years have deeply hurt and shocked me to the core- shattering my perception of Jersey.

    What has gone on, is so appalling that until it's fixed properly, I simply can't let it go and feel proud again. I'm not a victim, just an ordinary and sufficiently intelligent resident who knows the difference between right and wrong. And while the abuse these children suffered is so utterly dreadful, the way the Jersey establishment behaved consequently is equally, if not more so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree with your sentiments and as pride has turned to shame, trust to mistrust and belief to disbelief, I fell saddened that I am no longer able to cherish my island home in the way I once did.
      The words of our chief minister in the interview are most welcome breath of fresh air as is the fact that senator Gorst won the debate against senator Bailhache by such an overwhelming majority.
      The significance of this victory should not be underestimated.
      Thank you Ian Gorst for your words and for doing what is right for the victims and for the people of Jersey
      I sincerely hope that those who have evidence will now be willing to give that evidence to the enquiry as it enters phase two

      One thing is certain and that is the truth of how and why the brutal treatment of children in the care of the states of Jersey was able to continue unchecked for so many decades will never come out if those who hold important evidence turn their heads. Even if some may have doubts about the enquiry itself that evidence must still be given.
      I trust this enquiry not least because in the present climate it is inconceivable that it also will become part of the cover up of the failings of the state and of those who hold high
      office.
      Please take a chance to give truth a chance.

      Delete
  33. futureproof @Jersey28 March 2015 at 08:27

    Wow VFC

    That was an exceedingly shrewd move buy the island's Chief Minister!!!!

    He has given this game changing interview exclusively to "Team Voice" rather than to CTV, BBC Jersey or the excuse of a newspaper.

    Who saw that coming?

    This 'accreditation' of the quality blogs is perhaps not the most important message.

    Gorst knows that the old guard will not *spontaneously* loose the support of the island's heritage media.

    For those that missed it the message is "no longer the only waterhole in the desert"
    (& certainly not the cleanest)

    None of the heritage media is anywhere near untainted ......as will become increasingly clear as the truth comes out.

    The game is over for the kingmakers holding power to ransom.

    The new landscape is brought into sharp focus and only those who adapt and serve the truth will survive.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I wouldn't speak to Ian Gorst if you paid me to.
    He never answers straight questions but bends them like a Tory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous @9:39 "I wouldn't speak to Ian Gorst if you paid me to. He never answers straight questions but bends them like a Tory."

      All politicians guard their words and bend the truth but Gorst has demonstrated considerable ability and leadership. Most readers here are "Tories" and even for those who are not the critical thing is that he does not bend the truth like a PAEDOPHILE.

      Paedophilia is a cross-party problem so why would a genuine commenter bring up party politics?????

      Not on a mission to disrupt this thread are you?
      There is a coven of throwbacks on the island who would want to. One of these can be heard making death threats on the audio available at:
      http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

      Those who make fascist death threats might in fact find the Tories distastefully left wing.

      These nutters sadly do exist on our fair isle. Care in the community is not working we must join together and campaign for these people to get the help they desperately need.

      BTW, has anyone offered to pay you to speak to the Chief Minister?

      Delete
    2. Jon isn't a states member or anything to do with the COI so no idea why you keep on referring to him and I am not trying to disrupt any threads but basing my opinion on observations on questions without notice. He's not been a great CM but nor have his predecessors.
      Shame they don't still run the Jersey Way blog because questions without answers was a fortnightly feature.

      Delete
    3. For my part I was keen to give the CM some credit for doing something right in the face of powerful opposition. He has been the subject of much criticism on this Blog, and as mentioned in the main posting, credit should be given where it is due. He has supported the Victims/Survivors of Child Abuse in this instance and that is a huge step in the right direction and puts Jersey on the map for the right reasons.

      He should also be given credit for agreeing to be interviewed by me. Despite the criticism/challenge he, and his COM's have been the subject of on here he gave an open and frank interview regardless. That was a leap of faith on his part and a huge endorsement of the credibility of this Blog.

      Delete
    4. I have posed a few questions on Twitter to him direct, without answers, or shady answers at best.
      Can you stop comments being de-railed on here with stupid troll posts like the above on Toilets though, I never asked for that.
      Its got nothing to do with the subject of this interview and its insulting to people trying to make comment on your blog.

      Delete
    5. I'm not here to defend the CM and say he doesn't have faults or that I agree with his politics because I don't. The point I am making is that this Blog does not challenge/attack government policy/decisions without giving it/them the credit when it is due.

      Delete
  35. http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20United%20Nations%20Convention%20on%20the%20Rights%20of%20the%20Child%20report%2020140918%20CS.pdf
    so who has ever read this boring international document....and a full report to the UN is due this September written by whom - shall the public have any input etc?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Several of your readers have apposed, chatterbox, Graham73, Skinky and boll1987 who like clock work turn up on the badly moderated JEP comments section spouting non factual rubbish. In response I offered a shorter version of the article below, very unlikely they will publish, you may feel it worthy VFC.

    Savvy islanders who get the real news from factually well researched independent local bloggs, will know that Graham Power, Lenny Harper, Stuart Syvret, the Pitman's and other individuals who were not afraid to ask the right questions and plenty of them, also put them in direct conflict with the Jersey old boys club, using a local system referred to as the " The Jersey Way. "

    They paid a heavy price by having the extremely well funded Government machine work to have them suspended and investigated and in Syvret's and the Pitman's case bankrupted.

    " The Jersey Way " for offshore readers allows secret trials using a petty criminal unreliable witness and in camera ( private) debates by parliament about politicians who have probably lied to other politicians to support their questionable actions.

    Also in the mix are unelected quango's operating at arms length from Government, that spend the taxpayer’s money, and are stocked with ex politicians and ex civil servants some sitting on more than one, which would be a complete scandal in the UK and other decent democracies?

    The title of this article is " Minister conflicted over care enquiry " this is almost normal for Jersey, the Queens own crown dependency or as some wags put it, the City of London's own protected slush fund island ?

    Thw Policy and Resources Committee chairman Mr Mark Boleat, of the city of London, in the UK where he resides, is well remunerated for holding seats as chairman on two major Jersey quango’s.

    The Channel Islands Competition and Regulatory Authorities, the States of Jersey Development Company.

    He is rarely seen in the island given his large portfolio of other work but the moneys good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Non factual or just unpalatable?
      I worry when I constantly see other Internet users freedom of speech being attacked in this way and it appears on here a lot.
      You may not agree what they say, but my god give them the right to say it!

      Delete
  37. Jersey bloggers have been at the forefront of factual news where the child abuse cover up is concerned. This blog didn't need an interview with the Chief Minister to gain credibility it already has that. It is the Chief Minister's credibility that would have shot up as a result of the interview.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Nigel Gregory Mr Harper added: ‘As in all such ventures, costs must be carefully accounted for. Within that proviso, the truth and justice must take precedence. Costs can be reduced in many ways - maybe Lenny Henry should have thought about that...See More

    18 hrs · Like · 3

    comment on facebook. Where have I heard that name before?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well done Terry McDonald on your maiden speech paticularly as it was on this emotional subject. For those doubters of Terry he is working VERY hard in the background on other projects which will be shown in the next few months so watch this space & keep the powder dry Terry!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope that you are right. I like Terry very much as a person and having heard him talk politics many times I had high hopes he would have shown himself on the people's side in the manner of Stuarts, Trevor and Montys et al. Unfortunately so far I have been bitterly disappointed by his Trappist Monk silence.

      Delete
  40. Please could someone provide a link to all the speeches given recently in support or against the COI proposition.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So far as I am aware there is only the speech of Senator Bailhache online which is HERE. We (Rico and I) hope to have a couple more up in the next day or two.

      Delete
  41. I think this interview shows one of the two things which make Jersey's political bloggers such as yourself so superior to the likes of the BBC, JEP and ITV etc.

    You provide the opportunity to discuss and explore stories at adequate length instead of the dumbed down soundbytes of our MSA. You also always deliver properly researched, knowledgable questions too - which means I should be saying THREE things better.

    My original second big plus was the wide variety of different byt always important stories you cover. really one can never guess what different angle on what is going on in our beautiful but now Septic isle you might unearth for we readers/viewers next!

    You deserve all the credit in the world for such an excellent service. Frankly to think you are apparently classed as 'unaccredited' as a journalist is a joke. Not that you would probably want to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry. In case I confused people with the abbreviation MSA I was meaning Main Stream Accredited media.

      Delete
    2. A good question VFC. After this Gorst scoop you will be hard-pressed to come with something a bit differrent to show yet another side of the Establisment Oligarchical cesspit, won't you?

      Delete
    3. Not sure I understand the question?

      Delete
    4. Don't panic I was not criticising. I was just making the point that after getting one of the Establishment Big Wigs to give an in depth interview it will be interesting to see what you can unearth from Jersey dark political underbelly next. Whatever it may be I look fiorward to it as always. A pretentious Bailhache speech full of red herrings or a man living in fear of a deranged neighbour with petrol bombs VFC rarely fails to surprise. Long may it continue.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for your support, and there might actually be an update to the PETROL BOMB story soon.

      I am currently editing the video of an interview with a former politician who has decided to go public and speak out against "The Jersey Way" and hope to have it published soon.

      Delete
  42. Has anyone else noticed that the Home Affairs minister seems to have gone AWOL again? Does anyone know why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps he is @London choosing his very expensive legal team
      (at your expense)

      Or on a lighter note

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ALD-rI8Q08

      "Woah ...I'm going to Barbados"
      (still at your expense)

      Delete
  43. As Gorst now has the power to hire and fire his Ministers he should be firing Bailhache for embarrassing (shafting) Jersey internationally with his speech against the abuse victims on the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ian Gorst has show a degree of leadership and intelligence here that so far none of Jersey's traditional establishment have shown over these troubled years. He has done the right thing for the greater long-term good of the Island exactly by not being driven by the immediate short-term self-interests of a few over-privileged under-accountable establishment figures and their petty, greedy little constituencies of business associates and tribal rentier families.

    In that sense he may well be the first leader Jersey has had in 4 decades who's had the wisdom to put the long-term good of the community over the machinations of sordid little power cliques.

    But more than that, I think Ian Gorst has been clever in ways that may go beyond the obvious.

    In being as unambiguous and firm as he has over the COI funding, and in the act of giving this interview to Jersey's bloggers, he's done more than just support the Inquiry, in that he's obviously giving a clear signal to survivors, whistle-blowers, bloggers and campaigners that he wants to build bridges. In not so many words, he's saying, 'look, yes, I recognise things have gone terribly terribly wrong over the decades, and in these last few years the authorities have behaved disgracefully, but I want to fix that, I want to bring about a healing process.'

    But I think there's an even more powerful sub-text to Ian Gorst's 'message'. And I think he knows it and its quite deliberate. I don't think his main audience in these actions were the survivors, whistle-blowers and bloggers. I get the feeling that beneath his genuine steps to reach out to us, there's a subliminal and iron-clad warning to the culpable establishment figures in these cover-ups and their misguided little circles of allies and supporters.

    This has all been a clear warning from Ian Gorst, to that culpable and intransigent establishment. He's saying to them, 'Beware. I am taking governance and power in Jersey over to the right side, taking it on to the moral high ground. Your mad war of corruption, cover-ups, sleaze and abuses of power is over. You've lost. Recognise that fact clearly. Or be swept away by the tide.'

    Under his quiet and unassuming appearance Ian Gorst might just have displayed the steel a real leader needs.

    Let's hope our establishment have the intelligence to see the writing on the wall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on @20:07
      All credit to Chief Minister Gorst

      But it is a high risk strategy

      The old guard will not go down without a fight, especially those who are hilt deep in paedophilia, abuse and cover up.

      They will bide their time and regroup,
      accompanied no doubt by a syvrtesque hatchet job in the owned (& hilt deep) media

      Delete
    2. Assuming comments 20:07 and 06:17 are both right, isn't it the case then that TPTB in London need to step in, at least in some way? Don't they need to make some kind of public gesture, much the same as it's suggested Ian Gorst has done?

      It's possible they've made some rumblings behind the scenes, but that's of no use in bringing our oligarchs into line or, more importantly, giving ordinary members of the public in Jersey, many witnesses, the sense of confidence they need to speak out without fear of reprisals. And that absence of some kind of public 'warning shot' from TPTB in London against the corruptions of our oligarchy makes Ian Gorst's task and his chances of sorting out the Jersey mess that much harder.

      Until London does or says something public, and it has to be public, against 'The Jersey Way', people like Gorst will be vulnerable to political stirring, co-ordinated 'rebellions', calculated underminings from Jersey's toxic heritage media, and the very real chance that people like the Bailhache Brothers will rally Jersey conservative populist opinion against Gorst and the COI.

      That latter could happen very easily, and I'm not sure London recognise how easily. It could happen because the population of Jersey is so propagandised, mislead and ignorant of the facts many of them genuinely have no idea that the traditional oligarchs are dangerous crooks. There are so many people in Jersey who have swallowed whole the PR and spin-doctoring of the last 7 years, that they believe it. These are people who actually believe the former Police Chief to have been some kind of crook, and the Bailhache Brothers to be wise, kind, and ethical.

      A 'message' has to be sent to those misguided people, a clear public signal of some sort from London that will shock Jersey traditionalists into rethinking their take on things and wake them up to the truth.

      An obvious, and in fact legally necessary step, would be the suspension, as a neutral act, of William Bailhache from the position of Bailiff. Let's face it, he's conceded himself that he's conflicted, and there is very very serious prima facie evidence in the public domain against him in the form of the former Police Chief's affidavit for Stuart Syvret. It's just impossible under those circumstances for William Bailhache to remain active as the head of Jersey's judiciary. So not only is suspending him the right and necessary thing to do, it would also have the good side effect of sending the kind of 'shock and awe' unmistakable public signal that might, finally, discipline the Jersey Establishment.

      It's so obviously the right and necessary thing to happen, that in the absence of some kind of intervention of that nature, the conclusion has to be that Whitehall and the covert Privy Council apparatus are still solidly supporting the Jersey oligarchy and the consequent abuses of the human rights of ordinary people in the island.

      Delete
  45. Who of the politicians that voted against the COI funding, also voted to keep the in camera debate, transcript secret?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Transcripts/Hansard of in-camera debates are kept secret as a matter of course, it can't be voted on. Bloggers were leaked the in-camera debate I think you might be referring to HERE.

      Delete
  46. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/28/jersey-secrecy-culture

    ''But at the closed session on Tuesday, States members voted to keep the transcript secret.''

    The quote above from the article linked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the LINK TO ARTICLE. I'll try to look the vote up tomorrow unless a reader could get it?

      Good question by the way!

      Delete
  47. http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Votes.aspx?VotingId=2523

    Hahha the link was in the article.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The June 2012 votes are here, the three P48/2012 votes at the bottom of the page. It is the paragraph a) vote that shows you who the cover up merchants are:

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Votes.aspx?Year=2012&Month=6

    The actual transcript of the June 2012 debate is at:

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx?docid=9d31a43829d033f5e0aac11e81dc8c48_StatesAssembly where you can click on the PDF.

    The direct link to the PDF is:

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyHansard/2012/2012.06.26%20States%20-%20Edited%20Transcript.pdf

    Go to page 104 and read all the machinations about debating to go 'in camera' in June 2012, in order to debate the release of the Dec 2008 'in camera' debate...

    At the heart of this problem (apart from all the obvious lies...) is the fact that, until very recently, the management of Jersey's police was subject to too much direct political meddling. The care inquiry will no doubt highlight this. What functioning democracy holds 'in camera' debates about disciplinary issues relating to its police chief? This is the territory of a police authority. It's an employment issue, not a political football. Things are slightly better nowadays but this whole island is still backward.

    It's interesting that the Les Pas saga gets a dishonourable mention in the transcript. Remember which senior lawyer was in that up to his neck, scaremongering about the cost of lawyers, left right and centre. If only blogs had existed at the time of Les Pas...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for links they are very informative.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately there is plausible analysis which indicates that the "independent" Police Authority is a Bailhache franchise/quango .....

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-ogier-group/

      ILM is on record as stating that Jersey's Police must be brought under MORE political control, prior to his selection of an 'OurChap'.......

      Jersey@All stitched up?

      Delete
    3. From the above Ogier link and Bowron's non investigation:

      "Apparently – it would be a “breach of the Data Protection Law” for them to identify their “legal advisers” in this matter.

      (Up-date: see the following extraordinary and farcical development, another example of politicised, fake, “policing” in Jersey:

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/potemkin-village-policing/

      Well, in the future, the policing function in Jersey won’t have to go to the inconvenience of “seeking legal advice”.

      Henceforward, The Ogier syndicate will give them appropriate direction – before the police get themselves into a mess – by investigating the “wrong” crimes.

      Delete
  49. Now having been given an interview by an "accredited" Chief MInister will it give you the seat at hearings as an "accredited" journo?

    ReplyDelete
  50. VFC

    May I also bring up again this interesting blog post from Tony Musings regarding the overlooked power of the unelected Deputy Bailiff or Bailiff to veto propositions made by the elected States members. How convenient and another slap to democracy in Jersey!

    Quote:

    The Deputy Bailiff [William Bailhache]: What is the matter of privilege that you wish to raise?

    Deputy M.R. Higgins: It is the fact that I have put a proposition to you seeking to have the release of the transcripts of the 2nd December 2008 in camera debate, or part of it, to be released to the public. I have asked for this proposition to be put forward to the States because I believe the States were misled by the former Minister for Home Affairs at the time. My matter of privilege is that you have denied me the opportunity to bring this proposition, which I think needs to be heard by the House and the decisions need to be made by the House, and I believe the public must be assured that information that was put out at the time is correct.

    The Deputy Bailiff: The matter of privilege must relate to something which you, as a Member, have a right to do. Under Standing Orders ...

    Deputy M.R. Higgins: I think it is a matter of privilege.

    The Deputy Bailiff: Can I please finish? Under Standing Orders the arrangements are that when a Member wishes to lodge a proposition he or she needs to have the consent of the Bailiff before it is an option. It seems to me that it is impossible to say that an issue of privilege arises. Unless there is any other point you wish to raise I would make a ruling here and now that no issue of privilege arises.

    http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/baillifs-veto.html




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In his submission to Lord Napier, Sir Philip Bailhache himself writes that the Bailiff ( or assistant Bailiff ) as speaker is non-political and almost whiter than white in his duel roll as speaker of the house and head of the judiciary, which is of course absurd and proven again by the revealing post at 11.49.

      A Sunday morning unsettling read, it must be clear to all states elected politicians and the public, that Jersey can no longer afford a non elected speaker having prerogative over which questions and propositions may or may not be asked in the States of Jersey assembly.

      Proof is written in a continuation from the post above, between the courageous Deputy Mike Higgins and the Deputy Bailiff who is sitting in for the Bailiff as speaker in Jerseys' parliament.

      Is it not time for the duel rolls to be split, and for the Bailiff to be removed as speaker as again written in the Lord Napier report but so far ignored. How can Jersey call itself a democracy, when politicians cannot discuss in a public forum an agenda of their own making ?

      Quote:

      Deputy M.R. Higgins: I would make a point on that. I believe that, as I have stated to you in our correspondence, the proposition itself meets the 3 tests laid down by the Bailiff, as I have indicated in the letter. It is lawful, it corresponds with Standing Orders and it is not anything detrimental to States business.

      The Deputy Bailiff: Deputy, I am sorry, this is not an issue of privilege. I might also add that you have asked me to reconsider the decision, which I am in the course of doing, and in those circumstances it seems that this is a premature matter in any event. It certainly is not an issue of privilege.

      Deputy M.R. Higgins: If I can respectfully disagree and I will state why I believe it is a question of privilege. This House is a sovereign parliament and it should be for Members of this House to decide if a proposition is in accordance with Standing Orders and the Bailiff's 3 tests it should be decided upon by Members of this House who have the ultimate authority in these matters.

      The Deputy Bailiff: Very well, I rule against you. It is not a matter of privilege because the Standing Orders make it plain that a Member has no right to lodge a proposition without the leave of the Bailiff. That leave has not yet been given and therefore no issue of privilege currently arises.

      Boatyboy

      Delete
  51. ''The Deputy Bailiff: Can I please finish? Under Standing Orders the arrangements are that when a Member wishes to lodge a proposition he or she needs to have the consent of the Bailiff before it is an option. It seems to me that it is impossible to say that an issue of privilege arises.''

    (impossible under that Deputy Bailiff)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Could I make a suggestion VFC which I think would improve this blog? When people comment and include URLs could you make it a policy of ALWAYS making the referral a hyperlink?

    I know you can copy & paste the web addresses into a browser, and I do, but only sometimes. Sometimes I can't be bothered (and I'm interested in these subjects, so a casual reader may miss even more). And when there are a lot of URLs as in the comments on this thread, it's just too many to be bothered with pasting. I see you sometimes respond with a comment containing a hyperlink, so why not always?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the problem is that VFC cannot edit comments. It is not possible to do so in Blogger/Google, so the commenter would need to do so in the original comment.

      You can't put pictures in comments either so here is a link to the format for creating a clickable link.


      Delete
  53. Isn't it time to start casting your gaze now beyond the obviously 'dead-men-Walking' in the Jersey Establishment who the rule of law, if it means anything at all the British state, will inevitably deal with?

    The next stage of the campaign for effective checks and balances must now be cast towards all those in positions of authority of whatever kind in the UK system who have assisted the Jersey Establishment in the malfeasances of the last decade. The no doubt multiplicitous acts of corruption by many London based individuals, Whitehall mandarins and others for example, must be raised with the UK child abuse inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe there are campaigners (UK and Jersey) politicians (UK and Jersey) and journalists (UK and international) who are chasing that angle quite heavily. The UK has overall responsibility for the Crown Dependencies and to ensure their good governance and rule of law.

      It is inconceivable to believe all the cover up and collusion in the island's Child Abuse atrocities, and related events, has not been sanctioned by the UK and it/they should be held to account and if the UK CSA Inquiry is to be seen as credible then the links between the UK and Jersey have to be investigated.

      Theresa May, thus far, has ruled Jersey out of the UK's CSA Inquiry but has said that the final report of the "Oldham Inquiry" will be fed into the UK one.

      I believe there will be enough pressure brought to bear where Theresa May will have to do a U-Turn on this and include Jersey/Ireland/St. Helena in the UK Inquiry. But until we get there I believe it is imperative for anybody with any evidence should submit it to the Jersey or "oldham" Inquiry which can be done from HERE.

      Delete
    2. Dead men Walk(er)ing. Nice touch.

      I was told by a friend that the toxic former chief minister is actually reduced to Facebook trolling and that he can be found joining in with pro-cover-up threads along with the well known multi-avatar drunken death-threat lunatic? Is that right?

      If so, isn't there something pitiful, really pitiful, humiliating and degrading that a former chief minister (and his adult kids apparently) is reduced to joining in with an obviously bananas micro-grouping of eccentric individuals who have no grasp facts or the concept of evidence-based analyses?

      I'd respect his stance if he submitted comments here or on Rico's blog, and did so in a rational manner in which he explained his opinion that we have it wrong, that we've misunderstood somehow, that we've misinterpreted all of the different documentary evidence. Perhaps he has some fact-based reason which explains why, say the former Police Chief or Deputy Chief are wrong? Perhaps he can explain why Deputy Andrew Lewis gave two mutually incompatible accounts of his actions, given Lewis himself can't explain?

      I'm sure you'd publish any such reasoned points from Frank Walker, wouldn't you?

      I doubt he'll engage though. We all remember how he went into complete melt-down in 2008 when faced with serious debate and inquisitorial journalism.

      The former chief minister looks like a desperate and frightened man. Even more isolated now, reduced to Facebook threads populated by some very poor company. The 'machine' looks to be casting him to the wolves. As well it might. Even on the basis of only that which is public at the moment.

      Delete
    3. Dead men Walker-ing
      is still all over the web and still "shafting Jersey internationally"

      www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zAZnEP2X7ZE

      Did we ever find out how much of our money was spent on by Frank's lawyers to pursue a complaint against Paxman?

      Even a child would know that Paxman was not hard on Walker and in fact seriously let him off the hook by mis-hearing his words as "Showing Off Jersey Internationally"

      Perhaps Paxo is unaccustomed to potty-mouthed outbursts from would-be statesmen.

      Interesting suggestion that Frank is now taking an active role in Jon's ilk in their ongoing campaign.

      Is this especially on the JEPaedo site do you know?

      Delete
  54. http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2015/03/p2015-speeches-of-education-minister.html

    The speeches of Education Minister, Deputy Bryans and Deputy Truscott who both voted against extra funding for the care enquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  55. VFC, whilst there's been a justifiable focus on Andrew Lewis on the blogs, isn't there a danger that you'll let Ian Le Marquand off the hook? I haven't seen that much about him recently, yet he was Home Affairs Minister for 6 years and it was him who continued the illegal; suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.

    Going from memory, weren't his actions some ways worse than Lewis's? I think I read he was actually conflicted in the child-protection scandal as he had been involved in jailing chilling into solitary confinement regimes when he was a magistrate? And wasn't he receiving private data which was unlawfully leaked to him by David Warcup?

    I ask these questions because there's a lot of focus on the Bailhache Brothers, Lewis etc, but of all the villains in this scandal Ian Le Marquand is right up there in the top 5 at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed Ian Le Marquand has just as many questions to answer as Andrew Lewis does. Lenny Harper, and the public, are still waiting for this OPEN LETTER to be replied to. If the Child Abuse COI is able to get on with its work and get to the truth then it is anticipated that neither Lewis, nor Le Marquand, will come out of it well.

      Delete
  56. No idea why you are attacking the JEP for its commentary on these issues as I thought it had been very open lately with arguments allowed from both sides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi @10:04 "No idea why you are attacking the JEP for its commentary..."?

      A fair question, and one which may be directed at us, rather than at TeamVoice.

      Our analysis continues to be -that the smart money does not support or fund the organisations which provided cover up services and non-reporting for the decades in question.

      The fact that their reporting is currently better is not a matter of choice. The JEP is fighting for it's life in a changing world and have belatedly woken up to the real news competition from the bloggers.

      The JEP is still behind the curve and is now only reporting largely what was on these quality blogs five years or so back (half a decade! in real money)

      Those with access through their laughable paywall can indeed read half reasonable articles like

      http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/27/minister-conflicted-over-care-inquiry/

      So good -they finally give Ex Police Deputy Harper his say when the cat (/tiger) is long out of the bag and living feral, now with a roar which they cannot "oh-so-politely" ignore or rudely shout down

      Do read that "minister-conflicted" article carefully ..after lulling readers into a false sense of security by actually publishing Mr.Harper's comments they oh-so-cleverly spoil it all by slipping in their poison and omission disguised as relevant fact:

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

      "2008.... A few months later Mr Harper, the senior investigating officer, revealed that his team was excavating the former children’s home at Haut de la Garenne and that they had found what appeared to be a fragment of bone.
      The announcement led to a swathe of lurid headlines in national newspapers, which carried stories of child torture and possible murder. In August Mr Harper retired and was replaced by David Warcup, a former deputy chief constable of Northumbria police.
      Towards the end of the year Mr Warcup and the investigation’s new senior officer, Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell, said that after a review of the evidence gathered, no child murders took place at Haut de la Garenne.
      They also concluded that no bodies had been hidden or burned."

      "IN May [2009] the fragment of material said to potentially have been part of a child’s skull was sent to botanists at Kew Gardens at the request of Det Supt Gradwell.
      The report that followed confirmed that it was, in fact, a piece of COCONUT."

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

      The comment section remains a troll-zoo dominated by the ilk of JSH, while links to real information or blogs like this continue to be censored.

      The JEP are long established con merchants "At the centre of island LIES since 1890". Habitual liers and con merchants have a knack of presenting a plausible face and patter but they need to get ahead of that curve before islanders should give their confidence or funding.

      A final observation is that the JEPaedo might take this line because they have a history not dissimilar to CTV's linchpin, Wilfred Krichefski.

      Those wanting real news on this must watch the blogs. A newspaper with a future would break these stories first ;-)

      So, interesting times. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

      Delete
    2. No wonder Chief Minister Walker sold the JEP while it was was still worth millions.

      The sly fox knew that it had fire down below and he omitted to mention this to the buyers???

      Delete
  57. When not cleaning toilets above, made me laugh ( click on link ) for article and sound video, and prompted these few lines.

    The link will take you an article, complete with words from the Jersey establishment troll who writes regularly on the JEP comments section and has been found guilty in court of making death threats.

    If the JEP were really interested in reporting and becoming the must have paper for islanders, let us draw up a list of stories for them to investigate.

    How was the man heard giving deaths threats ( the same person as in the video and article ) invited to appear as a witness in a court of law by the States, when he was convicted of the same offence as the accused and yet again carried on doing the same after the trial without redress. How is this justice with unreliable witnesses ? JEP investigate that.

    Invite publicly the politician who gave apposing statements to the states of Jersey over the reading ( or not ) of a report JEP investigate that.

    Investigate the failure of Jersey's transport policy and why residents in St Helier with permits are having so much trouble. JEP In…

    Ask for an interview with the COI child abuse inquiry and ask them why they have ignored Daniel Wimberlys questions JEP Inv…..

    Ask Mr Henry for Jersey Development co. where is the hundreds of tons of toxic waste is going to be placed from under the Esplanade car park, and how much is it going to cost and who is paying for it ? JEP Inv…

    Interview the lead politicians regarding the new police station, and ask how many free spaces for staff and how many new places are being built for residents and the public.

    Ask the total cost to the island to have a politician flown and camped in London for two days a week, and how can he help his constituants and attend meetings on Jersey when not here. JEP Inv…………

    With islanders suffering stealth and other tax rises since GST was introduced, how much has the rainy fund ( stratigic reserve ) been topped up year on year since then? JEP Inv…

    Thats in ten minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sorry to have taken almost a week to comment on this blog, and I am sure you won't mind if I include Rico, Bob Hill, Monty and the Jersey Way (welcome back) in saying without you all and the excellent and factual information you have all put up on line for so long, a lot of the general public would not be as 'aware', and prepared to stand up and find their voice at last. Sadly, there are a lot of people who are still ignorant of the facts, but slowly, slowly. You have all been invaluable in your own way. Credit to you VFC for the excellent interview with our Chief Minister, and the utmost respect to Senator Gorst for allowing you the opportunity to interview him.

    I had the misfortune to be sitting in the Town Hall when PB gave his stomach churning speech and indeed had to leave the room at one stage I was so angry. Unbelievable. Others gave excellent speeches including Monty, Sam, Russell Labey, Terry McDonald, Peter 'Mac' and Murray Norton to name a few. I was pleasantly surprised .Maybe there is hope after all? Anne Pryke and Andrew Green were quite determined and passionate that the Proposition be adopted.

    As for those who abstained, were not present when they could have been, and those who voted 'contre', all I can say is when money is more important than ruined lives and finding out the reasons why, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

    Upwards and onwards bloggers! Proud of you!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thinking about the disaster zone that are the Crown functions in Jersey, such as prosecution & judiciary, whatever happened to Julian Clyde-Smith? A couple of years ago word was in legal circles he was all lined up to be SG/AG, then Deputy Bailiff / Bailiff.

    But none of that happened.

    I just can't imagine why.

    I really can't.

    Pip Pip

    ReplyDelete
  60. Have read the Montfort Tadier speech on the hansard.je site it was excellent. Thank you to both yourself and Chief Minister Gorst for the interview. It is heartening to be able to hear and read evidence first hand.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Your judicial structure in Jersey is in no way lawful. It isn't even close. Not even faintly. Any system which is structurally incapable of producing non-conflicted tribunals, as is the case with Jersey in cases such as these, is structurally incapable of complying with Article 6 of the ECHR.

    Stuart Syvret has it correct when he describes it as a Potemkin village, a system which is, essentially, fake just like painted scenery.

    That view was pretty much confirmed, albeit unwittingly, by Michael Beloff as a Jersey appeal court judge in the case of the Pitmans. He said in that judgment words to the effect that 'if Jersey's 'Jurats' were expected to be free of contamination with the parties to a case, why, then it may not be possible to find Jurats at all'.

    In legal terms I can tell you that is what as known as 'special pleading', namely a form of 'excuse' as to why the established law shouldn't apply in X or Y case. What Beloff is doing in that judgment is attempting to make excuses for the plain fact that Jersey's 'Jurat' system is not lawful. It is not lawful because Article 6 is an absolute Right. There is no derogation, no 'margin-of-appreciation' that can be cited to justify non-compliance with Article 6. Your system either complies, or it does not. And if it does not, then it is not lawful. If your Jurat system is not capable of producing non-contaminated Jurats in a given case, so not complying with the strict objectivity required by Article 6, then your Jurat system is not lawful. And when your system does not comply with Article 6, something has to give. What is it? The system? Or the rights of the individual to a fair hearing?

    It is the system that must give way. Article 6, I repeat, is an absolute Right. Any credible judge when faced with a Jersey case in which the court could not produce non-contaminated Jurats, would find, would have no choice but to find, for the applicant claiming a violation of Article 6.

    I state the above because these issues of deep concern stuck in my mind when reading that Beloff judgment because he, remarkably, makes the opposite finding, in flat contradiction of the authorities on objectivity in judicial tribunals. Michael Beloff is not a fool. He knows as well as I do what the implications of a contaminated tribunal are, and the supremacy of Article 6.

    It is most curious, and not a little alarming that he reached his perverse judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  62. It's just a random thought, but I wonder if TPTB are in any way currently trying to shut down any of the bloggers?

    ReplyDelete
  63. They already shut down Syvret's but that failed because it's re-established on some other site he doesn't control isn't it? And didn't Google reveal something which showed data protection in Jersey had lied? Isn't that a serious problem for a government, to be caught lying like that?

    ReplyDelete
  64. The Hansard reports of the two day debate on the continued funding of the Inquiry have now been published:

    Day 1, 24th March 2015 - starts at bottom of page 53

    Day 2, 25th March 2015

    There are some excellent speeches from many members, particularly Deputies Tadier, Mezec, McClinton, Norton and many, many other States members.

    Credit where credit is due. Many have finally seen the light, that there is only one end game in town. They want openness, transparency, truth, justice. They do not want to be part of the cover up of the cover up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Day 1 LINK.

      Day 2 LINK.

      I'll be publishing the audio of Deputy Montfort Tadier's speech shortly.

      Delete
  65. After seeing the reference in an ealrier comment, I read Stuart Syvret’s posting on the Ogier Group here The Ogier Group

    The Jersey Establishment must have something on TPTB in Whitehall?

    The behaviour of your “legal” system is extraordinary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would start to think that our courts are given instructions from London wouldn't you ...

      Delete
  66. They are.

    Jersey's "judiciary" is a criminal enterprise, in and of itself; it is as plain as that - it "hides" in plain sight.

    It's a "confidence-game" - a racket - "emperor's-new-clothes".

    The Crown's judicial function in Jersey is a racketeering matrix, careened off into nutty & indefensible paths because of class-war, greed, megalomania and hubris ( and three or four toxic nutcases.)

    What passes for a Crown "judiciary" in Jersey is nothing more than a London employed pimp - put in place and chartered by the City of London Corporation so as to run the island as financial brothel of the British elites.

    It is indicative of the weakness - of the decadence and stagnation - of the Crown - of the Monarchy - and the undisguisable corruption of its close courtiers, that the British Monarchy whores itself and its standing to such overt, low-grade scum as the Jersey gangsters and their Bosses in the City.

    Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Never has the Crown shown any signs of discontent - at being "owned" by and subservient to the City of London Commune, not since that arrangement was put in place by Magna Carta.

    ReplyDelete