Friday, 12 June 2015

Mario Lundy, and Stuart Syvret, at Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.



Yesterday (Thursday 11th June 2015) saw the long anticipated evidence of former Vice/Principle of Les Chenes residential School and former Education Director, Mario Lundy at the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry. 

Mr. Lundy is the subject of around 27 allegations of physical abuse by, in the region of, a dozen different alleged victims, which he strenuously denies and yesterday was his opportunity to defend himself against those allegations.

He spent the full day giving his testimony, although some of the evidence to back up parts of his testimony no longer exists so he will have to be taken at his word. He told the Inquiry that the punishment/discipline books/logs where incidents of punishment administered at Les Chenes, to the residents, was logged in these books and would demonstrate that a minimal amount of punishment was dished out.

The problem is that these books/logs were ordered to be destroyed by one of his successors at Les Chenes in 2002 which, as The Jersey Public Records Law was in place at the time, looks to be a criminal offence yet neither a criminal investigation, nor an internal investigation has taken place in order to hold this person to account. Indeed when Mr. Lundy became aware of the destruction of these records in 2008, as Director of Education, he did not see fit to order an investigation knowing he was apparently counting on them as evidence in his, and Les Chenes, defence. It’s still a mystery as to why anybody would want them destroyed and hopefully the Child Abuse Inquiry will be able to get to the bottom of it?


Present at yesterday’s Hearing was former Senator/Health Minister and Whistle-blower, Stuart Syvret, who, in the interview below, gives us his take on what he sees as the bigger news stories to come out of yesterday which were not reported by the State Media. In some cases have been reported by the State Media but with its own particular slant/agenda attached.

Although the BBC (rightly) gets a bit of a kicking in the interview, it has to be said, that, of late, its reporting has been a huge improvement on its previous (non) reporting. The same also has to be said of the JEP but alas the discredited, and disgraced, ITV/CTV’s (non) reporting remains as appalling as it always was during the entire Jersey Child Abuse Cover-Up.


We hope readers/viewers will be better informed as to some of the facts behind the stories you are(n’t) seeing in the State Media. We also hope that the Victims and Survivors, who have been to hell and (some) back after suffering the abuse and its effects will get some kind of justice and closure as a result of this Inquiry.


188 comments:

  1. So what happened to Jersey being taken to the court of Human Rights?
    What happened to all these toxic civil servants going to Jail?
    What happened to the Bailiff being called to give evidence in London?
    I mean come on, can't you finish off the first tranche of threats before moving onto new ones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They twist and they writhe and they whimper but one by one they get nailed -or failing that, shown up for what they are.
      Insufficient, but the public is [slightly] better protected for it.

      Jersey is only a few steps down a long hard road and the shysters will do anything to protect themselves.

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxk02O-lQtg&feature=youtu.be&t=512

      The complainants ate vindicated and even Operation Rectangle is re-opened under a new name (Operation Whistle)

      Delete
    2. Unless we see prosecutions, it is difficult to see "Operation Whistle" as much more than a PR 'fig leaf'

      www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jersey-child-sex-abuse-thirteen-5823920

      "Jersey child sex abuse: Thirteen celebrities, politicians and sports stars among dozens to be questioned"

      Jersey's authorities have reportedly sat on these allegations for five to ten years.
      And now just as the CoI starts to examine the conduct of the authorities this 'new' operation is announced.

      No significance in the timing?

      Delete
    3. LINK.

      Operation Whistle will be the subject of an up-coming Blog Posting.

      Delete
    4. "Operation Whistle will be the subject of an up-coming Blog Posting"
      We await this with much interest and some trepidation.

      There are clearly still things seriously wrong with the Jersey policing function since the very major sabotage of a very major child-abuse investigation back in 2008.

      It would be such a shame if otherwise capable and honest officers have allowed themselves to become excessively compromised just so that their carer could survive under the current Jersey management.

      Though individuals are responsible for their own actions (even under difficult circumstances), it must be remembered that 'a fish rots from the head'.

      The smart people will leak chunks of information so that they are left standing when the rest of the house of cards implodes.

      Delete
    5. Interesting comment.

      There are a few Jersey cops (& some recently retired) who cannot now survive the fall-out from the events of the last 7 years. The same obviously applies to some other Jersey public officials (Data Protection Commissioner for example, and some senior and former civil servants, a number of current and former politicians). In the cases of some of the foregoing its not only careers, pensions, reputations they've self-destroyed. Some of them are going to be battling to stay out of jail.) I agree most cops are straight, and some of the good ones who've joined in with some very very bad actions in recent years will have done so reluctantly, just obeying orders. But you're right, the ones in that camp have got to wake up & smell the coffee.

      The problem most of these men and woman have, which is pretty common in fairness given that police recruiting obviously seeks out people of a 'conservative, that is, 'obedient' mind-set, is their thinking gets self-limited into a rigid, narrow paradigm. These are people who are deferential to authority, and in particular they always automatically operate from a starting assumption that authority and power must be right. The thought of challenging authority, questioning 'orders' for example, does not come naturally to these people.

      Hopefully decent Police Officers across the nation, in light of things like Savile, and Hillsborough and phone-hacking will become more alert to the need to resist cover-ups, Masonic back scratching & corruption. Just because your boss orders you to do X or Y doesn't mean you necessarily should.

      In the Jersey issue, the biggest failing most cops have had is a lack of real understanding of the seriousness of what's taken place here in recent years, and the likely depth and reach of the inevitable consequences. Again, I feel its a failing of the 'conservative' mind-set of most cops. They look at authority, at systems, at 'Establishments' in places like Jersey and see them as being essentially eternal and unchanging. They just fail to envisage that the whole house of cards could come crashing down.

      Being on the side of the Jersey Establishment probably always looked like a very safe bet.

      Jersey Police Officers who have thought that way should familiarise themselves with the Auld Report on the Turks & Caicos. Those islands became so corrupt, including judicial corruption, and planning corruption (sound familiar?!!!) that the UK government had to take direct rule for several years to clean the place up. The corruption in Jersey has been deeper, wider, more extensive and more dangerous than in the Turks & Caicos.

      Jersey Police Officers also need to get familiar with the St Helena child-abuse cover-ups and the scandal and official inquiry now underway into UK government participation in enabling the cover-ups. See this

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/sainthelena/11350438/St-Helena-child-abuse-Foreign-Office-was-warned-British-island-couldnt-cope-12-years-ago.html

      Just as the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office is now subject to an inquiry for its failures in St Helena, so too inevitably will be UK Justice Department & Home Office for their conduct concerning the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey.

      And whilst we're all very conscious of the child-abuse cover-ups in Jersey, it should be remembered that there are also some other very very serious cover-ups in Jersey of grave and major crimes.

      Clearly the traditional culture of corruption and cover-ups by authorities and the powerful in Britain is disintegrating now.

      When what seemed impossible 5 years ago happens, and the cuffs get slapped on the senior Jersey Establishment gangsters, there's only going to be one side to be on, and that's the right side, the good side.

      Delete
  2. BBC staff swarming all over Haute De La Garrenne and none of them were vetted. Jimmy Savile abused there!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lets assume some of the 13 for Operation Whistle: W & G, B.O., M. L., D.W., D.M, A.L.,F.W., T.LS., I.LM. Right or wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm guessing at those initials but not sure of some 'W & G'? Maybe means more locally. And if get the others right, there are some in there that have not been publicly accused of child abuse before? Is this what's been going on?

      Delete
    2. I'm guessing too and if my guess is right the 19:29 person didn't mean only suspected abusers with those initials. I think they guess Operation Whistle is also looking into those who've broken the law in making the cover-ups happen, the cover-ups since 2008 when Mr Power was illegally suspended by the 'establishment'. If that's the right guess then that's good.

      Delete
  4. At Least Mario Lundy gave evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, well. So he gave his so-called evidence. I wonder if Mario worst-of-them-all Lundy was afforded all the expert legal assistance Jersey had to offer, unlike the former Health Minister and chief whistleblower, Stuart Syvret.

      Elle

      Delete
  5. Well said Stuart. Eloquent and precise. I've always thought Stuart is the good guy in this matter.
    This video interview confirms my already firm opinion.
    As for the bias reporting of BBC Jersey, I think this should be reported to the BBC Trust as soon as possible.
    I am wondering if there might be sufficient numbers reading this blog who would be prepared to sign a joint complaint about it? Please say YES and let's get something going to support the right side of this matter. Surely it's high time the BBC upheld its BBC Charter to the licence payers, across all areas and especially on child abuse matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The more complaints to the BBC the more difficult it is to ignore. There is little doubt that mainland BBC tacitly approve the behaviour of their local franchise. BBC-Savile being neck deep in abuse and cover up.

      In the meantime readers can show their support at

      www.change.org/p/chief-minister-of-the-states-of-jersey-issue-the-official-apology-to-stuart-syvret-he-deserves

      Delete
    2. Happy to sign, if this letter is specific as to how exactly the BBC has failed the island. One example which springs to my mind is a) Frank walker coming on on the Sunday before polling day on a kind of "my favourite records" chat show, and spending most of the time in a highly partisan attack on certain candidates. balance? What balance? That same election, the panel in the studio to discuss the results was laughably biassed, consisting of three right-wingers, the only remotely objective voice was hat professor who knows a lot about jersey politics and polling. If this letter gets off the ground then I can write this bit more accurately when I am on my home computer.

      Delete
  6. Nicely done and articulate as ever. Nice one Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very good interview and so very true it's shocking that the abuse is still current but being covered up and you vote people in to help and they can't be bothered to call u back even when they have promised and in desperate times too !! Why won't people listen

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good interview. Very well spoken, as usual.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bang on Stuart. The same is going on with the finance Quarter. Civil Servants dictating to the weak politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Excellent discussion. Stuart being sharp and transparent as ever, pumping out facts, and leaving us without a doubt knowing the kind of problems that Jersey must sort out properly, especially if they want to properly progress into the 21'st century.

    Once these forums publish such information, it's there for potential future tourists/business to see. Jersey must swallow it's pride do the right thing, and start afresh-if it wants to be seen as a good 'family friendly' Island.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fact is.
    What Lundy has said to the COI will be in the final report .
    What Syvret says online and not the COI won't be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fact is. Mario Lundy and his ilk will be in a report showing how whistle blowers and victims are still targets and the Jersey culture is still as sick as it's ever been. Good work Mario.

      Delete
    2. Fact is, when Historians look back, they will see who had their say in an official report costing Multiple Millions and will be none the wiser about those who didn't.

      Delete
    3. But will those (like ML) be judged in a positive, or negative, light by historians? I suspect the latter considering the testimony given by Mr. Lundy (as mentioned above) attacking Whistle Blowers and Victims/Survivors.

      Delete
    4. Its no different to a court transcript and if he believes he has been lied about then at least he has put it on record.

      Delete
    5. For my part I am still hopeful that a compromise/agreement can be reached between Stuart and the COI that will enable him to safely submit his evidence. I understand, and respect anybody's decision not to participate in this COI especially in Stuart's case. What ever legal agreement that might be met between him and the COI will almost certainly count for nothing due to our politicised and corrupt judicial system.

      Delete
    6. Comment at 11:06 says, "Fact is.
      What Lundy has said to the COI will be in the final report .
      What Syvret says online and not the COI won't be."

      Well, if what Syvret has said on-line in connection with the Jersey child-abuse issues does not feature in the report of the COI, then this public inquiry will indeed have been utterly crap!

      Evidence is evidence, documents are documents, available evidence is available evidence.

      If this child-abuse public inquiry ignores known, published available evidence it simple won't have been a lawful, effective or real inquiry.

      What an wholly extraordinary prospect! A statutory public inquiry ignoring available, published relevant evidence.

      In fact, the notion is SO extraordinary, if in fact it was the intention of this COI to proceed on that basis (ignoring available evidence, which I don't believe it will for one instant) one would have to conclude that there was some hidden, undeclared motive which made it imperative for TPTB to get Syvret into the formal 'processes' of the public inquiry.

      And the only possible motive which makes any sense, as has been readily identified on the blogs many times previously, would be to 'neutralise' Syvret's testimony and evidence from being used in actual court proceedings, civil or criminal. If his evidence and testimony was brought within the proceedings of the COI it would automatically garner 'immunity' from then being used in court proceedings. As, of course, would other evidence and testimony bought forward in connection with any specific issues raised by Syvret. Well, I think these people needed to have got up a lot earlier in the morning to have succeeded in slipping that one past anyone with a pulse.

      In fact, the more I think about it, the more that appears to be the logical explanation for the apparent fixation some have with Syvret individually signing up to this process. Why should he matter? He's merely one player in this whole situation. This is an inquiry into Jersey's child-abuse cover-ups not an inquiry into Stuart Syvret's opinions. As VFC remarked under an earlier article, the reality is that most of the evidence Syvret's possessed and what he's seen and experienced as a witness is in fact already published on his blog. So why the obsession as often expressed by trolls on different Jersey media sites with Syvret coming in to the COI? I mean its not as if the lawyers or the panel are engaging in any remotely vigorous questioning. Its reminded me of the political expression 'like being savaged by a dead sheep'.

      What, for example, would the public inquiry do if Syvret were dead? Is it seriously argued than the documentary evidence published and written by him, available evidence, would not be taken into account by the public inquiry?

      The very notion is preposterous.

      No, you're going to have to do better than that me old trolly, troll, troll. Crack another Stella, it's back to the drawing board.

      Pip Pip.

      Delete
    7. I don't understand this immunity of evidence business. I know Stuart has a problem and he recently quoted chapter and verse of the applicable law on Twitter.

      His contention is that any evidence given before the COI is then effectively neutralised in the context of any possible subsequent prosecutions. This is insane and is, as he says, a very effective get out of jail card.

      But is that interpretation correct? If so it must be a very specific Jersey Way law that got onto the books unchallenged. It would clearly not be ECHR compliant, not that that ever deterred the powers that be on the island.

      In Ireland, for example, and I would expect also in the UK, a person cannot be prosecuted solely on the basis of evidence given at an inquiry. That simply means that the transcript of the inquiry can't simply be pasted into the prosecution's case. I have always thought of it as a protection against self incrimination. In other words an encouragement for the guilty to come clean but without handing the prosecution a case on a plate.

      Presumably if the guilty were to repeat their admissions outside of an inquiry then they would have no such protection. Equally if accusations were made at an inquiry and evidence provided, I see no reason why such evidence could not subsequently be independently re-submitted to any ongoing prosecution.

      Anyway that's the way our system works as far as I know.

      The Jersey system, as currently interpreted, is beyond belief. Are people sure that this neutering of evidence is actually what happens under it?

      If so, would it not be a good idea to publicise this far and wide to show up the extent to which Jersey law is off the wall.

      Delete
    8. Oh dear. I think whoever wrote the following (A COI lawyer or spin-doctor perhaps?) has rather blown things by revealing the Establishment's hand,

      'Fact is, when Historians look back, they will see who had their say in an official report costing Multiple Millions and will be none the wiser about those who didn't.'

      So, it is intended that the only meaningful historic record on the Jersey child abuse scandals will be the "official" history, as woven in the report of this COI?

      And perhaps no other version of history, no other perspective, no other sources, are to be permitted to exist?

      It would seem that the "history" of the Jersey child abuse scandals is to be the "Official History" - and the "Official History" only.

      Any other history of the Jersey child abuse scandals is intended to be essentially worthless in the absence of the imprimatur of the "Official State Seal of Approval of the COI"?

      And we all know what "Official Histories" - the version of "History" as approved by authorities - require to attain some kind of 'standing'? What that requires is for alternative histories - histories which challenge the state-approved "Official Histories" - to be discredited - extirpated.

      Extirpated.

      Historians study all available sources on their period. No real historians will ever study the Jersey child-abuse scandals without studying the primary and rich sources that are the Jersey blogs. In fact any serious historian of this period would make the blogs a prime basis of their study. The report of this COI will, of course, be an important source but the strong likelihood is that any respectable historian seeking real, evidenced insight into what went on in respect of the Jersey child-abuse scandals in this period would turn first to the blogs, and only then turn to the report & archive of the COI, and would probably do so for the express initial reason of comparing and contrasting the primary, spontaneous and real histories of the scandal as shown by the blogs, with the carefully manufactured, state-approved "Official History" as written by this state-body.

      But perhaps what's intended by the Establishment is that future historians should be denied those sources? Are the blogs to extirpated? On what other basis should "future historians be none the wiser about those who didn't" participate in the manufacture of the "State-Approved Official History"?

      And now, thanks to the comment having inadvertently drawn this strategy to our attention, we become alert to the fact, that that is exactly what the Establishment has sought to do so far. They have striven, wholly unlawfully and oppressively, with unhidden contempt for working democracy, to extirpate the highly evidenced and extensive contemporaneous source of history as published on Stuart Syvret's blog.

      So it is not as though the Jersey and London Establishments didn't have 'form' in this respect.

      The discrediting of non-official histories - and the extirpation of views and sources that challenge, undermine and contradict "Sate-Approved Official Histories" - often via oppressions conducted through perverted and politicised "policing" and "judicial" systems - was a speciality of a certain Mr Joseph S, let us remember.

      Well, I grant you that, so far and at least so far as I'm aware, assassinations and death-squads have not been used in the Jersey situation. But in all other respects, the analogue holds remarkably accurately. In fact alarmingly so, the more one reviews the situation.

      From the very beginning of the public controversy of the Jersey child-abuse scandals the whole apparatus of the state has been mobilised again and again and again, for the purposes of repeatedly and continuously combating, discrediting and suppressing the real, messy, spontaneous, fact & evidence-based histories of the period.

      Delete
    9. Polo.

      I have, in the past, attempted to get the COI to explain this situation to me but unfortunately they did not explain it adequately or I didn't have the mental capacity to absorb what they were telling me.

      I will e-mail the COI your comment on Monday and ask them to "put the record straight" by explaining the situation in layman terms.

      That said the COI have a very poor track record when it comes to acknowledging e-mails and an even worse record at answering any questions contained in them but I will endeavour regardless because this does need to be cleared up.

      The COI read/monitor this Blogsite and one would have hoped they would answer your question without being e-mailed as it is such an important issue.................I'll e-mail them on Monday!

      Delete
    10. I look forward to the COI attempting to give a credible answer to this question.

      But while we wait, remember the facts.

      The law in question does unambiguously confer a protection against self-incrimination.

      The 'immunity' from court proceedings applies to criminal AND civil claims.

      No person may be held liable in any civil or criminal action in respect of testimony or documents they produce to a public inquiry. (and those documents could often be the only evidence.)

      The immunity does not apply only to individuals, it also applies to States departments corporate entities, partnerships such as law firms etc. (For example do you believe Appleby Global, Bailhache LaBess as they used to be, and the involved partners and staff should be given both criminal and civil immunity for the hugely corrupt role they played in betraying the victims of Jane and Alan Maguire?)

      We're not only considering the crimes of child-abuse here. We're also considering all of the conspiracies to pervert justice, and all of the misconduct in a public office.

      There's a very interesting 3 part answer that deals with these issues to be found on VFC on May29th @ 18:23.

      A question we must all ask ourselves, 'if there was no problem with these issues, then why has the COI refused to give Syvret legal representation to get advice on this kind of question before he signs up?'

      The COI & TPTB pretty obviously know Syvret's right about this stuff. If they were confident he was wrong, they'd let him get legal advice first. If he's wrong, then his lawyer would write to him to say that, and ease his concerns, then Syvret could sign up to the process. Simples. I can't see any problem at all in the COI doing that if Syvret's concerns are wrong.

      For as long as they refuse to give him legal funding to get advice first before he has to sign anything, I'm going to believe him and not the COI.

      Delete
    11. Thanks Voice.

      Isn't it amazing that this issue is up in the air at this late stage. Certainly a clarification from the COI would be helpful, if they can be trusted to understand the situation themselves.

      They have not been very context sensitive so far.

      Delete
    12. People have written many serious allegations online on this subject going back years.
      To then refuse to repeat those claims at a Public Hearing and hand over evidence for the COI to act upon can only mean one thing, they must have been lying. Mario Lundy has given his evidence so its time for the main person who has been attacking him online to give his. Otherwise, it has all been a waste of time.

      Delete
    13. @06:21 Multiple allegations HAVE been made against Lundy at the CoI

      As another commenter points out, entirely credible pro bono legal advice on this subject has been given at

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html?showComment=1432920203569#c4784153204298923633

      That thread starts with further information at 29 May 2015 at 12:01

      It is all quite involved and too long to fit in a single comment but I will repeat the last two paragraphs:

      "If you ask, ‘what should we do then?’, you and your legal representatives should be making representations to your Chief Minister, the COI and the Home Secretary to the effect that the Jersey public inquiry’s work should be paused, and that the United Kingdom authorities should be invited to take charge of Jersey’s Policing, prosecution and judicial systems to re-open the criminal investigations, and initiate a criminal investigation into the so far un-investigated multiple, prima facie cases of misconduct in a public office, and of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

      You are entitled to the proper protections of an effective and impartial criminal justice system, and it is that, really, you should be demanding first, not the mere poor substitute of a ‘public inquiry’." END

      Without detracting from the above; the UK is of course waist deep in it's own abuse and cover up scandals. Some of these clearly overlapping with Jersey
      While the UK is part of the solution it is also part of the problem, as demonstrated by Jack "Straw-man".

      Now that the CoI has taken the lid off the can of worms the authorities will resist pausing it so that those worms can be nailed (rather than be awarded very expensive get-out-of-jail-free-cards). Syvret is entirely right to keep his powder dry and the paedo-trolls know this.

      Delete
    14. If the UK is waist deep in abuse and cover up, sections of the Jersey authorities must be way deeper.

      www.exaronews.com/articles/5497/graham-wilmer-csa-inquiry-panel-to-have-no-abuse-survivors

      www.exaronews.com/articles/5582/inquiry-into-child-sex-abuse-to-hire-21-barristers-in-lawyer-fest


      Part of the cover-up/damage-limitation protocol is to make CoI's lawyer centred not victim centred

      The Lawyer-Fest article is particularly interesting and it does show that the Bailhache £50million estimate was plucked straight out of fairyland.

      Delete
    15. Desperation setting in. Like 'Pip Pip' said above @ 16:24 it's looking more & more like the Establishment and their spin-doctors & trolls have an ulterior motive for wanting Syvret to sign-up to this COI. They're sweating fear, you can sense their desperation. They're all but down on their knees begging Syvret, begging, pleading with him, to legitimate this process by signing-up to it. See how ***king stupid this comment is ' People have written many serious allegations online on this subject going back years. To then refuse to repeat those claims at a Public Hearing and hand over evidence for the COI to act upon can only mean one thing, they must have been lying. Mario Lundy has given his evidence so its time for the main person who has been attacking him online to give his.'

      So, people like Syvret, who have published and written stuff, openly under his own name, without any kind of legal protection (no parliament privilege or no 'immunity' of the kind that would give protection for stuff said to this COI) 'must be lying'.!!??

      Hello!

      Wakey, wakey!

      This is the fatal flaw in everything the Establishment has done in this saga, if the stuff Syvret published on his blog was wrong, was 'lies', the proper and normal response would be to sue him for libel. Never mind with the illegal police raids, oppression by corrupt data protection systems, lying prosecutors, bent judges. Forget all that crazy stuff which has trashed totally Jersey's standing as a law-full and free democracy. All anyone had to do was sue him for libel. There. Sorted. That would have shown him to be a lair, and would have bankrupted him out of the States. There you go. All done. And all without showing Jersey to be a undemocratic oppressive police-state banana republic type of place.

      His words and reports published on his blog are not 'immune' like things said in the COI are, so happy days! Yes! Really really happy days! That's good news for people who've been 'lied' about. And even BETTER news that Syvret isn't going for the protection and immunity that would come by going in with the COI, like some snivelling coward. No! Instead he's, and maybe foolishly, not taking up that shield which would protect him from his enemies!.

      People who think Syvret's lied about them on his blog should be happy. HAPPY, do you hear!

      Well, admittedly, libel actions are not run in secret. And the person bringing the claim would've had to swear the allegations about them were not true (there's a bit of a history in the UK of some very high and mighty people coming unstuck for lying in libel cases, and being jailed for years for perjury. But hey, this is Jersey where clear perjury by people allied to the Establishment is just fine), and of course all those witnesses would, naturally, have been called by Syvret (e.g. the dozen people who've made 27 allegations against Lundy, etc) so, I grant you a libel court case could get maybe a little 'uncomfortable' in some ways, and maybe be a bit 'risky', be a bit of a 'hostage to fortune' if any, you know, 'inexactitudes' were on the court records.

      But don't worry about any of that! Instead, rejoice, REJOICE that Syvret's NOT taking up the shield of the COI. You proud Jersey civil servants, oligarchs, Crown Officers and trolls! Instead you can 'cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play'!

      Like Jonathan Aitken said.

      Delete
  12. When will Danny Wherry be named?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When will Danny Wherry be named?"

      I would estimate, probably on 13 June 2008, or thereabouts

      Team Voice have given the CoI more than ample opportunity to do the right thing in accordance with their own published protocols.

      www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-policeman-arrested-in-jersey-childrens-home-313089

      "A retired policeman was arrested yesterday in the Jersey children's home abuse investigation.

      The 50-year-old was held on suspicion of "serious crimes" at the Haut de la Garenne home and elsewhere on the island.

      ........... he was named locally as Danny Wherry, who became a child social worker after leaving the force......."


      I believe that this would put "Mr. triple identity" firmly in the public domain

      Am I correct in my recollection that the AG refused to bring charges in spite of the evidence held by the police?

      Delete
    2. "13 June 2008" That's 7 years ago to the day.

      Many happy returns to custody

      Delete
  13. To become a children's social worker, or to become children's Education Director. The people for these two positions should be people with a squeaky clean image and without any kind of child abuse allegation's whatsoever against them....
    Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mario Lundy has twenty seven allegations against him by twelve people. Hundreds of other care workers don't have any allegations against them. Smoke & Fire.

      Delete
  14. M,L. D,W. D, M
    Regent Tigers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, why yes, of course, ML, DW & DM - those swimarathons & doing charitable good works - back in the days of the Fort Regent swimming pool - did always reward with such splendid photo-ops.

      Who could forget the eye-catching group shot the JEP printed back in the 1980s, which included DM - and BBC Bergerac actor John Nettles - posing in their skimpy Speedos in a swimarathon team?

      Perhaps these pillars of society met at Haute de la Garenne too, whilst the BBC was filming Bergerac there in the early 1980s?

      After all, ML - let's not be coy - Mario Lundy - did describe at the COI, how the BBC - not one of whose staff were 'vetted' - had open run of HDLG at that time, and consequently quite possibly access to the vulnerable children also in the complex.

      I'm sure it was only a moment of foolishness which led Mr Nettles to take advantage of his ready access to BBC Radio Jersey to attack a decision not to re-run the Bergerac series - and to attack Operation Rectangle & the HDLG child-abuse investigation?

      BBC Bergerac actor John Nettles is the father of Jersey Data Protection Commissioner - Emma Martins - who has striven to play an intense role in shutting-down all serious independent inquiry into Jersey's child-abuse cover-ups - and independent inquiry into other crimes.

      The poor girl never was too bright. An archetype sucker for the M.I.C.E methodology -

      Money
      Ideology
      Coercion
      Ego

      M.I.C.E - it's that tediously simple and shallow. You'll find that old method at the core of every dimension of your polity rot in Jersey.

      Delete
  15. "Well, if what Syvret has said on-line in connection with the Jersey child-abuse issues does not feature in the report of the COI, then this public inquiry will indeed have been utterly crap!"

    Well he made it crystal clear on the radio 2 weeks ago that he would not partake and would be prepared to go to prison again if forced to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Q. Has Ex-Health Minister Syvret been receiving free legal advice .......or is he just annoyingly smart?

      A. Probably a bit of both:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html?showComment=1432920203569#c4784153204298923633

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html?showComment=1432897316926#c4728150541391857574

      I may be mistaken but I suspect that the above were penned by a London lawyer (one of the good ones)

      & Let's not forget

      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

      Delete
  16. VFC.
    Is it possible to put comment in date order?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is set up so people can reply directly to comments and the dates are alongside the comments. Will have a jig around and see if I am able to use a simpler format.

      Delete
    2. I don't think VFC should change his format at this stage. For complex discussions it is best to be able to reply to comments where they occur (nested) rather than put them at the end of the thread. Some sites allow the reader to click a button to sort all all comments into simple date order (chronological), and then back to 'nested' -I don't know if this facility is available on the Blogger site.

      On a long thread with 'nested' comments it is really easy to miss important new comments, replying to and 'lost' amongst older comments.

      Sites with only chronological commenting are more easily disrupted by multiple troll posts.

      One solution when an interesting or important reply (or series) occurs hidden in the older body of comments, would be for VFC to provide one of his excellent "LINKS".

      Sometimes perhaps with an observation of his own, or e.g. just a simple:

      New reply "LINK"
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/06/mario-lundy-and-stuart-syvret-at-jersey.html?showComment=1434191285442#c2214603036917193486

      VFC, Just say if you need help on how to access the "showComment" references for your link.

      Delete
  17. Annon @ 18:13.
    Oh no. W&G are very non local. And they wont be coming back if they can help it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Falls Into View – Part 1

    VFC, I used the words 'falls into view' under one of your articles in a comment on 28th May.

    I've read with interest the many contributions which speculate that:

    (a) the Jersey public inquiry process may produce a form of 'get-out-of-jail-free' effect;

    (b) the Jersey (and London) authorities have an unadmitted 'need' for Syvret to have voluntarily engaged with this public inquiry process.

    Both speculations are, of course, correct. But I haven't yet seen anyone put the pieces together and offer the larger understanding of why (a) and (b) are inextricably entangled, both sides of the same coin, as it were, and then crystallise the obvious reality at the heart of the matter.

    That reality hides in plain sight. And would appear to have successfully hidden in plain sight, until now. The only thing I can't yet be certain of is whether the real state authorities in London have had the competence to understand that it was only a matter of time, and finally chose to take the appropriate steps? That question will only be answered once Operation Whistle and its consequences run the full course. If it does, in fact lead (as it should) to the prosecution of some of the most powerful people in Jersey for conspiracy to pervert justice, and misconduct, we'll know that London grasped the nettle.

    To return to issues (a) and (b), and why they're related, and the bigger picture they form when brought together. How to most easily explain?

    Let me try this. The strong probability is that no matter how damaging, embarrassing and serious the consequences of the 2008 child-abuse investigations and Operation Rectangle would have been, even your government, as rotted and as incompetent and unethical as it is, would have let them run their course. (If the consequences were 'very' bad for certain powerful people, acquittals could have been readily engineered through your political judicial system.) So why didn't that happen? Why did your Establishment and their friends in London prefer the maddened course of sabotaging Operation Rectangle and illegally suspending your Police Chief?

    It's been correctly observed before that there were several powerful motivations to illegally suspend the Police Chief, a main one of which obviously being the sabotage of the child-abuse investigations.

    Now we get to the heart of the matter; another motivation, quite probably the overriding motivation, was to bring the Jersey Police Force under improper 'political' control for the main purpose of then arresting, criminalising and discrediting Senator Stuart Syvret.

    That objective was at the heart of the matter.

    Why? Whilst an articulate and ethical opposition figure, perhaps uniquely frightening and angering to Jersey's mediaeval rulers, why, even then, go to such anti-Western repressive lengths?

    The Jersey Establishment had to seize control of the Policing function, and turn it upon Syvret, for the very same reason that they had to seize the Police Force so as to guarantee they would never be forced to prosecute any of the child-abusers, nor any of the corrupt civil servants, who the Health & Social Services Minister had been investigating or inquiring into in the course of 2006 and 2007.

    Why is that point crucial? Why does that sit at the very heart of all of this?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Falls Into View – Part 2

    Because the investigations into child-protection failure and child-abuse cover-ups being undertaken during that 2006/2007 period by Senator Syvret as the lawfully empowered Health & Social Services Minister had already been illegally - that is, criminally - obstructed and sabotaged by your Crown Officers and the senior civil-servants they control.
    That sabotage of the work of the lawfully empowered Minister was a criminal enterprise.

    A criminal enterprise which could be hidden only for as long as none of the individuals the Minister was investigating were ever officially shown to be suspected criminals through charging and prosecution.

    The instant that occurred, the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involved in sabotaging the Minister so as to protect those suspected criminals, falls into view.

    And at that moment, your Bailiffs, Attorney Generals and the involved civil servants are all, unavoidably, prima facie criminal suspects.

    Criminal suspects who cannot even be investigated realistically, let alone charged, prosecuted and tried, because they run the police and they are the prosecution and judicial system.

    Some abusers were eventually prosecuted. But note, and this is crucial, how none of the abusers or those involved in unlawfully concealing abuse who were still employed in the public sector during that 2006 and 2007 period were ever charged. Only those who were not public employees, or long since gone from the public sector, were prosecuted. That is not an accident.

    To have prosecuted anyone in the public sector who may have been involved in the criminal matrix of abuse and concealment being investigated by Minister Syvret during the period when he was illegally obstructed and sabotaged in his work by the Crown Officer and civil-service led conspiracy to pervert justice, would have crystallised that conspiracy in the public domain.

    Centrally involved in the unlawful obstruction of the Minister in 2007 were Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, William Bailhache and Timothy Le Cocq. Your judges and prosecutors. For those men to have permitted any of the abusers in question to be brought to justice would have amounted to exposing their own criminal conspiracy to obstruct the Minister, and amount to signing their own indictments.

    Does it fall into view? Do you understand? From the beginnings of the conspiracy against the Minister in early 2007 – because of that conspiracy - there was never, I repeat, never, any possibility, none at all, of any of the contemporarily identified child-abusers being brought to justice.

    The police under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper were doing good, genuine work, and were acting entirely in good-faith. But, they too, like the victims and witnesses, were being put through a charade. Yes, all those victims who went through so much to give the Police statements and evidence were being put through a foul and desperately cruel charade by a prosecution system and judiciary in Jersey that knew full-well it would never bring any of those current civil-service abusers to justice.

    To have done so would have been to indict themselves for the 2007 conspiracy to pervert justice thy engaged in against the investigations being undertaken by the lawfully empowered Health & Social Services Minister.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Falls into view, WOW ! This really makes sense of everything that has happened. VFC do you not think this explanation is worthy of its own blog posting?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thinking about the 'Falls Into View' comments, I can't pick holes in that explanation. I've followed this stuff since it began and that reasoning fits the available evidence like a glove. Well, it's more in many ways than just 'evidence', isn't it? It's a process of reasoning, of taking the known facts, and then thinking deeply of rational explanations for those known facts. And when you think about the known facts in the Jersey child abuse saga and how mad and just inexplicable so much of the behaviour of TPTB has been, the 'Falls Into View' comments make perfect sense. Suddenly we have a logical explanation for what on the surface has been years of very illogical conduct by the authorities.

    I suppose the next big question then is 'what now?'

    Now that our eyes are open, what do Jersey campaigners do now? Obviously it's now even more clear than it was before that the Jersey cover-up would not have been launched without the hidden agreement and basically support of the TPTB in London. It's too big not to have. And the meaning of this is huge, it's just huge.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You know when this blew up for the Establishment? The moment they tried to coerce Police Chief Graham Power that morning in November 2008 and they offered him to 'consider his position', and he refused, and instead stood his ground. That was the moment when the plot of the Establishment exploded in their faces. They lost at that fulcrum moment.

    Everything they've done since then, and they're still trying now though its doomed, has been trying to bail-out a sinking ship with a few buckets. You can kind of slow it down but can't escape the inevitable. And all that time members of the crew could have spent getting away in life-boats has been wasted, so now a lot of them are going down with the ship.

    That plan, to coerce and intimidate the Police Chief into resigning was more than only high-risk, it was all or nothing. It either worked or it didn't. And if it didn't the inescapable consequence would be to amplify every self-inflicted disaster the Establishment is facing a 1000 x over. And it had to work there and then. At that very moment. The Police Chief had to be 'shock & awed' into taking resignation there and then, in that 30 minutes. If he didn't and he stood his ground, it was 'game-over' for the Establishment. The only question left would be 'when' would 'The End' come, how long could they fend it off for?

    It's drawing near.

    Something else is clear. They really are as thick as people say. Only one of the immediate participants in that November 2008 crime was smart enough to understand the stakes. That was Bill Ogley. He knew what they were doing was an 'all-or-nothing' gamble. He will have been alone in understanding that they had lost when Mr Power turned them down. By 10:00 a.m that very morning Ogley will have known they had lost and he would have begun immediately engineering his escape, his way out of the situation. Probably that self-same afternoon. Sure, it will have taken a few months to come to fruition, and some pretext would have to be manufactured, but the exit, with a big fat golden-handshake - and no-doubt some 'legal' protections for the future - was calling him. Sure enough, he was gone before too long.

    Ogley was off on his life-boat, leaving the real fools behind.

    Look at a few of these 'useful idiots' now: Ian Le Marquand, Dave Minty, Emma Martins, Andrew Lewis and others. The only thing now standing between these people and lengthy jail terms is a perilously balanced calculation in the heart of Whitehall power as to whether the very global reputation of Britain as a lawful state can carry on being held in such jeopardy.

    That is the situation. The picture is, yes, falling into view. For how much longer can Whitehall carry on rolling the dice and praying, before the strategic reality bites, and the British state decides the least bad outcome is to be seen to have faced and cleaned-up its own filth in its own backyard?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Look at a few of these 'useful idiots' now: Ian Le Marquand, Dave Minty, Emma Martins, Andrew Lewis and others. The only thing now standing between these people and lengthy jail terms is a perilously balanced calculation in the heart of Whitehall power as to whether the very global reputation of Britain as a lawful state can carry on being held in such jeopardy."

    Nice one Neil McMurray, that's libel.
    I seem to be doing an awful lot of ctrl / print screens from your blog lately but if you want to hang yourself so be it.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it is not libel if it is true.

      It seems likely that the commenter (or Neil) can produce considerable evidence in support of the statement.

      Delete
    2. Here here- 02.55 is only trying to scare you. IMO these type of people mentioned above would have taken Stuart Syvret to court by now if what he was saying about them at the time was libelous. It's been 7 years and not one of them has done such a thing (bar Minty and he wasn't exactly the instigator). So must be some truth in it then??? I very strongly suspect this is the case. I've read every word on the good Jersey blogs such as this one and there is tons of evidence out there. Bar the 02.55 troll, can anyone else quote where Stuart, Neil or Rico have got it wrong?

      Delete
    3. Research the cost of taking legal action in Jersey. if you win you get your costs paid for by the loser. If however the loser is a potless unemployed benefit dependent you have to cough up yourself. Could you afford a lengthy and expensive court battle, knowing that whatever the outcome you would be financially ruined?

      Delete
    4. Yeah it’s cheaper to get the taxpayer to cough up around £300,000 to fund a secret court case by bending the Data Protection Law beyond recognition and slapping a super injunction on the accuser rather than answer any of his/her allegations against you.

      It’s called “The Jersey Way” or "JUDGE MADE LAW."

      Delete
    5. Talking of coughing up can I mention Simon Crowcroft's true confession moment, when confronted by demonstrators in the Royal Square he said that he could not beat them so he joined them over building the JIFC. He then went inside and voted against Deputy Tadiers propositions to hold off until scrutiny had finished their report.

      Realising over night that for a career politician, he needed the publics support for re-election, and had made a ba**s up which was recorded, today on the radio comes the new plan at appeasement.

      Simon Crowcroft says he wants a car park built under peoples park, people living in town have a right to park their cars he says, er ten years to late.

      People already have an increase in taxes coming, the states want another extra £70 million off us, a black hole looms of £125 million and out of the blue Simon Crowcroft is going to build a new car park, who is going to cough up the money Constable ? Just more pie in the sky crap.

      Has Jersey ever had such a low quality of politicians, who think the public are as thick as planks ?

      Delete
  24. “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Quango Unchained

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Link to Tadier blog.

      Previous link had superfluous forward slash at end.

      Delete
  25. The answer to how will Constable Crowcroft pay for a car park under Peoples Park was answered today, you obviously missed it.

    By putting increasing all car parking charges, is the answer, except of course for States Members and most of the public sector workers, who park for free.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Polo.

    In answer (hopefully) to your question HERE.

    Rico, and I, e-mailed the Child Abuse Inquiry back in April 2014 concerning your/our concerns regarding immunity from prosecution as a result of evidence given to the Inquiry.

    Below are the relevant parts of our e-mail and the COI’s response:

    Relevant part of e-mail to COI from VFC/Rico Sorda:

    “We would like to bring your attention to Inquiry protocol: Protective Measures in particular para 24.2.

    "An answer given by a person to a question put to that person, or an oral or written statement made by that person, or a document produced by a person in the course of his or her appearance before the Inquiry shall not be admissible in evidence against that person in any civil or criminal proceedings;"

    Could you please just clarify that we are reading this correctly? The way we see it is that any evidence given against any alleged perpetrators to the COI automatically deems that evidence inadmissible in any court case either civil or criminal?”

    Relevant part of COI reply:

    “Protective Measures deals with issues of immunity. These provisions come from Article 8 of the States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Committees of Inquiry) (Jersey) Regulation 2007. This legislation means that any individuals giving evidence to the Inquiry (whether in the form of documents, witness statements or oral evidence) will have immunity from self-incrimination. What that means in practice is that anything a witness says during their evidence to the Inquiry cannot then later be used against them in civil or criminal proceedings in Jersey. It does not mean that they cannot be accused by others and it does not mean that a case cannot still be brought against them - just that the evidence that person gave to the Inquiry cannot be used against them in future proceedings. It also does not prevent the matters being investigated by anyone in the future. It does not give people immunity from prosecution.

    To give a simple example, if Witness A admitted to the Inquiry that they had stolen a book from the local bookshop, that admission could not be used against them in a future prosecution. However, if Witness B told the Inquiry that they had witnessed Witness A steal the book, Witness B's evidence could be used in any future criminal prosecution against Witness A.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thx for this clarification which is very clear and makes many of the recent comments redundant
      This COI does NOT give abusers a free get out of jail card despite the speculations of some rather ill-informed commenters who, despite their bravado, really do not know what they are talking about. When people embark on these flights of fancy the credibility of the forum is weakened.

      Delete
    2. The way I read it is that the accusers/Victims/Survivors evidence cannot by used by them in a court once they have given it to the Child Abuse Inquiry. They themselves cannot bring a court case against their abuser.

      Delete
    3. And rely on the evidence they have given to the COI. As far as the Victim/Survivor is concerned that evidence is now obsolete.

      Delete
    4. Hi VFC,

      Your link @08:22 does not seem to work. I think the comment reference which works is
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/06/mario-lundy-and-stuart-syvret-at-jersey.html?showComment=1434222725050#c3756462089459211549

      The answer given by the CoI is of some reassurance if it is correct and complete. I don't think the bits you quote mean that evidence about/against others given to the CoI becomes "obsolete" or unusable. What you/the CoI quote appears only to relate to "self incrimination"

      Having said that, I suspect that the situation is a whole bunch more complicated (and obscure) than we or commenter @09:27 can appreciate and (in the absence of anything better) I don't think we can afford to ignore the legal advice offered at:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html?showComment=1432897316926#c4728150541391857574

      and three comments starting at:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html?showComment=1432920203569#c4784153204298923633

      "The point in the comment at 13:06 is technically correct, in that prosecutions after the COI are hypothetically possible. But the realistic chances of that working to the point of conviction are greatly constrained. For example........."


      Other things to bear in mind is that, unlike the UK, in Jersey there is no such thing as a "private prosecution". This is the sole indulgence of the AG -though many of his prosecution / non-prosecution decisions seem to have been of a very "private"/partisan nature.

      Prosecution is only a word for a political tool unless a state has a properly functioning and independent judicial system.

      Delete
  27. I beg to disagree. This is not what the email says. It's only self incriminating evidence given by the abuser that is inadmissible. The simple example about a stolen book says it all. What the perpetrator admits to becomes inadmissible but what other witnesses ( including victims) say does not become inadmissible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phil.

      I can't disagree with your interpretation. I have just emailed the Child Abuse Inquiry and asked:

      "Could you kindly clear something up which is of huge importance?

      If a victim gives evidence against their abuser to your Inquiry can that victim then still use that same evidence in a court against their abuser?"(END)

      As has been mentioned before the COI doesn't always acknowledge e-mails and very rarely answers any questions posed but should I get a response (or answer) I shall post it here.

      Delete
    2. "If a victim gives evidence against their abuser to your Inquiry can that victim then still use that same evidence in a court against their abuser?"
      This question has, in effect, already been answered. The only evidence that is inadmissible is self incriminating evidence given by the accused. The victims evidence does not fall into this category and therefore would not be inadmissible.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your contribution but to be clear. Are you offering it as an opinion based on this particular protocol or are you stating it as fact after reading all the protocols?

      Delete
    4. I’m guessing you are not a member of the COI? So in order to avoid doubt we should wait for its reply I’m sure you would agree?

      Delete
  28. I don't agree or disagree because it is not the COI that wrote the law concerning immunity from prosecution and admissible evidence. It is Jersey law that determines whether or not evidence is admissible in later court cases and not COi protocols. Whilst the COI no doubt have legal experts who can answer the question you have posed I am not sure that they would feel anyway obliged to answer a question which would have perhaps been better put to either those who were involved in the drafting of the law or other local lawyers qualified in this area. My own opinion comes from a reading of the law itself and not from the COI protocols ( although I have read those as well) and as far as I can tell the law is quite clear. I agree with Polo. It would be totally absurd for this COI to be a get out of jail card for abusers. The law quite properly makes inadmissible self incriminating evidence given to the COI by those accused in any later court proceedings. It does not make victims evidence inadmissible.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh dear, there are some very naïve and/or deliberately simplifying assertions being made ref the realties of successful prosecutions or civil claims post the public inquiry.

    I don't have time to respond in detail right now. I'll try to do so later.

    Article 49 (e) of the relevant legislation says,

    "confer on persons appearing before any committee or panel established
    by standing orders immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for
    words spoken before or in a written report to the committee or panel"

    That is the clause which confers the protection against self-incrimination. The effect of that clause is to render anything said to, or submitted in documentary form to, the Committee of Inquiry by person A, not then usable in any criminal or civil proceedings against person A.

    What is not being acknowledged is that it is entirely feasible that the ONLY evidence which could realistically convict person A - and this is in fact very often the case in criminal trials - are things they themselves have said. Things they have said during police interrogations, which may go to piece together the reality of the accused's conduct, and may also show inconsistencies and falsehoods. Further, the accused will be subjected to cross-examination in the trial, and there too things may be said by the accused which effectively convicts themselves.

    I repeat, such self-incrimination or partial self-incrimination is not rare in criminal trials.

    So it is that the most important evidence - maybe the heart of a prosecution case which in ordinary circumstances would go to secure a conviction against an accused - would be rendered unavailable to criminal proceedings if already expressed orally or in written form to the public inquiry.

    As has been said previously, it is certainly still hypothetically possible that a prosecution could be mounted, even if main swathes of testimony & evidence have been placed beyond the reach of the criminal trial by prior use in the public inquiry. But that possibility becomes very much harder. More remote, and even if attempted, far less likely to succeed.

    So the fundamental question remains, and I feel it's very revealing of the motivations of those who argue that the COI's processes are 'not a problem' to possible future prosecutions, why even take the risk?

    Indeed, now that we can see Operation Rectangle was unlawfully sabotaged, and the criminal investigations are re-opened under Operation Whistle, why not pause the public inquiry, just to be on the safe side? Why not pause it until the all the relevant criminal investigations and legal processes are completed, and then run the public inquiry?

    For that is the real debate here. Whatever the final interpretation a court might make of the extent and depth of the immunity, there's is no credible disputing of the fact that running the COI processes before completion of possible criminal proceedings can only ever be a handicap to those criminal proceedings.

    The real question which remains to be answered by the 'there-is-no-problem' camp, is 'why the rush?' What is wrong with the perfectly reasonable and sensible path of allowing the criminal inquiries and arising matters to run their course first?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there's little if any credible argument which could prioritise the Jersey public inquiry process over and above the germane criminal processes.

      But let me be a littlie mischievous. I read with interest the sub-paragraph quoted above, which I re-produce here:

      "confer on persons appearing before any committee or panel established
      by standing orders immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for
      words spoken before or in a written report to the committee or panel"

      Let me give you some pro bono advice; in any dealings at all with lawyers, remember, we really are the accretion of a-moral bastards of popular image.

      Let me see, "Mr X, so the Jersey authorities are going to prosecute you for alleged child-abuse, and you would like me to defend you?"

      "Of course you're innocent of these disgusting charges, & we can be confident of securing your acquittal, in which case, naturally, your legal costs will be paid by the state. Now, let me see, oh, I think we can secure the desired outcome if my practice puts enough resources into the case. Shall we say £750,000?"

      [Forward in time to court, and the lawyer makes his argument]

      "Sir, I have adduced a number of facts and argument already in this abuse-of-process application to have the charges against my client stayed. I would now like to turn to a fundamental point of law, which you, Sir, with your many years of experience and nationally renowned skill will have no difficulty in understanding."

      "Sir, 90% of the purported evidence tabled by the prosecution against my client was either added into the purview of the recent public inquiry in the form of records, statements, evidence and intelligence gathered by the Police Force during their investigation, or was voiced before the public inquiry by a number of different witnesses. It is the case of my client Mr X that none of that material is now admissible in any criminal or civil proceedings against him, and that so on the basis of Article 49 (e) of the States of Jersey Law."

      "M'learned friend, Council for the prosecution, cites the same Article and argues that the immunity arising applies to self-incrimination only. It is thus claimed that all of the other evidence spoken before, or written to the public inquiry is not so immune, and is therefore still admissible against my client."

      "But, Sir, as a learned judge of your immense brilliance will have already noted, no doubt, the law does not in fact say what Council for the Prosecution claims it to say."

      "For in effect, Prosecution claims the law to say "confer on persons appearing before any committee or panel established by standing orders immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for words spoken before or in a written report to the committee or panel - BY THAT PERSON".

      "But as you know, Sir, the law does NOT say that; the law does NOT specify that the immunity, such as it is, is limited to, and accrues only in respect of, the words or reports of the accused individual alone."

      "On the contrary, Sir, the law does not specify any such limitation. In fact the actual law says that a person shall have immunity in civil or criminal proceedings for words spoken before, or in reports written to, the Committee."

      "A person, in this case my client Mr X, has immunity in respect of ANY such words spoken, and reports & documentary evidence submitted to, the Committee, no matter who it was submitted by. None of the said material may now be adduced against my client".

      "As you know, Sir, we must always look at what the law says and the plain and obvious legislative intent. If the law-makers had intended for the immunity in question to apply ONLY to words and documents given up to a Committee of Inquiry SOLEY by an accused person himself, leaving all of the other material put before the Committee in play - then that that is what the law would say. But the law does not say that."

      Delete
    2. Thank you 18:03 and 19:47

      So pleased to have helpful and knowledgeable people contributing

      The part of the law quoted is actually Article 48 (e) [not 49 (e)]

      18:03, do you agree with 19:47's interpretation of Article 48 (e) "confer on persons appearing before any committee or panel established by standing orders immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for words spoken before or in a written report to the committee or panel" ?

      ....That this clause gives immunity form ANY evidence given by ANYONE to the CoI ?
      That was certainly my lay-person's interpretation.

      Readers can read the law being quoted (L.8/2005) STATES OF JERSEY LAW 2005
      www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce/htm/LawFiles/2005/l-08-2005.htm

      The CoI process certainly appears to include a get-out-of -jail-free cards for any operators smart enough to use it.


      The next question is ........ Can evidence still be used in court if it also exists independently (e.g. predates) of it's submission to the CoI?
      e.g. police witness statements etc.(where they have not been "lost")

      Delete
    3. The revised 2005 law is 49e

      Delete
  31. Anonymous @19.47

    That's very persuasive. As you say, it's what's written that counts and that quoted legislation is a piece of lousy drafting.

    While I think it is outrageous, and hope it is not the same in other jurisdictions, it does look like a get out of jail card that neutralises all words spoken at or submitted to the inquiry.

    The only way around that would be to say that the same words spoken outside the inquiry are not so neutralised and point out that the accused is unlikely to repeat any self incriminating material outside the inquiry.

    But as you say, you'd have to persuade m'lud of that and there is no guarantee that he'd be receptive.

    So we're sort of back to square one.

    In this case it would be preferable for a police inquiry and prosecution (incl trial) to precede the current (paused?) inquiry. But here you run into the likely reluctance of the Jersey system to undertake this full process.

    It's really a disgraceful minefield.

    ReplyDelete
  32. STATES OF JERSEY LAW 2005

    A LAW regarding the constitution and proceedings of the States, to declare and define the powers, privileges and immunities of the States, and to establish a ministerial system of government.

    Here is what the relevant part of clause 49 of the 2005 law actually says:

    49 Regulations: powers, privileges and immunities
    The States may by Regulations –
    ...
    (e) confer on persons appearing before any committee or panel established by or in accordance with standing orders immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for words spoken before or in a written report to the committee or panel;

    This clause empowers the states of Jersey to make regulations governing, for example, immunities with respect to self incriminating evidence given to a COI should the need arise.
    The clause does not in itself make these regulations. It simply empowers the SOJ to do so.
    In 2007 the SOJ did make regulations in this regard and it is with the 2007 regulations in mind that the COI replied to the question posed by VFC and Rico regarding the 'get out of jail free' question.
    I would suggest that the COI were right to do this and that the 2007 regulations are clear in their meaning with regard to immunity from prosecution on the basis of self incriminating evidence given to the COI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NB that's clause 49 of the revised 2005 law

      Delete
    2. Thank you for clarifying that.

      www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce/htm/LawFiles/2005/l-08-2005.htm#_Toc88473933

      The online version of the law is an un-revised document; Article 48 (e) now apparently being Article 49 (e)

      Delete
    3. Your welcome and yes that's correct

      Delete
    4. Thanks for all that further clarification. It is dreadful that all this has been up in the air until this late stage.

      The discussion earlier shows the dangers of incomplete quotations.

      Article 8 of the "States of Jersey (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) (Committees of Inquiry) (Jersey) Regulation 2007" reads as follows:


      8 Privileges and immunity of person appearing before or producing documents to a committee of inquiry

      (1) A person asked or required to give evidence or produce documents before a committee of inquiry shall be entitled, in respect of such evidence and documents, to legal professional privilege and privilege against self-incrimination.

      (2) An answer given by a person to a question put to that person, or an oral or written statement made by that person, or a document produced by a person in the course of his or her appearance before a committee of inquiry shall not, except in the case of proceedings for the offence of perjury or for an offence under these Regulations, be admissible in
      evidence against that person in any civil or criminal proceedings.

      (3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to evidence given or documents produced by that person which he or she knows to be untrue.


      So the reply of the COI seems OK and there is no get out of jail card.

      At least that's my latest understanding.

      Delete
    5. Yes and to make absolutely clear the relationship between these regulations and the 2005 law, the 2007 regulations are introduced in the following way:

      'THE STATES, in pursuance of Article 49 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, have made the following Regulations –'

      Also to make absolutely clear the relationship between these regulations and the COI protective measures protocols, regulation 8 as you have quoted above has become verbatim protocol 24.

      Delete
  33. I fully understand why many people need to comment anonymously in a Jersey context. However, it gets very confusing as to who is who in a string of comments. It also doesn't allow the reader to form an opinion on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the commentator.

    Might it be an idea for commenters to adopt a consistent handle instead of posting simply under the heading "anonymous". This would still give anonymity to commenters but maintain a consistency in comments?

    The problem has been very acute in the above thread where some misleading comments have been posted, no doubt in good faith.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you commenter(s?)

    Anonymous18 June 2015 at 18:03
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/06/mario-lundy-and-stuart-syvret-at-jersey.html?showComment=1434646981615#c3080129630250021961

    &

    Anonymous19 June 2015 at 07:04
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/06/mario-lundy-and-stuart-syvret-at-jersey.html?showComment=1434693859007#c676517695864528750

    Any chance you can sign your comments with a nickname (or better sign in with a dummy avatar) so that we can give your future comments the attention they deserve, and more easily join into an overview of your 'opinion'

    No disrespect to commenters who may wish to add to, or question, your 'opinion'

    These threads easily get fogged by red herrings

    ReplyDelete
  35. I left a comment earlier HERE where I said that I would post a the response from the COI if and when I receive one.

    I am pleased to say that the COI has responded today and even more pleased with its answer.

    "yes a victim can still use the same evidence (i.e. details of the allegation) against their alleged abuser in a criminal or civil court.

    The Regulations state that evidence cannot be used in proceedings (civil or criminal) against the person providing evidence therefore the evidence provided to the Inquiry could not be used in any civil or criminal proceedings brought against the person who gave that evidence, but could be used against somebody else. As an example, if witness A provided evidence against Witness B in the Inquiry (e.g. a victim against an alleged abuser), Witness A’s evidence could be used against Witness B in any subsequent civil or criminal proceedings however Witness A’s evidence could not be used against Witness A himself or herself in any civil or criminal proceedings (e.g. any defamation proceedings)."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope Stuart is reassured by this response because nothing he says
      To the COI could ever be used against him

      Delete
    2. Voice - could you ask the COI the following:

      If Witness A provided evidence, either in their own statement or in a document presented to the COI, which incriminated Witness B, and then Witness B presented the SAME evidence as part of their own evidence, (probably in order to refute it) would it then be the case that this evidence could not be used against witness B in a subsequent civil or criminal proceedings (as Witness B had presented it to the COI hemselves)?

      Delete
  36. The "Not For Publication" comment. Thanks for your advice (links) which seems to have worked.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Looking forward to the names of the 13 local people being investigated by the Jersey Police. Called Operation Whistle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Operation Whistle, I believe, is investigating 45 suspects. 12-13 of them have been described as "high profile." These 12-13 high profile suspects, according to Chief Police Officer Mike Bowron are NOT local people.

      Operation Whislte is an off-shoot of an investigation by the MET Police called Operation Hydrant. As mentioned earlier there will be a Blog Posting about Whistle/Hydrant soon.

      Delete
  38. It appears likely then, that witness immunity was intended to apply only against self-incrimination, and the COI has reiterated this. However, the more important aspect is that the Jersey courts can and will interpret that in whatever way they wish, much like their deliberate misinterpretation It appears likely then, that witness immunity was intended to apply only against self-incrimination, and the COI has reiterated this. However, isn't the more important aspect that Jersey courts can and will interpret immunity in whatever way they wish, much like their deliberate misinterpretation of the function of Data Protection Law in Stuart's case?

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed Elle.

      That is where the biggest problem lies. Once it gets into a Jersey Court, the Law counts for nothing and can be interpreted or bent beyond recognition into something nobody recognises as the intended purposes of that law.

      Delete
    2. VFC, sorry for the duplicate sentences in my comment. This is very odd. My comments usually disappear before I can edit them. I'm still having difficulty publishing comments here for unknown reasons and no one has been able to fix it.

      Delete
  39. Stuart is keeping THIS powder dry for London Courts. And who can blame him.

    ReplyDelete
  40. As I interpret the legislation quoted above, immunity applies only to words spoken at the COI, but would not apply to the same words spoken elsewhere. So, for example, if a suspect admitted during a police interview that they abused a child, simply repeating that exact same admission at the COI would not render the police interview inadmissible in any later proceedings.

    What is less clear (to me at least) is how documentary evidence would be dealt with. Suppose the key evidence against an individual is a number of letters from victims alleging abuse, and copies are held by both the police and the alleged abuser. By tabling those letters at the enquiry, it does seem possible that the law would prevent these documents from being used in any later proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi VFC,
    Just wanted to share a couple of interesting snippets with you and your readers

    #1 Jon Gripton is now editor of BBC Spotlight in Plymouth, Mathew Price, as now acting editor @jersey
    & interesting difference between BBC News online not BBC Radio Jersey

    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3656.msg60061#msg60061

    Re: BBC reporting in Jersey is it worth the licence fee.

    « Reply #95 on: Today at 07:11:31 PM » bby ryan morrison
    Hi - thanks for compliment - I actually work for BBC News online not BBC Radio Jersey (more of an internal distinction but a bigger one than you might think) and my line management is from the UK not Jersey.

    We did have a BBC Radio Jersey reporter on site [ of the demonstration] but there is no live local radio programming after 2pm on a Sunday so was not able to do a live report.

    Jon Gripton no longer works for the BBC in Jersey he is now editor of BBC Spotlight in Plymouth. No news on the new editor yet but Matthew Price is the current acting editor.END

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have been invited to speak again at the national child-protection rally at the House of Commons this Tuesday.

      When speaking at these events I try to draw lessons we've learnt from opposing the cover-ups in Jersey in the hope that experience will be useful to the broad nation-wide campaign.

      This time I'm going to have certain things to say specifically about the role of the BBC.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    2. The "Impartial, Balanced and Honest" BBC?

      Delete
    3. I think there's a problem with that link? I get gobbledygook when I click it.

      Delete
    4. The "Impartial, Balanced and Honest" BBC?

      Delete
  42. Hi VFC,
    snippet #2

    It may not be of any relevance but a visitor to Jersey was Ronnie Kray (the gangster, rapist and pimp of boys and men, and long time protected friend of the UK establishment)

    http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/judges-and-lenient-sentences/whole-life-sentences-judges-rule-its-legal/the-krays-paedophile-ring/

    Don't know if it was a regular thing or a one off, or whether he made use of Jersey's financial services (or anything less legal)

    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5907125/Letters-shed-new-light-on-Kray-twins-scandal.html

    ReplyDelete
  43. Good to hear Tom McKeon has set the record straight.
    Shame on you bloggers for rumour mongering this poor man with others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure where you heard that rumour but the complete opposite is the truth. Mr. McKeon has NOT “put the record straight” indeed he has REFUSED to put the record straight.

      He has adopted the “protective measures” ruling which means (as far as I understand it) he will be given a number of identities by the COI and DOES NOT wish to answer or publically clear his name against any allegations of abuse he might be facing. Some might say that he has taken the coward’s way out but one thing is for certain; He (under his own name) has NOT put the record straight.

      So please stop rumour mongering and making false allegations.

      Delete
  44. How come the two Jersey's Children's Education Directors, from 1992 to 2014, are both trying to justify their time incharge as above board?
    No smoke without fire comes to mind!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends who is starting the fires.

      Delete
    2. One would suggest that both the smoke, and the fire, come from Mario Lundy and the COI. It's all in the TRANSCRIPTS.

      Delete
  45. There've been many interesting comments under this posting, real high-quality debate (interspersed obviously with the occasional moronic trollings,13:32 for example) But there's something saddening about the focus of the many sincere people on this exercise. The failure to understand, or perhaps deep-seated unwillingness to face, the fact the exercise of this Jersey public inquiry is irrelevant. That's the blunt truth.

    Looked at from either side, the survivors and campaigners, or the abusers and concealers. neither side will, or even could, get the 'outcome' they're looking for. For many reason the Jersey inquiry has no meaning, no credibility, no relevant legal powers. The good side are not going to get the Jersey system cleaned up, and the bad side are not going to get the semi-'credible' white-wash they're hoping for (not least because this public inquiry has already in many ways nailed its colours to the 'pro-establishment side.)

    The sad truth is that the Jersey public inquiry is simply an expensive irrelevance. Just another blind-ally. Just another temporary staging-post on what is going to carry on being a war for the rule of law in Jersey.

    No matter if it went on for another 5 years and cost £30 million. The real issues will remain unresolved. Those who were hoping for 'great things' from this exercise, or some kind line drawn under the controversy, or some type of truth and reconsolidation exercise. All, have lost already.

    War endures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This Inquiry was never started to settle old scores and they made that clear, so what do you mean by hoping for 'great things'?

      Delete
  46. When are you giving us an update on Trevor and Shona?
    Trevor hasn't been online for 10 Months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will look to talk with them in a day or so and report update then.

      Delete
  47. Establishment protected criminal Allan Maguire, shows every sign of being a career paedophile.
    N.B. Career paedophile often have hundreds of victims, many of whom never report the abuse.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-30144788

    The victim was fostered by Jane and Allan Maguire, who had [previously] run the Blanche Pierre group care home until 1990.

    She said in a police statement in 1997, she suffered physical and sexual abuse at the hands of Mr Maguire.

    She disputes Jersey education/care documents which indicate that she wanted to be fostered by the Maguires, and says she was"sexually abused every night" "from when she was aged 10 to 12" and that she was 7 when Allan Maguire first sexually assaulted her at Blanche Pierre group home.

    She said Mrs Maguire had treated her as a slave

    Despite the criminality and closure of the Blanche Pierre home, Iris Le Fevre famously gave his wife Jane a glowing letter of thanks, despite the internal report. The Maguires were equally famously tracked down by BBC Panorama, fit and well in France, a decade or so after Allan Maguire had supposedly 'died'.

    If memory serves, didn't the Bailhaches have something to do with halting the prosecution of the in the late 1990's without even requiring proof of ill health and imminent death ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed as far as I recall William Bailhache was the very man who halted the prosecution against the Maguires. It was also (if memory serves correct) Bailhache and Labesse, who in 1990 were representing a number of the Maguire victims (so no conflict there). Stuart will be able to elaborate further?

      Delete
    2. Snippets of Stuart's previous observations and published information from 2010:

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-betrayed/

      "134. The Blanche Pierre Group Home (BPGH) was a family-scale foster home, operated by the States of Jersey, and staffed on a full-time residential basis by a States of Jersey employee, one Jane Maguire, and her husband, Alan Maguire.

      135. Throughout much of the 1980s, the Maguires routinely subjected the vulnerable children in their care to psychological and physical abuse and torture, often to a horrifying degree.

      136. Alan Maguire also engaged in sexual abuse of children.

      137. Much of the abuse committed by the Maguires was known to their employers, the States of Jersey. However, senior managers regularly ignored expressions of concern by more junior staff members, and failed to obey the law, and protect the children in care from such criminal conduct.

      138. Amongst those senior managers who failed to prevent, or halt the abuse of the children were: –

      138.1.1. Geoff Spencer;

      138.1.2. Anton Skinner.

      139. Eventually, in 1990, the abuses became too well-evidenced to continue to ignore, so the aforesaid two mangers conducted an internal investigation into the matter.

      140. Even though it was clear that the Maguires had committed many criminal offencesagainst the children, the managers concerned failed to report the matter to the police, instead merely permitting Jane Maguire to ‘retire’ from running the BPGH, and, instead taking up employment in the Family Development Centre.

      141. The politician in charge of the then Children’s Service was one Iris Le Fevre, the then President of the Education Committee. Mrs. [Iris] Le Fevre wrote, at that time, a letter of thanks to the Maguires.

      .........

      150. Throughout much of 2008, the Police re-investigated the criminal actions of the Maguires, and were of no doubt the two abusers should be extradited from France, and prosecuted for the original offences, and further offences which had come to light. However, the police were repeatedly obstructed by the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, brother of the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache and Crown Advocate Stephen Baker.

      .......

      154. 42 Don Road Family Group Home.

      155. The Don Road Family Group Home (DRFGH) was another States of Jersey operated family-scale orphanage, run by a Mr & Mrs Bonner.

      156. The Bonners – like the Maguires – routinely inflicted savage assaults and other abuses upon the children in their care.

      157. The States of Jersey Police Force, as a part of their historic abuse investigation, attempted to have the Bonners charged and prosecuted.

      158. However, notwithstanding that they had received advice from a lawyer employed by the then Attorney General William Bailhache, that sufficient evidence to charge was present, and having arrested the Bonners, the Police were forced to release them without charge following interferences by Mr. Bailhache."

      Delete
    3. The Bailhache record is scratched (remember them), we hear the same again and again. Remember the non prosecution of DW:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

      When Bailhache bizarrely halted the prosecution of Jane and Alan Maguire the public of Jersey had to pay their defence costs.

      Delete
    4. VFC, you've got a little mixed-up in the dates in your comment at 13:57 on 23rd.

      The chronology is this: -

      1990 - internal Education Dept investigation by Anton Skinner and Geoff Spencer is forced to conclude the Maguires had been subjecting the children to a regime of serious, long-term abuse.

      1990 - The legal adviser to the Education Dept - and the sole prosecutor in Jersey - was the then Attorney General Philip Bailhache. He fails to impress upon the Department and Committee an understanding of its proper lawful obligations and duties. He fails to notify the police of the multiple crimes against the children. He fails to charge and prosecute the Maguires. He fails to charge and prosecute the Education Committee / Department.

      1997/8 -The Police - following an incident involving one of the victims, become aware of the reign of abuse by the Maguires purely by accident. Some minor charges - far less then they should have been prosecuted for - are brought against the Maguires. No action is brought against the Education Department.

      1998 - the prosecution of the Maguires is corruptly abandoned by the then Attorney General Michael Birt - who falsely claims - in straightforward lie to Jersey's Royal Court (quite possibly with his friend, appointer and colleague Philip Bailhache presiding?) that there was "insufficient evidence". In fact there was massive evidence. As has been shown many times over in evidence to the CoI.

      1998/9 - corruptly denied criminal justice against their abusers, the victims of the Maguires are also corruptly denied even any civil justice through the total betrayal of them by their legal-aid lawyers the law-firm Bailhache LaBesse (later became Appleby Global) The Senior Partner at that time was Philip Bailhache's brother William Bailhache. Shortly after this staggering betrayal of their clients, Bailhache LaBesse's William Bailhache was appointed as Attorney General in a nepotistic process involving his brother Philip Bailhache.

      2007 - Amongst the many examples of corrupt child-protection failure I discover is the abuse by the psychopathic Maguires - and the illegal cover-up of the abuse they committed by the Education & then Social Services Departments. Through other survivors I make contact with the victims of the Maguires and share some evidence with them which shows how the abuse they suffered was illegally concealed in 1990 and again in 1998.

      2007 - My dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister is engineered in an illegal conspiracy of Crown Officers and senior civil servants. Instrumentally involved in that criminal enterprise are Michael Birt and Philip Bailhache - both profoundly conflicted former Attorney Generals.

      2007 - the Police go public with Operation Rectangle. A part of that investigation examines the Blanch Pierre episode, the regime of abuse by the Maguires and the two earlier cover-ups.

      2008 - The Police conclude the cover-ups were unlawful, and seek the extradition of the Maguires that they both be fully prosecuted for the original offences and additional offences.

      2008 - The then Attorney General - the profoundly conflicted William Bailhache - fails to declare his conflicts of interest - and refuses to extradite and charge the Maguires.

      2008 - The then Police Chief is illegally suspended in a criminal conspiracy in which William Bailhache was - along with others - instrumentally involved.

      2008 / 9 - The victims of the Maguires are utterly betrayed and failed by the Jersey authorities all over again - for the third time.

      2009 - the utterly conflicted William Bailhache organises an illegal Police raid and Stalinistic prosecution against me - the whistle-blower and then leading opposition member of the Jersey legislature.

      And so it goes on.

      Another "triumph" for "the Jersey Way".

      Stuart

      Delete
  48. Operation Whistle hasn't exactly hit the ground running....
    Could it be because The Bailhache brothers are a part of the 13?!

    ReplyDelete
  49. @18:57
    Unlikely. This is still plastic-policeman Bowron's force so I doubt any establishment collars will be felt.

    It is just a bit of fanfare to give the impression that children are now safe.

    ReplyDelete
  50. REF the naming of suspects by the CoI etc,
    there was an interesting promise made by Frank Walker to BBC Panorama at 27 minutes in

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO4IME4g1kw&feature=youtu.be&t=27m0s

    BBC: "But you will name names, even if people can't be prosecuted?"

    Frank Walker: "We Will !" (said with apparent conviction)

    lying comes as easy as breathing to some people

    ReplyDelete
  51. from
    http://order-order.com/2015/06/24/janner-raped-and-tortured-children-in-parliament/

    Campaigning MP Simon Danczuk has used parliamentary privilege to reveal the dark allegations against Lord Janner, including that he abused young boys in parliament:

    Simon Danczuk: The shocking thing is that the CPS admits that the witnesses are not unreliable. It admits that Janner should face prosecution, but refuses to bring a case. I know the police are furious about this, and rightly so. Anyone who has heard the accusations would be similarly outraged. I have met Leicestershire police and discussed the allegations in some detail: children being violated, raped and tortured, some in the very building in which we now sit. The official charges are: 14 indecent assaults on a male under 16 between 1969 and 1988; two indecent assaults between ’84 and ’88; four counts of buggery of a male under 16 between ’72 and ’87; and two counts of buggery between 1977 and 1988. My office has spoken to a number of the alleged victims and heard their stories. I cannot overstate the effect that this abuse has had on their lives.

    To sum up, I want to make the following points about the case. If Lord Janner really is too ill to face prosecution, why cannot the courts establish this with a fitness-to-plead process? This would clear up doubts that still linger. For example, why was he still visiting Parliament on official visits after he was declared unfit to face justice? Why is he able to contribute to the law-making process in the House of Lords, but unable to face the law himself? If it is found that he is genuinely too ill to stand trial, why not conduct a trial of the facts? This would allow the victims to tell their stories and gain some sense of justice. The DPP has said that a trial of the facts would not be in the public interest. Personally, I fail to see how the knowledge that a peer of the realm is a serial child abuser is not in the public interest.

    Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): Order. I caution the hon. Gentleman about alleging anything against Lord Janner and making assertions about his guilt or innocence.

    Simon Danczuk: The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that Lord Janner will not offend again. But the failure to prosecute Lord Janner offends every principle of justice. He may not abuse again, but the legacy of the abuse continues. His victims need the truth and they need to be heard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the LINK to the article.

      However there is a fundamental difference between the UK Parliament and ours. The UK has an elected impartial speaker. We have an unelected head of the judiciary as speaker.

      Simon Danczuk (nor anyone else for that matter) would have been allowed to exercise his right of parliamentary privilege in Jersey Parliament. He would have been shouted down by those who wish to carry on protecting paedophiles and in particular by the conflicted un-elected speaker.

      Mr. Dunczuk was not only naming an alleged paedophile, he was criticising the judiciary for its (lack of) action(s). Jersey's disgraced Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff would have been those being criticised by Mr. Dunczuk and also presiding over the parliament sitting.

      Janner's name would have been ordered to be redacted from Hansard and Dunczuck would have been hounded, in the State Media, for "abusing" parliamentary privilege. #TheJerseyWay

      Delete
  52. Sean Power is in the paper complaining about a comment on his Facebook page telling him to get a boat in the morning which he finds offensive.
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

    ReplyDelete
  53. Wonderful, Jersey's home affairs minister ( who is it again ? ) sits in Jersey being paid good money and probably has a comfortable lifestyle, in a position of privilege and yet a hard up, penniless, shoved through Jersey courts individual called Stuart Syvret has again been invited to speak in Parliment about child buse and Jersey's corrupt system.

    He mixes with UK MP's through invitation, and Jersey's politicians sit on the side lines. He was even captured in a crowd picture, put on the front page of the Guardian newspaper a couple of days ago.

    Nice one Stuart, fair play to you, could it be that London is starting to take him seriously, red faces around the council of shysters table yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  54. 2015 Operation Whistle in Jersey vindicates the illegally sabotaged 2008 Operation Rectangle.

    ReplyDelete
  55. VFC.
    Do you know if Simon Bellwood will be giving evidence to the Jersey COI?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope that he is and have heard through the grapevine that he will be but can't be certain. Let's hope so.

      Delete
  56. Blogger does not have a "sort by newest" facility for comments so I just wanted to highlight a new comment by the ex health minister on an earlier thread

    "VFC, you've got a little mixed-up in the dates in your comment at 13:57 on 23rd.

    The chronology is this: -

    1990 - internal Education Dept investigation by Anton Skinner and Geoff Spencer is forced to conclude the Maguires had been subjecting the children to a regime of serious, long-term abuse.

    1990 - The legal adviser to the Education Dept - and the sole prosecutor in Jersey - was the then Attorney General Philip Bailhache. He fails to impress upon the Department and Committee an understanding of its proper lawful obligations and duties. He fails to notify the police of the multiple crimes against the children. He fails to charge and prosecute the Maguires. He fails to charge and prosecute the Education Committee / Department.

    1997/8 -The Police - following an incident involving one of the victims, become aware of the reign of abuse by the Maguires purely by accident. Some minor charges - far less then they should have been prosecuted for - are brought against the Maguires. No action is brought against the Education Department.

    1998 - the prosecution of the Maguires is corruptly abandoned by the then Attorney General Michael Birt - who falsely claims - in straightforward lie to Jersey's Royal Court (quite possibly with his friend, appointer and colleague Philip Bailhache presiding?) that there was "insufficient evidence". In fact there was massive evidence. As has been shown many times over in evidence to the CoI.

    1998/9 - corruptly denied criminal justice against their abusers, the victims of the Maguires are also corruptly denied even any civil justice through the total betrayal of them by their legal-aid lawyers the law-firm Bailhache LaBesse (later became Appleby Global) The Senior Partner at that time was Philip Bailhache's brother William Bailhache. Shortly after this staggering betrayal of their clients, Bailhache LaBesse's William Bailhache was appointed as Attorney General in a nepotistic process involving his brother Philip Bailhache.

    2007 - Amongst the many examples of corrupt child-protection failure I discover is the abuse by the psychopathic Maguires - and the illegal cover-up of the abuse they committed by the Education & then Social Services Departments. Through other survivors I make contact with the victims of the Maguires and share some evidence with them which shows how the abuse they suffered was illegally concealed in 1990 and again in 1998.

    2007 - My dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister is engineered in an illegal conspiracy of Crown Officers and senior civil servants. Instrumentally involved in that criminal enterprise are Michael Birt and Philip Bailhache - both profoundly conflicted former Attorney Generals.

    2007 - the Police go public with Operation Rectangle. A part of that investigation examines the Blanch Pierre episode, the regime of abuse by the Maguires and the two earlier cover-ups.

    2008 - The Police conclude the cover-ups were unlawful, and seek the extradition of the Maguires that they both be fully prosecuted for the original offences and additional offences.

    2008 - The then Attorney General - the profoundly conflicted William Bailhache - fails to declare his conflicts of interest - and refuses to extradite and charge the Maguires.

    2008 - The then Police Chief is illegally suspended in a criminal conspiracy in which William Bailhache was - along with others - instrumentally involved.

    2008 / 9 - The victims of the Maguires are utterly betrayed and failed by the Jersey authorities all over again - for the third time.

    2009 - the utterly conflicted William Bailhache organises an illegal Police raid and Stalinistic prosecution against me - the whistle-blower and then leading opposition member of the Jersey legislature.

    ... END

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On thread here:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/06/mario-lundy-and-stuart-syvret-at-jersey.html?showComment=1435061480695#c233057335959240309

      Delete
  57. Happy Birthday?
    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/06/30/happy-birthday-the-jep-celebrates-125-years/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No disrespect to the current editor, who I think is trying to undo all the damage previous editors have caused the paper and the people of Jersey. But the piece written by Paul Carter is propaganda and spin at its best.

      Delete
    2. The JEP have a number of photos of you ready to use if ever they are to run a story.
      One of the photos has you looking angry at the camera (do you remember Mr McMurray?)
      We'll see if you like the paper so much if they ever get around to screwing you like they did to Le Cornu.

      Delete
    3. Oooh! Scary!!!

      The JEP will print some photos of you looking angry!!!

      I'll bet you're trembling in your boots, eh, VFC??

      That'll teach you, for dissing the OGs.

      But seriously, though, if this is the best the establishment can do, doesn't it show how the deep seriousness of the constitutional mess they're in eludes them?

      Delete
  58. The JEP savaged Nick Le Cornu.
    I wouldn't praise it too much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not praised the JEP merely pointed out that the current editor deserves a chance to turn the paper around and away from its sordid and ghastly past.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the JEP and the rest of the MSM savaged Le Cornu, and made too much of what was a in reality a small & trivial story given the big issues that affect society which should be the focus going into a general election. But my God, he savaged himself. Talk about a gift to the establishment and their MSM. Come on, issuing a sneering, cynical remark about a person's cancer, and couching the remark in terms that could be interpreted as sexist, you're just asking to be savaged. Nick's problem is that he has obvious aspergic tendencies (nothing wrong with that, it doesn't de-value a person) but, in spite of his age, unlike many mildly apsergic adults he hasn't learnt to be self-aware and to 'mature' his behaviour. If he's ever to stand any chance of a comeback in a couple of terms he has 25 years of growing up to do.

      Delete
    3. Nick won't be able to make any come back without this story being re-run over and over again.
      Last week they did some unrelated story on Sean Power being told to get a boat in the morning and automatically brought Nick's infamous faking it Tweet up as if it was hot off the press. The Internet has been a source of self destruction for many Political career but Nick's actions have to be the fastest on record and he took too long to apologise for it.

      Delete
  59. I hate the ****ing JEP.
    It exaggerates stories, uses opinions to politically influence public opinions and its website is full of trolls made up of it's own staff.
    125 years of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  60. VFC is correct the new editor is trying to turn the paper around and should be given credit. It must have been hell for the old editors when your old boss happened to be the one and only Frank Walker states Senator. Of course on the face of it Frank resigned but still I believe owned a share if not all the paper so come on lets get real there is a piece of equipment called the telephone ?

    The old but not forgotten ex Senator John Averty has been given a lovely plum Job on the Jersey Financial commission where he has sat for many years. Another ex politician sitting on a government quango, just like John Mills and Frank Walker. Would this be allowed in any other western democracy ? Leave Government and sit on a quango the Government initiated.

    The point is John Averty is the chairman of the group that now owns the JEP as well as the JFSC, and probably has little to do with the day to day running of the paper but is still politically connected. Come on lets get real there is a piece of equipment called the telephone. ?

    Yep the Editor has a problem given the poor history of one sided, and sometimes shallow reporting. Its going to take a lot to turn the paper around given how connected the chairman John Averty is.

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
  61. So a witness has seen Baillaiche playing golf with witness 7, no wonder witness 7 believes that the allegations against him have been "disproved" by Bailliache as Attorney General. However he states in his transcript that he does not know Baillaiche. perhaps he plays golf as Mr K ?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Read the Filthy Rag this evening. Someone must have taken their eye of the ball, because the story they’ve run on yesterday’s session at the COI is a bull’s-eye smart-bombing of William Bailhache, and by obvious extension, his brother Philip and the Jersey system. I doubt if the JEP’s bosses intended that.

    The testimony given to the COI describes how William Bailhache, the then Attorney General and sole prosecutor in Jersey, was seen playing golf with one of the child-abuse suspects during Operation Rectangle, the major child-abuse investigation which was ultimately unlawfully sabotaged via the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.

    Some people might not understand the gravity of that. It’s worse, far worse, than very embarrassing for the Jersey Establishment & their London protectors.

    What it shows is the Jersey system, it’s prosecution function, thus the very effectiveness of protection by the rule of law, is unsafe, contaminated and thus structurally unlawful.

    Don’t underestimate the seriousness of this, nor let the Jersey Establishment quietly ignore it or down-play it.

    It’s not even relevant if the abuse suspect in question ended up being innocent. The issue here is more profound and ‘first-base’ than that. It is that all alleged victims of crime have a right to have their complaints against their alleged attackers objectively investigated, and objectively assessed for prosecution. If that system of policing and prosecution is contaminated in any way, then alleged victims are immediately deprived of their rights generally to the impartial rule of law, and certain specific ECHR Rights.

    Imagine this: the English Director of Public Prosecutions decides not to prosecute a child-abuse suspect. Then it becomes known the DPP was personally acquainted with the suspected abuser and played golf with them. Such a scenario would shake the foundations of the rule of law in Britain. The immediate resignation of the DPP would be the least of it. They’d almost certainly face prosecution for misconduct in a public office for using their ‘discretionary powers’ as a ‘public authority’ for the benefit of an immediate acquaintance.
    And yet in Jersey your equivalent of the DPP did just that, and now he’s actually the head of your judiciary and legislature?

    Extraordinary. A set of circumstances without parallel or precedent in modern British history.

    It is that grave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it was a shocking revelation and one I hope the COI will question William Bailhache about if/when he gets called as a witness, although it would be inconceivable to think he wouldn't be called.

      Credit to the JEP if it has published this part of yesterday's evidence because it would never have been published under the previous editor(s)/Deputy Editor(s)

      Delete
    2. Article published by JEP; (Online)

      "A FORMER social worker with a specialism in helping children and adults who had been sexually assaulted was removed as a counsellor during a States police investigation into child abuse because of a potential conflict of interest.

      The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry heard evidence yesterday from Marilyn Carré, who worked in the Island’s children’s homes and as a probation officer between the 1970s and the 1990s.

      When Operation Rectangle was launched in 2008 to investigate abuse at Jersey’s care homes, the head of the States psychology services, Tracey Wade, asked if Miss Carré – who had attended courses specialising in helping child and adult sexual abuse victims – could be seconded as a counsellor for former residents who came forward.

      While in her seconded role, Miss Carré heard from former residents who alleged that they had been sexual abused at Haut de la Garenne, including from one woman who claimed she had been abused by a man known to the inquiry as Witness 7.

      Miss Carré told the inquiry that the woman said that she had seen Witness 7 playing golf with the Attorney General while the police investigation was ongoing.

      In her statement, Miss Carré said: ‘It is difficult to understand how anyone could maintain objectivity if they were playing golf with a potential abuser at the same time as an investigation.’

      When she was appointed as a counsellor, Miss Carré raised concerns with two UK police officers working on the case about a possible conflict of interest because she had worked in Jersey’s care homes.

      She told the inquiry that the officers then ‘cleared it’ with Alison Fossey, Detective Chief Inspector with the States police who headed the Jersey investigation, and that she was told she could start work as a counsellor.

      But weeks later, Miss Carré’s contract as a counsellor was cancelled because of a potential conflict of interest, the inquiry heard.

      Miss Carré said: ‘Tracey Wade told me there was a possibility of me being called in [as a witness] and that Alison Fossey had said I was no longer to work as a counsellor.

      'I protested to Julia Jackson [one of the UK officers working on Operation Rectangle] but she said that she had no authorisation to override it and that she was very disappointed.’

      Miss Carré said the decision had upset her greatly.

      Care inquiry panel member Professor Sandy Cameron asked Miss Carré if she had considered it inappropriate to become involved in the investigation because of her history working in the Island’s children’s homes.

      She said she would have avoided any specific cases where a conflict of interest may have arisen from her past roles within Children’s Services.

      ‘I spoke to Tracey Wade and she said that if you feel you can keep that boundary, I do not feel there will be a problem,’ she told the inquiry.

      '‘She trusted me to keep that boundary.’

      Miss Carré also told the inquiry that she felt that Haut de la Garenne was ‘barbaric’ because of the staff’s restraint techniques."

      Credit JEP.

      Delete
  63. We are living through the end-game for our ultra vires system, and it is saddeningly amusing for me, if that isn't an oxymoron, that many colleagues and acquaintances still won't or can't recognise it. It's curious indeed working amongst Jersey lawyers that so few of them see with pressing urgency the conduct of Philip and William Bailhache as the immediate and existential threat to their livelihoods that it is. More of a catastrophic emergency for Jersey's status and standing than a 100 Tax Justice Networks could achieve in their dreams.

    Since this episode began I've long counselled colleagues and friends at dinner parties to recognise the gravamen of the loose collective of campaigners involved in this movement. It does go to questions of the very rule of law in Jersey. Alas, even amongst those who've been sharp enough to see it, the prevalent response has been it's 'someone-else's-problem', as though some leaders from the 'establishment' would rescue the situation from the folly of the Bailhache brothers. No one did. So here we are.

    The gotterdammerung of Jersey's privileges. We did not defend our own system from internal maverick inadequates. Now we shall reap the whirlwind.

    I look at some younger colleagues and think, 'your career and wealth opportunities have been crushed by Philip and William Bailhache. You don't see it yet. But there'll come a time when you will.'

    Jersey Conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  64. So much tittle tattle.
    There seems to be a consensus to focus on tiny amounts of information and make mountains out of mole hills on here.
    The JEP are only re-reporting what will be in the transcripts. Its hardly breaking news and doubtful whether anybody is that interested. Only being honest.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Its not tittle tattle, but they appear to be treating the COI as a court trial when it isn't.
    Anybody reading some of these posts would be fooled to think a Jury is in there ready to retire and give a verdict anytime soon.
    Does anybody advise whether people being interviewed are confirming to the COI that their evidence was already submitted at the time and considered?

    ReplyDelete
  66. I wrote this in my last comment 'Don’t underestimate the seriousness of this, nor let the Jersey Establishment quietly ignore it or down-play it.'

    I see from the two comments above the establishment spin-doctors & trolls are predictably doing just that. trying to down-play the great seriousness of the contamination of the prosecution function in Jersey, as though it were only a 'tiny amount of information', and a 'mountain out of a mole hill'.

    No.

    This is as serious as it gets.

    A contaminated prosecution function = you don't have the rule of law.

    It's as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of those comments do give me a chuckle and it would be unfair not to share them with readers. That is the best argument the establishment, or its supporters can muster. But what makes me chuckle that little bit more is when they write this;

      "Its hardly breaking news and doubtful whether anybody is that interested. Only being honest."

      Firstly the commenter him/herself is clearly interested enough to take the time out to write the comment and secondly this particular posting is already sitting at the number eight spot of the all time Top Ten VFC Blog Postings.

      #Priceless

      Delete
    2. Old troll boy at 03:52 doubts whether "anybody is that interested". Somebody is interested, if they are posting at 03:52 in the morning :-)

      7 minutes later, at 03:59, the same troll boy left a similar comment on Bob Hill's blog:

      "So much negativity with unhelpful conspiracy and you wonder why Bloggers are banned from the Press Room.
      Can't you let the COI get on with its Terms of Reference and stop whining until its over? When people say they do not want this process influenced it seems ironic that the same people are doing their best to influence it online."

      http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2015/07/independent-jersey-care-inquiry-10.html?showComment=1435805972877#c1762653138253867384

      What's the matter, 03:52, can't you sleep? Something keeping you awake at night?

      I tell you what, it's dead easy tracking these muppets.

      Delete
  67. Comment @ 18:20 says:
    "A contaminated prosecution function = you don't have the rule of law." OK, good and true point but will the COI DARE to make this conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
  68. MS JERRAM: Madam Chair, I don't think anything turns on it,
    15 but Mr Lundy in fact read out the words of the
    16 affirmation whilst holding the Bible. I suspect nothing
    17 turns on it, unless you want him to take the oath again?
    18 THE CHAIR: No, I don't, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hobby-Bobby falls off Hobby-horse3 July 2015 at 22:07

    #beyond belief
    Not sure if this is an attempt at humour in poor taste:
    http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-parish-hall-inquiry.html

    Cherrypicked quotes:
    "It emerged that a paedophile who was handed a life sentence after carrying out a sustained campaign of rape and sexual assault had appeared several times at parish hall inquiries in the past for a range of alleged sex offences against children.
    It emerged during his sentencing that although Bartlett had no relevant previous convictions, he had three prior incidents of ‘sexual misbehaviour’ between 1986 and 1995 all of which were dealt with by parish hall inquiry."

    ..................Tony goes on to publish in full a letter published in teh JEPaedo from Peter Pearce:

    "As a former Centenier I read your leader `Did parish inquiry fail victim?' (JEP 12 February 2015) with interest.
    It is clear that there is a basic misunderstanding of the functions and proceedings at a parish hall inquiry.
    Firstly it should be understood that the parish hall inquiry is part of the formal criminal justice system. There are checks and balances all the way.......
    ... [the Centenier] has access to advice available, should he require it, from the Crown Officers or the police legal adviser.
    ..........
    In the UK these decisions are made by the Crown prosecution service and many of the UK based police officers I have discussed these matters with would much prefer to have a system as transparent and answerable as ours. END

    =======================================

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    In his enthusiasm to defend his "hobby bobbying" Former Centenier Peter Pearce's
    letter appears to be suggesting that the system is good &flawless .........and even the envy of the UK!

    No acknowledgement that the system failed, failed and failed again.

    #way out of his depth and part of the problem

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure many UK police officers do envy our parish hall enquiry system. What police officer wouldn't want a system where you dispense with all the annoying requirements of a functioning criminal justice system (right to proper representation, fairness, due process, freedom from bias and conflict of interest, an impartial, independent and competent judiciary etc etc etc), and replace it with one like ours? Would do wonders for one's conviction rate to be able to try defendants oneself, wouldn't it!?

      Delete
  70. VFC, slightly off topic...

    In the States Assembly on 23rd June, proposition P52/2015 was withdrawn.

    "E. WITHDRAWAL OF LODGED PROPOSITIONS

    In accordance with Standing Order 34(1), the proposer of the following proposition lodged ‘au Greffe’ has informed the Greffier of the States that it is to be withdrawn –
    Ex Gratia payment to Mr. Roy Boschat. Lodged: 26th May 2015.
    Deputy T.A. McDonald of St. Saviour. "

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyOrderPapers/2015/Consolidated%20Order%20Paper%2023rd%20June%202015.pdf

    Does anyone know why Terry McDonald withdrew his proposition? Was it because he realised he did not have a hope of getting it passed? Or has some nasty little deal been done behind the scenes?

    Given that public money has been spent preparing the proposition, lodging it au greffe, putting it on the website, etc, not to mention other politicians' time reading it, you would think that the public are entitled to an explanation from Deputy Terry McDonald as to why he withdrew the proposition. He was, after all, trying to persuade the assembly to give £360,000 of taxpayers' money to Mr Roy Boschat. Then, all of a sudden, he wasn't.

    I'm baffled as to why the MSM have not reported on this one, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's actually a subject that deserves a Blog Posting of its own. Debating the proposition would have given some politicians the opportunity to further smear the Senior Investigating Officer of the Child Abuse Investigation Lenny Harper. Mr. Harper will be giving (damming) evidence to the COI in the near future and there are those who would welcome any opportunity to discredit him before he does.

      I believe, in bringing the proposition, Deputy McDonald's intentions were genuine although very misguided. It could be that he realised he was actually doing the dirty work for those who fear what Mr. Harper is going to tell the COI and those who might have been leaked his statement.

      Philip Bailhache was a supporter of the proposition.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply VFC. Very interesting.

      Please, any Jersey media types reading this, will you ask Terry McDonald the question? We're all about transparency and openness now, aren't we, so a clear, unequivocal answer should only take a minute of his time.

      Delete
    3. Someone please provide a link to the (withdrawn) proposition

      Also save a copy for posterity in case these things get deleted.

      Time to catch up on the "letters to Lenny" series methinks

      Delete
    4. Link to P.58-2015

      Yeah, it would be interesting to read the letters sent to Lenny Harper alongside P.58-2015 !!!

      Delete
    5. Readers might be interested to learn that Mr. Harper did write a response to P.58/2012 to be circulated to all States Members and media which some States Members (and others) would have found somewhat to uncomfortable to deal with.

      Since Philip Bailhache is/was such a supporter of this proposition perhaps he might decide to grow a pair, do his own dirty work, and lodge the proposition himself? Then we would be able to have the full facts debated.

      Over to you Philip............................

      Delete
  71. "Mr. Harper will be giving (damming) evidence to the COI in the near future"

    Wiltshire, Gradwell, Warcup, the David Rose articles, proof that he wasted tax payers money in London restaurants, arrest orders, lost day books, Data Protection offences, don't have all morning but the COI will be fully apprised of all his short comings so don't bank on the Establishment losing too much sleep about what he has to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A rogues gallery if ever there was one.

      Disgraced Wiltshire disciplinary investigation that cost the taxpayer in the region of £2m. Missed just about every deadline, took longer than the investigation it was investigating and didn’t/couldn’t produce a single disciplinary charge.

      Disgraced Mick Gradwell, allegedly leaking confidential police information, during a live Child Abuse Inquiry to;

      Disgraced self confessed MI5 spook and defender of convicted paedophiles David Rose.

      Disgraced David Warcup, who admitted to destroying police evidence, went on to attempt to abuse the alleged MET Interim Report by producing it for disciplinary purposes knowing the abuse he was committing in order to stab his boss in the back to get his job and a bigger pension.

      Should we bank on this lot giving evidence to the COI as Mr. Harper, and Graham Power are?

      Delete
    2. Great response VFC. What I love about you is that you are always on top of your game.

      Delete
    3. That is YOUR personal unofficial view.
      At the end of the day, YOU are not part of this Inquiry, YOU are not in a legal position to give valid opinions so moan as much as you want. What's written on this Blog does not form part of the COI.

      Delete
  72. VFC.
    Even though Warcup, Gradwell and Ogley have taken the money, been gagged, and ran. Is it likely they are going to be asked to give evidence to the COI? After all they are very much involved in the wrecking of the perfectly good Operation Rectangle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Need to be a little more incisive in analysing these issues. It will not have been the case that suspected criminals like Warcup, Gradwell and Ogley will have "been gagged". To phrase it in that way implies somehow that they would otherwise be willing witnesses and prepared to whistle-blow, but have now been "silenced" against their will, with whatever "settlements" "they had no choice" but to sign up to.

      Let's not be naïve, "gagging clauses" - or as they're more officially known, "compromise agreements" - are 95% of the time exactly what the departing employee wants. That way they're "protected" from ever having to answer questions - and protected from ethical and moral duties to report or otherwise expose wrong-doing. In such clauses the employee has a written "excuse" to maintain the climate of concealment.

      Of course, employers - especially large employing organisations which may have many scandals to conceal - know that. There is an entire "industry" - consisting of lawyers, crooked employment tribunal officials, private-detectives, medical practitioners, spin-doctors, spooks etc (Chapman is a text-book example of a "practitioner" from this industry) worth £ billions a year nationally - which exists to cover-up malfeasances & shield organisations whilst marginalising, smearing and oppressing whistle-blowing employees.

      The "operations" and "techniques" used by this industry are often simply criminals acts, frequently engaged in by powerful employing organisations to cover-up serious original crime.

      For certain employees who "have the dirt" on their employers, departing with a gaging-clause is akin to winning the lottery. Some, especially those who were actively involved in the organisation's malfeasance, will deliberately plot and engineer such an outcome. It's a win-win situation. They get 'shielded' from accountability by dint of the fact the malfeasance they were involved in remains tightly concealed - they and their employers have a "legal excuse" for each keeping their roles in wrongdoing covered-up. And they get paid, often a huge sum, for helping to keep "the dirt" secret. As another commenter observed earlier, it's an example of how smart Ogley was, getting out with such a deal, in contrast some named "useful idiots".

      Of course, such "contracts of silence" have no lawful standing when used as devices to attempt to conceal criminal or civil wrongs. To use and rely upon "compromise agreements" in an attempt, say, to prevent crime and evidence for crime, from coming to the knowledge of the police will always be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. No "written deal" between conspiring parties can override the rule of law.

      And in this particular context the public inquiry has full powers of subpoena and cross examination to seize and investigate all such gaging-clause contracts-of-silence. Indeed, this COI must in fact do so, as such "secrecy deals" are of central relevance to the corrupt cover-up at the heart of this matter. There is simply no scope for the COI to legitimately rely upon "commercial", "contractual" or "legal privilege" as excuses for not publicly investigating the role of "gaging-clauses" and "compromise agreements" in the history of the Jersey child-abuse atrocities. Although, obviously, that's exactly what they're going to attempt to do. That much was instantly obvious the moment they published their self-generated "protocols".

      Delete
  73. I would be astonished if they are not called but would not be at all surprised if they don't turn up.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Jersey's well-documented drunken, obsessive, psychopath, perjurer, yard-stick-of-the-Jersey-Establishment and all-round inadequate says, 'That is YOUR personal unofficial view.
    At the end of the day, YOU are not part of this Inquiry, YOU are not in a legal position to give valid opinions so moan as much as you want. What's written on this Blog does not form part of the COI. '

    I've long-shared the view that no Jersey so-called 'public inquiry' was ever going to be anything except a 'Mark II version' of corrupt, child-abuse concealing 'Ourchap' Report. Sure enough, as others like Stuart Syvret have well-documented this 'public inquiry', this charade, hasn't even pretended to be real. Non-human rights compliant, no declarations of conflicts of interest, no legal representation for non-establishment witnesses yet millions of £ for the establishment side, no three or four-way catalogued contemporaneous recordings of initial interviews, handing over evidence-gathering to actually culpable civil-servants, rigging proceedings by giving witnesses three different identities, no cross-examination, not following the Salmon Principles - etc - etc - etc.

    So on this occasion I really hope the permanently intoxicated misogynistic sociopath is right. I really DO! It will be simply SPLENDID if this already self-disgraced farrago of incompetence being run by UK Special Branch through their lawyers Eversheds put's the icing on the cake of its ultra vires by choosing to ignore vast swaths of wholly damming evidence that's readily available to it on the blogs.

    Let's make no bones about it, the story of grass-roots, communal resistance to the decades of child-abuse and the decades of cover-up in Jersey - the storey of how the public finally overcame this filth, and succeeded in exposing it - succeeded in forcing the authorities to admit it had happened and getting justice for the survivors - is the story of Jersey's genuine grass-roots blogs.

    The blogs of VFC, Stuart Syvret, Rico Sorda etc are indivisible from the subject of Jersey's child-abuse cover-ups and how those cover-ups were finally overcome and exposed. Those blogs did what every single part of Jersey's polity and Jersey's MSM failed to do. If this so called 'public inquiry' choses to ignore the evidence of the blogs it will be even more of a non-credible laughing-stock than it already is.

    And that is just a SPLENDID outcome for those of us who are committed to carry on fighting for the REAL rule of law in Jersey.

    And let's not be idiots eh? It really is very VERY obvious why this 'public inquiry' has been ordered behind the scenes to not simply take directly the blog archives into its evidence, and why people like mr ammonia-pants are desperate to support that approach. Taking the blogs into direct evidence, which is what should happen, would mean official acceptance that the blogs were public-interest material, and were journalism. And obviously, the instant that happened would be to expose Jersey's 'judiciary' and 'data protection system' for the corrupt, abusive, oppressive collection of gangsters they are for having oppressed Syvret.

    It's a JOYOUS catch-22 situation the PTB have engineered themselves into! Simply JOYOUS! Take the blogs into evidence, and damn Jersey's 'courts', or don't take the blogs into evidence, and terminally discredit this crappy 'public inquiry'?

    Splendid.

    I'll crack one of his favourite tinnies in in hope the 'bunch-of-lunatic' is right for once!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Its a busy 4 day week for the COI next week, but it would be nice to know who they are interviewing. VFC do you know? Anyone of interest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know who is giving evidence next week. I've been told that it is a closely guarded secret.......Sorry.

      Delete
    2. "A closely guarded secret"? ......Doesn't that say it all? I know you have confidence in this COI but surely you have to question yourself & that confidence? I mean come on, what respectable "public inquiry" refuses to publicise its agenda and the schedule of witnesses it's hearing? I'm sorry, but this doesn't happen anywhere else in any respectable, law-abiding society. Keeping the schedule of witnesses secret is antithetical to the principles of open justice (this is a quasi-judicial tribunal which we're supposed to accept as some kind of "substitute" for the real rule of law). This is just a nonsense, a slap-stick comedy of errors. Too absurd to be even a faintly credible white-wash. My God, Eversheds really are clowns. It's clear they simply did no ground-work research before taking this contract. Mega-bucks were on offer, so the Partners thought, "yeah, this'll be easy. Jersey government has only got to pacify hick-town fools. We can churn out this crap with our eye's closed. Then just cash the big fat cheques."

      Delete
    3. It's not so much I have confidence in the COI as it is that there is no other gig in town. This Inquiry is going ahead come what may and must be given the opportunity to do the best job it can.

      I see it as the job of those who wish the truth to come out, to give the COI as much evidence as is possible. It can't be accused of a whitewash or cover up if it hasn't been given the evidence in the first place.

      The Inquiry has done some good work, and some absolutely appalling work that does fly in the face of natural justice (up-coming Blog). We asked for a COI, we've got one, we have to ensure it does the best job it possibly can. The Victims/Survivors deserve nothing less.

      Delete
    4. VFC I cannot see how allowing posts like - Anonymous 4 July 2015 at 18:15 does this Blog any favours.
      One moment it is serious debate about child abuse and the next its a load of name calling, please lets focus on the Inquiry and keep some decorum.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for sharing your opinion @10:37 but most readers (& VFC?) would feel that 18:15 has a right to share their opinion. Whilst you may not like their language their comment seems factually correct and their opinion valid.

      You appeal for "decorum" is little different from JEPaedo-style comment censorship. Indeed it is difficult to discuss the sexual abuse of children (buggery, rape, semi-rape and contrived seduction of minors) with decorum. Even today these things are rarely discussed in "polite society". Even leaving aside "British sexual reservation" there are a myriad of reasons why this is so. I believe that the primary reason is that sexual abuse, children/youths, and children's sexuality .....transgress complex and ill-defined boundaries with the combined fear of engendering disgust, confusion, vulnerability and the "social-death" of peer judgement.

      The "name calling" you object to is scarcely out of place considering the activities of these individuals and the fact that they remain active because the Jersey establishment decides to use them as proxies and useful idiots rather than applying basic law to them and offering any psychological help and treatment they may need.

      It would be nice to be able to ignore these sub-human and fascist activities but unfortunately these people remain a part of the local landscape and appear to be aided rather than controlled, so it is important that all Jersey people are aware of these people and problems in what is basically a caring (but min-informed) community.

      The writer of 18:15 may take your views into account, or may ignore them ......as is their right.

      What do you think should be done about the death threat troll and it's activities?

      Delete
  76. There was a previous comment regarding Terry McDonald & his withdrawn proposition onn Roy Boschats case.I contacted Terry as my Deputy to get his response to which he has agreed for me to share with you.

    May I add that 2 weeks ago last Saturday I had some friends at home & they said about lack of response from their own Deputy ( an asst minister no less) about a problem they were having. I text Terry 9pm that evening asking to make contact when convenient. 10 minutes later he sent message with phone number for them to call him sunday morning which they duly did & spoke to Terry who attempted to help.

    Their own St Saviour Deputy (asst minister) has still not responded!!

    " Morning

    Thanks for sending me the latest attachments which make interesting reading. What most people don't understand is that the Proposition was not about whether Roy Boschat was a villain or an angel it was all about the fact that he was not prosecuted following the allegations made against him. That makes him an innocent man in the eyes of the Law!

    It was all to do with how he was treated by the States of Jersey as a corporate body following the collapse of the case against him. He should have been able to claim on the Police insurance and he has it in writing that they would not defend such a claim against them but, they did not tell him that for over three years and the claim became time barred and that was wrong of them.

    I don't take on easy cases, I take on those which I fully understand and where I believe someone has been treated badly and in fact wronged, just like I was over the rocket fiasco. I have drawn a line under my own case and moved on in life so, this has not been done to get my own back on them or any form of revenge, its been done to keep my word. I said before being elected that I would do everything in my power to ensure that no one was ever treated in the way that I was ever again. That continues to this very day. It was pure coincidence that I bumped into Roy and found out what has happened to him as I had lost track of his case with my own to fight on my hands to deal with!

    I have withdrawn the Proposition to give the Insurance providers a chance to have another look at his case now that the full facts are known. If that fails, I will put it back on the agenda for September and I will fight his corner as he has been wronged by the system as we know it to be. It is as simple as that. I am a Deputy not a Judge or Jury. In my Police days I had to find, preserve and subsequently present the evidence against someone and it was for a Magistrate to decide on guilt or innocence. If it goes back to the States to debate it will be before a Jury of 49 and not 12 in reality as that will be the only option for me to attempt to find Justice for him at the stage of the proceedings. There are no other options.

    As I said earlier, I don't take on the easy cases. Just those where I think a wrong doing has taken place. I hope his case will be settled by the insurers as that is not public money as such they would be using. People only have to ask me personally what I am up to and I will tell them. I really and physically do the buzz words for real, namely openness, accountability, honesty, transparency and so on but, NOT via the Internet using anonymous names. It is always face to face with me and I'm far to old to change now. What they see is what they get and my address is in the phone book and I do answer all my calls,at all hours too, plus answerphone text and e mails too of course. That is how it has to be the moment you step up into any form of public life. If you can't stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen as the say.

    Thanks again for keeping me up to speed. Much appreciated as always. Kind regards. Terry Mc D"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fascinating and in some respects bizarre response. This deserves (and will probably get) further observations.

      Did Terry take a snide swipe at the majority of commenters on this site. "I [Terry] really and physically do the buzz words for real, namely openness, accountability, honesty, transparency and so on but, NOT via the Internet using anonymous names." Even the above is posted using "anonymous name" ........Tut, Tut.

      On a more positive note Terry starts and finishes with
      "Thanks for sending me the latest attachments which make interesting reading." (VFC's blog?)
      & "Thanks again for keeping me up to speed...."

      However Terry (foolishly?) makes a commitment "I will put it back on the agenda for September and I will fight his corner" after "the Insurance providers a chance to have another look at his case"

      Lucky Roy
      Ex Gratia payment to Mr. Roy Boschat (of £360,000 of taxpayers' money) for NOT being prosecuted.

      If Terry takes on deserving cases (and cases which do not make a proxy personal 'Terry' point) he is going to be a very busy man!

      Delete
  77. Spoke to Terry the other day, and he is the one presenting the petition to stop the building of the SoJDC office blocks. To be fair to him he always maintained he was against the development and unlike Deputies Norton and Mclinton who said the same thing he is keeping his word while they both sold out as soon as they were elected. Fair play to Deputy Terry Mcdonald he stuck by his promise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's hope that Terry sees sense and does not keep his word RE "Ex Gratia payment to Mr. Roy Boschat (of £360,000 of taxpayers' money) for NOT being prosecuted."

      http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/letters-to-lenny-part-7-finale.html

      Interesting reading?

      Delete
  78. (This is a copy of a post which I have also entered above, in the right place in the discussion on immunity)

    Voice - could you ask the COI the following:

    If Witness A provided evidence, either in their own statement or in a document presented to the COI, which incriminated Witness B, and then Witness B presented the SAME evidence as part of their own evidence, (probably in order to refute it) would it then be the case that this evidence could not be used against witness B in a subsequent civil or criminal proceedings (as Witness B had presented it to the COI hemselves)?

    ReplyDelete