Monday, 13 July 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Adopts "The Jersey Way."

Suspected paedophiles and Child Abusers are being given protection by the Jersey Child Abuse INQUIRY. Protection that is NOT afforded to their Victims/Survivors.

Victim/Survivor witnesses who wish to give evidence, or a statement, to the Inquiry are given three options which are;

1) Publicly. (under their own name)

2) Privately. Where their statement, or their name, is not made public and they do not give public oral evidence to the Panel/Inquiry.

3) Anonymously. Where the Victim/Survivor is given a cipher number/alias.

So in practice the Victim/Survivor who wishes to appear at the Inquiry, and give evidence, only has two options, which are either Anonymously (Cipher Number/alias) or under their own name.

The alleged perpetrators/paedophiles/abusers also have those three options but have the ability to combine No.1 with No. 3. That is to say they are able to appear to the public to be at least 2 (possibly 3) different people as far as the proceedings of the Inquiry is concerned.

What this means in practice is that on a Monday a Child "Care" worker can come and give evidence to the Inquiry and attack the Police Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) and/or Abuse Victims/Survivors. The Child "Care" Officer will be questioned on policy, procedure, the law of the time they were in employment and the such like. 

What the public will not be aware of (nor will the Professional "Care" Worker be questioned on) is that he/she is also a suspected paedophile/abuser who was investigated by Operation Rectangle.

So on the Tuesday, this professional "Care worker" can turn up as an alias. On Monday he was "professional Care Worker Joe Bloggs" and Tuesday he is Witness "Mr. XYZ" or "Cipher number 123"

On Monday Joe Bloggs (professional "care" worker) criticises the police investigation and/or Abuse Victims/Survivors, and nobody knows that Mr. Bloggs has, or could have, a vindictive motive for attacking the cops and Survivors. As far as the public is aware this is a professional person with no axe to grind, no abuse to cover up and no allegations against them.

But on Tuesday when he turns up as "Witness XYZ" or "cipher number 123" and IS questioned about his alleged paedophilia/abuse the public have no idea it is the same person that was giving evidence the day before. 

Witness "XYZ" goes on to agree with what was said by "Joe Bloggs" the day before when attacking the cops/Survivors. So as far as the public is concerned, a suspected paedophile and a professional  "care" worker both agree with each others  criticisms of Operation Rectangle and Survivors. What the public DOESN'T know is that the suspected paedophile and professional "care" worker are the same person. They can attack Victims, and the public DOESN'T know it is/was they who allegedly abused them. 

It is an absolute bonkers situation and one that the COI refuses to deal with and just puts its head in the sand. (The Jersey Way)

Suspected paedophiles/abusers who either worked, or still work, in the "care" industry are NOT questioned about their alleged abuse under their own name, that means the public have no idea they could STILL be working in the "care" industry........Does the public not have the right to know?

But what about the discredited, and disgraced, Chapman Report when that "nasty man" former Health Minister, and Senator, Stuart Syvret was saying horrible things about these alleged abusers/paedophiles, on his Blog, they wanted their names cleared didn't they? Indeed Chapman recommended that the States Employment Board/Council of Ministers refuted the allegations with evidence and published it on social media, to include, Mr. Syvret's Blog. But that recommendation wasn't adopted by the then Chief Minister, discredited, and disgraced, Terry Le Sueur...........Why not? Further, now that these people have the opportunity to publicly refute Mr. Syvret's allegations, they reject the offer and will only answer these allegations, and others, anonymously at the COI. what happened to wanting their names cleared?

All witnesses should (and do) have the opportunity to give their evidence anonymously but the alleged victims should not be denied equality of arms. If the alleged abusers want to give their evidence anonymously, then so be it, but they shouldn't be able to have it both ways..................The Victims/Survivors are not able to have it both ways.

The COI has got this terribly wrong and are giving protection to alleged paedophiles/abusers and are not offering the same protection to the alleged Victims/Survivors. That is how the paedophilia was able to thrive for so long on the island. This is "The Jersey Way."


  1. It's shocking no wonder they carry on abusing because they know they will get protected. As for the care inquiry I went to them as someone had abused me who still works on the system with people and I was told they could help even though his name had come up before its shocking !!! I will keep going for as long as I can to get justice .

  2. How and why does the Child Abuse Inquiry discriminate against the victims and everyone else ? Does Theresa May know about this ? How are they getting on answering the reasonable but serious questions posed by Daniel Wimberly.

    All good reasons for the UK Government to absorb Jersey into it's Child abuse ( it is not a child care hearing, more spin ) investigation where professional ethics are maintained and watched closly by a virile accredited broad media hungry for detail.

  3. In the UK, establishment Peados have been equally protected and still are, at least until they are dead or (allegedly) gone senile. At least some parts of their media campaign and search for justice.

    The UK is big. Jersey is the size of a provincial town but in terms of sleaze per square mile we outstrip the big boys
    Jersey is the microcosm by which national and international paedophilia and cover-up may be understood.

    Jersey people are just more ready to accept the unacceptable and be fobbed off by Jersey's owned media.

  4. Let's remember the promise made by Frank Walker to BBC Panorama at 27 min in

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

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

    Just another broken promise on a long trail by FW & the establishment

    Of course many of the suspects could have been prosecuted (and still can) but team-Paedo-coverup did not want to:

    1. Lord Janner got off scot-free in 1991, 2002 and 2007
      but thanks to campaigners and functioning elements of the media the DPP have done a U turn and Janner IS TO STAND TRIAL.

      Given time "Mr (golf buddy) three identities" and other Jersey establishment protected abusers will stand trial.

      tick, tick, tick .....

    2. Unfortunately its only a trial of facts, There'll be victim testimony a prosecutor and Jury, BUT NO SENTENCING. So Janner still walks free.

  5. Just unbelievable really. The jersey media should have been highlighting this as they are well aware of what's going on. They are sitting there and watching it.

    1. Rico, Jersey's traditional media all have stakes in this subject.

      Let's face it, we - you, me, VFC - are almost certainly vastly more aware of what those particular, individual "stakes" are, than any "accredited" journalist in Jersey's MSM.

      Not that that fact, I suspect, troubles any of them, as long as the pay-cheques keep cashing.


  6. The sad thing you mention this person name and every single time you are told yes not surprised thought he was like that but yet his let to carry on working in the mean time I am struggling to pick up the pieces and carry on living with the nightmare and what he did it's discusting and hopefully in time I will get some justice

  7. Sorry am I missing something here.
    If the alleged abused have the option of anonymity then why can't the accused?

    1. Yes you are missing something here. Can I suggest you read the Blog?

    2. I have.
      Victims can pick and choose exactly the same combinations can't they?

    3. You haven’t read the Blog so I will make it simple for you. Pasted from the Blog;

      “Victim/Survivor witnesses who wish to give evidence, or a statement, to the Inquiry are given three options which are;

      1) Publicly. (under their own name)

      2) Privately. Where their statement, or their name, is not made public and they do not give public oral evidence to the Panel/Inquiry.

      3) Anonymously. Where the Victim/Survivor is given a cipher number/alias.

      So in practice the Victim/Survivor who wishes to appear at the Inquiry, and give evidence, only has two options, which are either Anonymously (Cipher Number/alias) or under their own name.

      The alleged perpetrators/paedophiles/abusers also have those three options but have the ability to combine No.1 with No. 3. That is to say they are able to appear to the public to be at least 2 (possibly 3) different people as far as the proceedings of the Inquiry is concerned.”

      Victims DO NOT have the option of combining No.1 with No.3. They are either anonymous OR under their own name. (Alleged) perpetrators are anonymous AND under their own name.

    4. I don't see any problem with that.
      Its an Inquiry and standard.
      Remember the accused have families, reputations and a right to be treat fairly if they are prepared to answer accusations.

    5. That is not disputed as mentioned in the Blog;

      “All witnesses should (and do) have the opportunity to give their evidence anonymously but the alleged victims should not be denied equality of arms. If the alleged abusers want to give their evidence anonymously, then so be it, but they shouldn't be able to have it both ways..................The Victims/Survivors are not able to have it both ways.”

      I think you will also find that it is far from “standard.”

      Please read the Blog.

    6. I'm not here to argue with you.
      Its an Inquiry and the people attending to answer accusations do so willingly.
      Its not perfect for everyone, agreed, but unlike one person you mention in the post, at least they are giving evidence.

    7. How can you possibly know that the person mentioned in the post is NOT giving evidence? If the COI is working on a fair and balanced basis, as you suggest, perhaps the person in question is/has chosen to avail themselves of the opportunity to give evidence completely anonymously?

      We will never know.

    8. What a good idea.

      I too shall be "Mr Three Identities" - no, scrub that, I shall be "Mr 37 Identities"! - Why, I can think of that number of contexts - off the top of my head - that would enable people to "identify me" - when I might not want to be so identified. And - after all - Jersey's Data Protection Commissioner - daughter of BBC Bergerac actor John Nettles - has decided - along with her "judicial" friends - that judge-made-law trumps democracy - so I too shall henceforth demand protection from identification.

      If this "public inquiry" is indeed objective and fair as some assert, I'm sure they'll agree to work with my legal representatives and go through each scenario that might identify me & family members in ways we may not like.

      Now, where were those contact details for my legal representatives again ..............????


  8. Yes the accused have families but so the the victim and there family's have to try and put the pieces together believe me it's not easy especially when the accused is out there carrying one like it was his right to abuse the victim because of his title of his job.

    1. I agree. I can tell you, it is anguish to be left shattered by abuse in such a small island and see the abuser still supported and in positions of trust, while people look at you like dirt for reporting him.

    2. I would say try not to give up they can't get away with it forever a lot of these abusers in the positions of trust will have and will do it again and again so hopefully in time he will be caught I know I not going to give up !

  9. The COI is what you have.
    Either reject and ignore it of accept it.

    1. In order for the COI to work to the best of it ability it needs to be challenged. It has, and is doing some good work in some areas, but has got this area dreadfully wrong and is being challenged.

    2. Anonymous at 21:41 says, 'The COI is what you have.
      Either reject and ignore it or accept it.'

      Wrong. And revealing.

      Wrong, in that there's the world's media getting the bitt between its teeth, and will have for maybe the next decade, over the British Establishment child-abuse scandal. 'Worse than Watergate' as informed people are saying. And then there's the UK Goddard inquiry, which we can be sure a lot of key witnesses to the Jersey child-abuse cover-ups will be giving their evidence to.

      And revealing. Why the evident need to keep peddling the line, 'you-must-speak-to-the Jersey-COI-or-shut-up-and-never-do-anything-else'? Obviously, TPTB in Jersey & London and their spin-doctors are desperate, just desperate, to try and contain the Jersey atrocities and modern-day cover-ups to the narrow confines of Jersey. They're desperate to try and prevent the Jersey child-abuse cover-ups from infecting the UK / London authorities.

      There is, very obviously, no credible reason whatsoever why a witness who is not satisfied with, or confident in, the Jersey inquiry, should regard that fact as being 'the-end-of-the-road'. On the contrary, the correct path for any person falling into that category is to do the obvious, and keep the powder dry for the external, bigger, real, effective scrutiny that is, inevitably, coming down the road.

      The scrutiny that is going to play out before the eyes of the world. As opposed to the Jersey Evening Post.

  10. Why hasn't the Jersey Press who are following the committee of enquiry raising this most serious of issues? It's scandalous. We don't know that an alleged abuser is giving evidence as a care worker and someone who is accused of abuse. They should just be given the same letter. Say witness A is today in as a care worker and witness A is in today as an alleged abuser. Absolutely outrageous that the media haven't informed the public of this.

  11. "Why hasn't the Jersey Press who are following the committee of enquiry raising this most serious of issues?"

    Because they understand the parameters of this Inquiry unlike this blog writer.

    1. Exactly which "parameters of this enquiry" has the Blog breached?

    2. "Because they [the State Media]understand the parameters of this Inquiry unlike this blog writer"

      What parameters? ......... Not to ask questions, not to delve too deep, just to obediently accept.

      Recent British history is littered with expensive Inquiries which turned out to be just another (expensive) layer of the cover up. Lets not let that happen here without making it perfectly clear that it will not be accepted.

  12. This morning there was a comment published on your previous blog

    Is it true that "an anti harassment order has been served on her" [the Jersey rape victim]?
    The suggestion being that this is to prevent her from reporting her alleged attacker to HCPC.

    If anyone has concerns about a Health care professional surely it is their duty to report their concerns to their professional body?
    Can Jersey law really be used to prevent this?

    1. Unfortunately Jersey Law can be used to do anything The Powers That Be want it to do. The Laws passed in the Island's parliament bear little, or no, resemblance once they reach the politicised and corrupt courts.

      This is explained HERE.

  13. When will Lenny Harper be giving evidence?

    "If they complained they were labelled troublemakers, or brutally put down. We know from court cases and statements made to my team [during the 2008 inquiry] that children in Jersey care homes were 'loaned out’ to members of the yachting fraternity and other prominent citizens on the pretence of recreational trips but during which they were savagely abused and often raped.

    “When these children complained they were beaten and locked in cellars [at Haut de la Garenne], which the Jersey authorities denied existed in 2008, but which can still be seen on YouTube footage. What chance did they have? This would have been the perfect hunting ground for Savile. The great and good of Jersey fawn over anyone with even loose connections to British royalty. Saville would have been a VIP to them and children would not have stood a dog’s chance of complaining about him. It would have been so easy for him.”

    Rumours about abuse at Haut de la Garenne had been rife for years but, according to Harper, junior police officers who tried to help those making allegations were “thwarted by corrupt seniors”. He claims that the 2008 inquiry so infuriated and embarrassed Jersey’s establishment that a campaign was initiated to smear the lead officers and label them credulous and money-wasting.

  14. Also from

    She added: “I can tell you that two staff members who abused her at another home have been imprisoned, and the authorities have agreed financial compensation for her. But another man in a position of authority who regularly visited Haut de la Garenne and abused her there is still free and now employed in a responsible position by the state.”

    Lenny Harper has confirmed to the Telegraph that he arrested this man for allegedly raping two other children at the home: “I gave a lot of information to the authorities about him, but he’s still employed by them in a senior position,” Harper says. “There were two solid allegations of rape against him that would have been proceeded with if it was in the UK. There was similar fact evidence. But Jersey’s Attorney General ruled that it was not.

    “When we started the dig this man turned up and demanded access to the site. He allegedly wanted to get some stuff he’d left there years before. Yet this man’s name aroused more fear in the victims than any other in the inquiry.”

    Ms Modral agreed: “He was no holds barred. And I have been told he made it clear he had friends and felt he would be protected. If he goes down he will bring down the government [in Jersey], because of what he knows about other people. The press needs now to look at all the other big name visitors to the home.”

    1. "he will bring down the government"

      perhaps this explains William Bailhache’s "unconventional" approach to evidence:

      ".....So we have, in former Attorney General William Bailhache’s statement, and another “reason” for not prosecuting witness “Mr. K” that “there is no physical sign of any injury.”

      But from Jason Payne-James registered medical practitioner, and specialist in forensic and legal medicine’ "On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size. They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape. They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars. Causes could include cigarette burns”

      Just these couple of discrepancies in William Bailhache’s decision not to prosecute witness “Mr. K” bring serious doubts over his integrity/honesty and professional capacity to hold the office he did and does. It further adds evidenced weight to the theory that it’s the paedophiles who are protected by Jersey’s “Justice” System and the Victims/Survivors (like the most of us) DO NOT enjoy the protection of law.

      It also adds weight to the claim that the Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) should be re-opened and should NEVER have been SHUT DOWN."

      Has Mr. K has been named in the national press?

      Does this ex-policeman turned HDLG volunteer and 'child social worker' ever happen to play golf with the Attorney General, now Bailiff?

      When will William Bailhache be dragged before the CoI ?

    2. I would so like to be of assistance in answering this commenter's questions. However, unfortunately the gangster-apparatus that passes itself off as a "judiciary" in Jersey - for the moment led by William Bailhache - would imprison me - again - via another secret "court" case.

      You see, "The Jersey Way" loves child-abusers, their protectors, and their communal secrets.

      Whistle-blowers, not so much.


  15. Yet more from

    "Possible links are emerging between abuse in Jersey children’s homes and the earlier notorious Islington children’s homes paedophile ring. A key figure in the ring, Islington’s deputy children’s homes superintendent Nicholas Rabet, came from Jersey. He had worked there in childcare, and regularly took children from the north London council’s homes on camping trips to the island.

    Rabet fled Britain after the press exposed him, but was charged in Thailand in 2006 with abusing 30 boys there, the youngest six. He killed himself before he could be tried. His ally, Neil Hocquart, killed himself in custody in Ely, Cambridgeshire, in 1991, after being found with hundreds of paedophile videos. He had grown up in care in Norfolk and was taken to Guernsey, where he became the “cabin boy” of a sea captain, before returning to Britain to recruit children for the paedophile ring. Karin Ward, who featured in the ITV documentary about Savile that sparked the current inquiries, has described being abused by the star during a camping trip to Jersey from her Norfolk children’s home.

  16. What has happened to Operation Whistle and its dozen or so, high profile suspects ?

    1. Indeed. How many WEEKS ago was it when the cops said that arrests were "imminent?"

    2. Operation Whistle has 45 suspects thirteen of them being high profile. The police say "arrests are imminent" don't arrest anybody and Bowron gets his contract extended. The Jersey Way.

    3. Bowron may hold post until 2021

      Thank you Kristina Moore (of the same)

    4. People have been arrested ffs, you'll wait and see if they get charged.

    5. Indeed, they are compiling the book of evidence. in long-hand.


    The Chanel 4 dispatches program in full

  18. I just wanted to highlight the concerns raised on another blog about the heavy involvement of two senior civil servants who are "assisting the CoI", Richard Jouault and Tony Le Sueur.

    A couple of comments from

    Anonymous4 July 2015 at 10:27
    Bob, wasn't Tony Le Sueur involved with CAHMS and after a damming scrutiny report got moved sideways?


    Anonymous4 July 2015 at 14:07
    Yes he was. He is also a long time friend and colleague of witness 7 and was also his line manager at one time , currently he is saying that witness 7 is innocent, the accusations are all lies. If he was attending sitting in a privileged seat during the testimony of the survivors this was most inappropriate

    It is inappropriate that these people are involved in finding and filtering information to present to the CoI

    It is further inappropriate, and highly expensive, that these very senior civil servants are PERMANENTLY seated at the CoI. Perhaps their purpose and expense is intended to intimidate witnesses and particularly to inhibit potential whistleblowers from within their departments and the senior civil service in general.

    I don't have much information on Richard Jouault but surely Tony Le Sueur should be called as a witness before the CoI, having been the Head of the Children's Service during the abusive regime at both Les Chene and Greenfields, and also during the attempted silencing and proven unfair dismissal of whistleblower Simon Belwood?

    This CoI really needs to pull it's socks up if it is to prove anything more than an horrendously expensive charade which will just need re-running.

    1. Is it true that "witness 7" is also known as "Witness “Mr.K” at by this "Committee Of non-Inquiry"

      Are they the same person or are they different perverts?

    2. Unfortunately I'm not sure if I am able to confirm or deny this. What you have done with that question is strengthen the argument that the public could be fooled into thinking one witness can appear as three different witnesses.

      It's a hell of a mess and a complete nonsense that the COI has allowed this miscarriage of justice in order to protect suspected paedophiles/abusers.

    3. Another snippet off Ex.Deputy Hill's most recent blog:

      Bob Hill15 July 2015 at 17:59
      I agree that the cost of the COI has not helped our financial, however it is a necessary evil. That is why it is essential that every penny spent is justified and approval is given before it is spent.

      I like to think that the additional funding will be suffice.


      Anonymous16 July 2015 at 13:38
      A good example of expenditure which needs "justifying" is the involvement of two very senior civil servants in the CoI, Richard Jouault and Tony Le Sueur, as highlighted in your previous blog.

      Why are these senior and highly paid civil servants apparently permanently seated in the CoI rather than attending only when necessary?

      And why are civil servants who should probably be appearing before the Inquiry instead being allowed to "assist" it?

      The more cynical (or perhaps less gullible) readers may suspect that the inexplicable positioning of these civil servants is intended to intimidate witnesses and particularly to inhibit whistleblowers from within their departments and the civil service as a whole.
      A cynical observer might suspect that there is no attempt being made to control costs (unless this relates to the complainant's/survivor's side of the fence e.g.
      Wasn't one of the first actions of this "Committee" was to present an ultimatum demanding higher payment as soon as they started work? The phrase that springs to mind is "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and huge amounts of money has been flushed on legal advice, largely only on one side with teh Ex Health Minister and critical witness and Whistleblower being famously refused.

      An astute observer might suspect that the (one sided) costs are uncontrolled and even increased at every opportunity. This may be intentional to minimise the effectiveness of the Inquiry while maximising it's costs in order to wear down the resolve of the jersey taxpayer and the good states members.
      It is playing out like an episode of 'Yes Minister' .....except that no one is laughing.

      Inevitably even a poorly run or compromised CoI would not be able to avoid "exposing what occurred in the past" .....or at least some .....or a small part of it.

      The CoI could be even more valuable in exposing what is still occurring now. And to the more astute observer ...perhaps by its actions and inactions, it is!

      Why this inexplicable perception that paedophilia and cover up only happens in the past?

      The world is changing and the reputations of those involved will be left in tatters.

    4. Re;

      "The more cynical (or perhaps less gullible) readers may suspect that the inexplicable positioning of these civil servants is intended to intimidate witnesses and particularly to inhibit whistleblowers from within their departments and the civil service as a whole."

      VFC has been looking into this for some time and intend publishing a Blog on the subject soon.

    5. Comment at 11:57 says: -

      “I just wanted to highlight the concerns raised on another blog about the heavy involvement of two senior civil servants who are "assisting the CoI", Richard Jouault and Tony Le Sueur.”

      And: -

      “It is inappropriate that these people are involved in finding and filtering information to present to the CoI”.

      The word “understatement” just doesn’t get close.

      There are many ways in which the conduct of this supposed “public inquiry” into child-abuse is, in fact, ultra vires (legally illegitimate). This matter – the abdication of evidence gathering / collating by the CoI to directly, centrally conflicted parties (Jouault & Le Sueur) – would, alone, render this inquiry invalid.

      There are other legal terms that could be used to describe what we’re witnessing.

      The spectacle of a public inquiry – a “public authority” – abdicating its actual evidence gathering function to expressly involved, centrally conflicted, core witnesses – hostile witnesses at that – is without precedent in modern British history.

      I repeat. Without precedent in modern British history.

      It really is that extreme.

      What is on display is so serious it is no exaggeration to say it actually threatens the viability and survival of Eversheds LLP.

      It IS as serious as that.

      The eyes of the world are going to be on the British child-abuse scandal for probably the next decade. The succession of Jersey cover-ups are inevitably – inevitably – going to feature in that scrutiny. The extensive, detailed dossier of evidence I alone am submitting to the Goddard Inquiry now features an entire, stand-alone chapter on the ultra vires cover-up that is the Jersey “Committee of Inquiry” – and, in particular the conduct of Eversheds LLP; a global law-firm – which - apparently – possesses no lawyer who has ever read The Judicial Review Handbook. (A tip to Eversheds, you might want to start with the chapters on Abdication/Fetter, and Bias).

      The Senior Partners at Eversheds must have put their ‘F-team’ of office juniors and rejects on this assignment. How else to explain the fact of culpable key witnesses running a core evidence-gathering function for the “public inquiry” which is being advised and run by Eversheds?

      And if no-one could be THAT incompetent, then there are other explanations. Worse explanations.

      Either way, the name Eversheds is now forever - and irredeemably - linked with ultra vires child-abuse cover-ups.

      It would appear the British Establishment still hasn’t woken up – even now – to the reality that they’re in a Black-Swan event.

      Stuart Syvret

    6. Do I remember correctly that Eversheds are retained by or act for the BBC and more importantly for Special Sranch; protectors and sharp end handlers of multiple high profile paedophiles in the UK including Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison? Leon Brittan? etc.etc........... ?
      And Eversheds boast of having teams of people vetted to the highest level by the security services, 'DV' level.

      Probably no accident that they are here doing the damage control.

    7. The "Dirt Book" political system

      Tom Watson comments on Goddard Inquiry and need to release intelligence files

  19. Constable Steve Pallet is coming on the BBC Politics Hour.

    1. Poor Steve has come in for a lot of stick for allowing himself to be transported to Budapest instead of Bucharest at taxpayer's expense.

      I don't object to Steve not noticing, I don't even object to the error allegedly being made by a civil servant making the booking.

      I DO object to a money saving opportunity being missed. The destination is not actually that important but WHY, oh WHY did they book the return half ????

      What a total waste of space.

      To be fair to Mr. Pallett, 90% of the States Assembly is made out of planks.

    2. What I REALLY, REALLY object to is Steve Pallett stealing my vote under false pretences.

      Like many parishioners I hoped that he would be something of a breath of fresh air in the States. After a very short period he proved to be just another part of the bad smell.

      The other candidate was probably no better. We need at least one good and honest candidate for each seat or our only real options are not to vote or to spoil our paper.

  20. "Wasn't one of the first actions of this 'Committee' to present an ultimatum demanding higher payment as soon as they started work"

    Is that true? If so, it looks highly unprofessional to agree a contract and appointment and then to renege on it.

    Or did they take a first real look at what was being asked of them and have a meeting with the subtext: 'If you expect us to do a minimisation and damage limitation exercise on this mess you really are going to have to pay extra for this service.'

    There has long been a similarity between the legal (cover up / avoidance) industry and the selling of indulgences of old.
    Lawyers, the cardinals and mullahs of the modern world.

    I suspect that after all this shakes down and is analysed by the UK they will wish they did resign and walk away.

    1. Sorry. That was supposed to go on the discussion started at 11:57 -starting Bob Hill, ending Stuart Syvret

  21. "Jersey’s child protection committee could have done more to prevent abuse in the past, according to its chair June Thoburn, a UK social work expert.

    Thoburn, who is emeritus professor of social work at East Anglia University, told Community Care the committee, which is similar to a local safeguarding children board, was “too closely linked” to children’s services.

    Thoburn, who was appointed as independent chair of the committee last year by former social services minister Stuart Syvret, said the “same people” had run both the committee and children’s services. 'Children maltreated in the past did not go to the child protection committee as they did not see it as separate from children’s services,' she said."


    1. The 2008 so called Jersey "Child Protection Committee" contains some names which immediately ring alarm bells

      Have a look at the list of members published at

      The names I spotted were:

      Ms Marnie Baudains
      Mr Tony Le Sueur
      Andre Bonjour
      Mr Phil Dennett

      Shocking! Are there any other names there who are not stakeholders in [...redacted....]

  22. A comment has been submitted with a list of names from the Child Protection Committee 2008. It's a little close to the mark for publication but if the commenter would like to submit it again without the comment under the list of names it should be fine.

  23. Surely Jouault & Le Sueur allowed to be assisting the CoI was recommended, approved & accepted by an authorized, transparent body of people?

  24. Behind the heroes and heroines.

    Hearing accounts of bestial abuse takes it's toll on Simon Danczuk, causing depression, drinking and anger issues.

    It looks as if there is a possibility of reconciliation with his wife after the recent cringeworthy spats.

    It looks as though Karen Danczuk has issues, but for someone who revealed that she was raped by a close family member from the age of six she is probably doing rather well. I hope she is not prone to the above problems that have beset Simon just from hearing about these things.

    Many with protracted childhood experiences of abuse do not survive far beyond their teens so Karen's life is already a success.

    It was probably his wife's childhood experiences which put Simon on his mission, but it still takes a special person to reach out to damaged people and to make such sacrifices.

    1. The UK media have largely been supportive of Simon and Karen Danczuk and their work (particularly Simon's).
      Contrast that with how campaigners, blogers and whistleblowers such as Simon Belwood and the ex health minister are ridiculed, ignored or misrepresented by the JEPaedo, CkrichefskiTV and the local BEEB.
      They are all stakeholders in the cover up and hence in the continued abuse of children.

  25. Filthy Pig.

    1. WTF?
      This Island is getting worse.

  26. Filthy Pig, Peter Whitehouse would say the same words as Jimmy Savile said: "It was good while it lasted".

  27. To think he lectured children in class about the damage a Prison record can do to your life and standing in the community and here he is looking at a long stretch himself the pervert.

  28. Been doing a short study of the blogging graveyard of Jersey and its well and truly had its day.
    So many Blogs set up 5 years ago that have either disappeared or not been updated in ages.
    Other Social Media outlets have taken over so RIP Blogs and this article was over a year ago -

    1. Firstly thank you for taking such an interest in Blogging. Sadly you are misrepresenting The Guardian article. What the article is saying is that the Blogs that are still around are of a high quality.

      A couple of quotes from your linked article;

      “Blogs haven't disappeared – they have simply morphed into a mature part of the publishing ecosystem. The loss of casual bloggers has shaken things out, with more committed and skilled writers sticking it out. Far from killing the blog dream, this has increased the quality of the blogosphere as a whole.”


      “This is great news for marketers as well as consumers. Advertisers crave quality content against which to place their messages. Advertising on blogs never really took off in the early noughties, when many blogs contained poorly written and poorly read personal rants. The emergence of weblogs as channels for material, often read by very large audiences, has concentrated the blogosphere into a market that matches buyers' definition of "premium".


      “So, bloggers should be excited, not downhearted. Roughly 15 years after the beginnings of the format, we have arrived at the essence of the blog – a highly trafficked, commercially appealing platform whose best years are ahead of it.”

      Once again thank you for your interest in Blogging. Should you wish to advertise on this "premium" service we would be happy to consider your product.

    2. Taking an interest? You quote yet you haven't modernised these blogs at all over the years.
      Try looking down the list of blogs you say you follow and check when they were last updated, even for Syvret's its been 8 months.
      Hardly any that were locally in full swing 5 years are updated anymore and when was the last time we saw a new Blog built?
      I only have to compare comments on these blogs to comments on similar subjects elsewhere and these blogs are dead. Maybe a handful of diehards still follow them but the comments are practically non existent, look for yourself if you don't believe it.

    3. VFC, totally agree.

      The blogs that last are the quality blogs, such as this one. The article also has a strong commercial bias which does not apply to this kind of blog.

      I have been very impressed in recent times with the quality of the material (posts and particularly comments) that have been appearing here. It seems to me that this blog is now the focal point for serious discussion on both administrative and child sex abuse in Jersey. Full marks to you for keeping up the quality. I'm sure it is not always easy moderating comments.

      This is not to take from Bob's blog, where the posts and comments are slightly less frequent but both are of excellent quality and Bob's experience in the police and in parliament (SOJ) is invaluable in piercing the official fog.

      Rico has got the trust of survivors and those who are appalled at what is going on and he contributes mightily to ongoing revelations. He has put his heart and soul into what he is doing and this at no small cost to himself and his family. What was happening to him was a revelation in itself.

      Stuart seems to have taken it that he has put most (but not all) of his material up on his blog and has fought an exhausting fight to keep it up there. He seems to see his present role as commenting on the above blogs where relevant and concentrating on the next stage of his campaign for the UK inquiry. It is a pity he has not decided to participate in the Jersey inquiry, even if he sees it as a sham. It could still be a useful vehicle for his evidence and his articulateness is missed. This the more so now that the status of evidence has been clarified.

      These are the main blogs I follow to keep in touch but I should not be taken as excluding others which I also tap on a regular basis (such as Tony Bellows and Tom Gruchy).

      You guys are proving what blogging is all about and that it is here to stay as long as there are wrongs to be righted and a craven and bought MSM around.

    4. Polo.

      Thanks for your continued support and contributions which help immeasurably in maintaining the high standards of comments that appear here.

      With regards to the comment at 13:22;

      The point being made is that you were misrepresenting the link you submitted. Quality has overtaken quantity.

      This Blog is enjoying very favourable hits, which have been steadily climbing for the last few years. Quality…………………..

      Once again thank you for your very keen interest and comments.

  29. Its a shame that it has to take an Australian Journalist to expose the Westminster bad goings on. But its good that its now down to a New Zealand Judge to expose these Westminster bad goings on....
    Well lets face it there was no way any British Journalist or British Lawyer was going to dare do this!?

    1. Australian journalists doing what UK "journalists won't/can't.

      PART ONE.

      PART TWO.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Sorry, hadn't seen you'd posted PART THREE.

    4. Polo.

      I got the same comment you received on your Blog but it is the usual dribble with no substance or truth and would only serve to lower the standard of debate on here. The commenter will no doubt wish that to happen, but as with the main postings, the same applies to comments, "quality" rather than "quantity" and it didn't get published.

    5. Very impressed with your moderation (ie filtering).

      I just sent it as an example of an intercontinental ballistic missile now pressed into service by the opposition..

      I have got the odd comment on my own blog from time to time denigrating the efforts of the bloggers. The fact that you have not totally revamped the corrupt Jersey justice system by now is a clear indication of your failure. (lol)

  30. To change the subject from the recent "blogging is dead" trolling

    Two MPs have reported a current very senior Labour MP for over a decade of sickening offences and death threats against young boys, including two youngsters at a mental health centre.

  31. A right royal Fcuk Up20 July 2015 at 18:12

    Lord Mountbaten is among those named Re. abuse at Kincora boys home.

    Like Jersey the UK is resisting calls to include Northern Ireland in the "overarching abuse inquiry".

    The pressure will mount.

  32. Damning testimony from Mrs Janet Brotherton on day 86
    Have you read it Stuart?

    1. It's far too late for all this.

      We long past the point where merely bringing the Act of Settlement to the liminal, lawless quasi-realms of the Crown Dependencies had become the objective. Now it's entirely plain that nothing less than succeeding where Watt Tyler failed will bring the real protections of the rule-of-law to the vulnerable across Britain.

      Stuart Syvret

  33. 10 Q. By "he" you mean --
    11 A. Senator Syvret. So when that was said I breathed a sigh
    12 of relief, I thought "At last something is going to
    13 happen" and shortly after that of course he appointed
    14 Professor Thoburn, so to me that was a positive move
    15 forward and I was relieved.
    16 THE CHAIR: Are you all right? Would you like a break?
    17 A. No, I'm fine. I'm okay for a bit longer. Sorry,
    18 sometimes my brain works a bit faster than my mouth, or
    19 the other way round.


  34. Politicians get dragged into child abuse allegations. How the mighty fall, and they think they are untouchable:


    Government papers about the former home secretary Leon Brittan are among a fresh batch of documents which have come to light months after the conclusion of an official review into whether allegations of child abuse were covered up by the Home Office in the 1980s.

    As the authors of the review said they were “concerned and disappointed”, it emerged that the unreleased files also concern figures including Margaret Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary, the late Sir Peter Morrison, former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman and former minister Sir William van Straubenzee.

    The papers pertaining to Brittan, which are among a number shown to police, are contained in a store of Cabinet Office papers at the National Archives, known as “the cabinet secretary’s miscellaneous papers” and will be passed to an ongoing independent inquiry into child abuse within state and non-state institutions led by Justice Lowell Goddard. The papers are described by the Cabinet Office as largely uncatalogued and unregistered, and were accumulated over several decades up to 2007. No further details have so far been revealed.

    Thousands of child abuse victims to be invited to testify in truth project

    Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, and barrister Richard Whittam called for a broader search of material at government departments after the Cabinet Office and Home Office informed them that further relevant material had been found.


  35. I would urge anyone who follows this blog to read the evidence of Janet Brotherton, day 86.

    All transcripts and statements are here:

  36. I read her evidence yesterday. Damning.

    She sounds a caring civilised and outraged lady.

  37. Is this a small glitch in child protection trainer, Mrs Brotherton's excelent testomy?
    IMO the following paragraph not make sense unless the word "[NOT]" is inserted at the place shown at line 17:
    PAGE 53
    12 A. One of the things I feel very strongly about is that we
    13 don't vote at child protection conferences.
    14 Participants give a professional opinion as to [child protection]
    15 registration or not and the category and the chair holds
    16 all those in balance and makes a decision, but the
    17 decision is the decision of the chair. And that's [NOT] safe
    18 practice because at a conference you may have people
    19 with experience and knowledge but you may have people
    20 that have limited experience and there are group
    21 processes going on and to say five, four, three against
    22 is just very very dangerous and something that I have
    23 challenged constantly, that we don't have a vote.

    Have I got this wrong? Did Mrs Brotherton miss the word NOT, or is this an error in the transcript?

    As a comment on the substance of the above, the "chair" would on (regular?) occasion be DANNY WHERRY, and he would regularly indicate the outset of the supposed "child protection conference" that he had already made the decision and that other people's opinions or reports would not be of any interest!!!!

    A man who likes control and does not like to be questioned but is not of the opinion that he requires any training. Perhaps he got tips from the then AG during golf sessions?

    1. I must say that one confused me on a first reading yesterday. I took her to be saying that a vote would not be fair as, despite people having different levels of experience, votes would have equal value and the chair would be deprived of exercising discretion.

      However, remembering that Danny was the chair much of the time could put a different complexion on that.

      Perhaps this could be drawn to the Inquiry's attention and Mrs Brotherton be asked to clarify what she meant.

  38. The transcripts are generally of high quality but this is not the first mistake that I have noticed. This is not meant as a criticism; it's a tough job to do and, even with the help of the software they use, to err is human. It's easy to make a mistake if a witness talks fast or has a strong accent (don't know if that is the case here)

    I do agree with the commentator at 16:06 - the word 'not' does seem to be missing.

    VFC - would you mind please asking the inquiry to confirm what was said? It should not take too long for them to seek clarification, either from the tape, Mrs Brotherton, or both.

    1. I will attempt to have it clarified tomorrow.

    2. Isn't there an issue that the CoI have refused to make/store proper audio recordings of oral evidence?

      The word "NOT" may have been said, but it is easy for anyone to miss especially during potentially hours of tiring and stressful testimony

      A poster above quotes from Page 77 where the witness implies that Mr.Syvret was in fact making fundamental improvements to child protection .....including the appointment of Professor Thoburn (and sackinng Iris Le Feuvre for her jaw dropping crass incompetence)

      from above comment:
      "16 THE CHAIR: Are you all right? Would you like a break?
      17 A. No, I'm fine. I'm okay for a bit longer. Sorry, sometimes my brain works a bit faster than my mouth, or the other way round."

      ..... A competent person who does not take themselves too seriously LOL (unlike most of the island's incompetents)

      There is ambiguity in the witness's opinion on whether it is appropriate for the child protection register decisions to be made by ONE PERSON. I think that she means that this is "NOT safe" and that there is confusion because she is following this with caveats and background issues. If there is any doubt the CoI should clarify this with Mrs Brotherton and NOT merely from the transcript/audio

      Mrs Brotherton is doing a brilliant job. Walking talking proof that there were good and capable people working for the good of Jersey's youngsters against a dysfunctional and hijacked culture.
      Someone who made a difference in difficult circumstances. IMO Jersey's parents and future generations of children are indebted to people like her. She must have trodden a fine line to avoid being branded a 'troublemaker' or sacked.

    3. @06:54
      Mrs Brotherton "must have trodden a fine line to avoid being branded a 'troublemaker' or sacked."
      Well no actually! please read the full transcript from page 68. The below is edited highlights:

      10 Q. Key finding 7:
      11 "Robust whistle-blowing and advocacy procedures are
      12 vital to the safe and efficient operation of the
      13 Children's Services."
      14 Did these ever exist in your time?
      15 A. Oh, yes. There were definite policies, but it's not the
      16 question of the existence of the policy, it's the way
      17 that's applied.
      23 Q. Tell us about the complaint?
      24 A. Well, I had been dismissed -- well I'd been removed from
      25 the Policy and Procedures Sub-committee without
      1 knowledge, during the meeting, and it came as a shock,
      2 and it was also in front of other professionals, so --
      3 Q. Why had you been removed?
      4 A. I think that's difficult to say.
      5 Q. Difficult to say because?
      6 A. Well, I was probably questioning and challenging
      7 policies and things.
      8 Anyway, I was removed and it was in front of people
      9 and it was very humiliating and so I went to human
      10 resources and --
      11 Q. Who asked you to leave?
      12 A. Linda Dodds.
      13 So I went to human resources. It was they then that
      14 suggested -- they gave me the policy and suggested that
      15 I followed it. It took a long time before I actually
      16 had a meeting. It took maybe five or six weeks before
      17 the meeting took place and during that time I was very
      18 isolated. My manager never spoke to me once during that
      19 time, neither did any other manager, and there was
      20 definitely an atmosphere that was very very
      21 uncomfortable for me.
      22 Q. And what was it that you had criticised, Mrs Brotherton?
      23 What was the specific criticism?
      24 A. Just we were writing a policy on child protection
      25 conferences and I was just commenting on being
      6 MR SADD: So you were making these comments [Re.child protection conferences] and what was the
      7 response to your comment?
      8 A. Well, they were dismissed really out of hand.
      22 A. It was as if I -- what came out of it was that I was
      23 told that "What you have to realise, [Mrs Brotherton], is you're
      24 not at managerial level, therefore you do not have the
      25 strategic overview that's required in order to comment
      PAGE 71
      1 on policies and procedures." I then commented that it
      2 was very clearly stated --
      3 Q. Just pausing there, who told you that?
      4 A. Tony Le Sueur.
      ...6 A. And so I produced my job description that I had taken
      7 with me where it very clearly stated that I had.
      ..10 the term that Tony used was "You're not meant to follow
      11 it literally, you must have another job description, ...."
      17 ..." So
      18 there was supposed to be another job description that
      19 I didn't have in my possession. ..
      1 Q. You have had time to think about that meeting and what
      2 are your reflections on why in fact you were put in this
      3 position?
      4 A. Mr Sadd, I have thought about that so many times when it
      5 happened and since and I really find great difficulty in
      6 actually coming to an absolute answer.
      7 Q. What do you feel?
      8 A. I think I was being kept in my place and possibly I was
      9 being a nuisance. I was a problem."

      A pro forma Civil Serpent ambush as perpetrated on Simon Belwood, Stuart Syvret and dozens of others!

    4. So basically for daring to make highly relevant observations and recommendations (on "child protection conferences") in line with UK and best practice, Mrs Brotherton had her job description 'downgraded' on the fly by Tony Le Sueur (or some cabal including Tony Le Sueur)

      Is there a bit of a pattern emerging here? Please read thread above, starting 16 July 2015 at 11:57

      The CoI must act quickly if this is not to become a resigning matter and leave them in a totally untenable position.

      If Tony Le Sueur is indeed "involved in finding and filtering information to present to the CoI",
      where in fact it rather looks as if he should be called before it to explain his failings and his part in multiple cover ups.

      I realise that Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret puts the facts in even starker terms than this, but either way the CoI puts itself in a dangerous position if it pretends that this compromising problem does not exist.

      Just how did the Head of the Children's Service get foisted on the CoI in an "assisting" role?

      Schoolboy (girl?) error!

      It may not be too late to rescue something of this CoI and the careers of those involved.

    5. "It may not be too late to rescue something of this CoI and the careers of those involved."

      It is too late.

      This "public inquiry" is dead-in-the-water. It nuked its own vires from the very get-go. There's no way back for it - and no way back for the reputations of those involved.

      I'm a key witness; this "public inquiry" has abdicated its evidence-gathering & collating function to directly, centrally conflicted key witnesses such as Tony Le Sueur and Richard Jouault - people who expressly and directly unlawfully obstructed me. Yet now I'm - as a key witness - supposed to take this CoI and Eversheds seriously?

      Come on, let's not be dopes, eh? The Jersey "public inquiry" is over insofar as having any vires and legitimacy is concerned.

      This battle is being fought across Britain.

      Stuart Syvret

    6. The COI is not dead-in-the-water.
      Its doing a good job in hearing victims stories and finally allowing a number of alleged abusers a chance to give their responses to accusations.
      Stuart you have constantly refused to give this COI any of your 'evidence' , which to many people online raises questions about your legitimacy in all of this because the excuses you make frankly, are pretty lame.
      This COI to a lot of survivors will be their last chance to get things put on an official record and you should be supporting them in doing that. Its a shame I read on here people always attacking the COI which is so wrong.

    7. This "public inquiry" is dead-in-the-water insofar as possessing any legal validity is concerned.

      It destroyed its own vires from the very start - in multiple ways.

      It is now - by all the relevant case-law - ultra vires.

      That's it.

      Show over.

      What's "pretty lame" is the sad spectacle of people being mugs; still arguing for the putative legal "validity" of this process - when on the undisputed evidence it has surrendered core functions to directly conflicted parties.

      However - even that is not as lame as the plain, lost, ineptitude of the Whitehall mandarins behind this.


      Simply clowns.

      Stuart Syvret

    8. You are ignoring the needs of the victims Stuart. The COI is giving them a voice and their experiences being documented as little as that might seem to you it is more than some victims have ever expected. They gave you evidence when you asked them for it, why won't you do the same for them?

    9. Whether it's right or wrong to take that position towards the Jersey inquiry one thing is obvious. To anyone hoping for reasons to reject the Jersey process and claim it has no credibility, the way it's been run was a gift from the gods for that camp, an absolute gift. Syvret's never accepted that Jersey was capable of sorting out this mess itself. Civil servants who've been repeatedly named as being involved in the child-protection failings being endorsed as evidence gatherers for and by the Jersey inquiry must have been an answer to his prayers. When that announcement was made he probably couldn't believe his luck, or more likely couldn't believe how stupid these people are. I'm not saying is attitudes a good thing or a bad thing. But from a strictly 'due processes' point of view, he's right. There's no getting away from that.

    10. Syvret @13:47
      If I may be so bold, you are right .....and you are wrong.

      You are right in an absolute way, in the long term and in a national and international context. A reader does not need to be a rocket scientist, lawyer or fortune teller, or even be well informed in order to see this.

      You are IMO wrong in a practical, short term, local context. This CoI shows no sign of recognising or even correcting it's shortcomings. They are not going to resign now. I understand that the only time they came close to resigning was when they decided to 'renagotiate' their remuneration after finding out that lawyers advising States Departments and employees were being paid more than them. Perhaps they did not realise what a lawyer-fest the CoI was going to be, but their ultimatum smacks of un-professionalism and a distinct lack of a 'public service ethic'.

      So being practical, this CoI is going to proceed to a conclusion (excellent, good, bad or mediocre) and in a local and short term context the CoI is not an irrelevance and despite it's faults has already produced some benefits. Better informed readers will understand why you cannot and should not present your evidence to an 'ultra vires' CoI, for both legal and strategic reasons. The CoI is not the only show in town; it is purely "what's on now". IMO the individuals involved can escape with most of their reputations intact but ONLY by producing a "excellent" final report. If their report is good enough their errors along the way will be more readily forgiven. In the context of what we already know it is difficult to see a "good" final report doing anything other than deliver their employer's head on a plate and also to list how they failed or were manoeuvred or even misled/duped en-route. This isn't how it usually works because commercial lawyers' priority is to please their client. An "ourchap" report is the usual result, as I think was mentioned on your blog

      Of course the older members may not care that a blatant "ourchap" report pretty much eds their career. The 'renagotiation' their remuneration may have set them up for retirement.

      You say "This battle is being fought across Britain". Indeed

      But more than that; we have 'woken up' to a war. An international war on institutionalised paedophilia across the civilised world, from Canada to St.Helina, from Scotland to the Falklands, From Johannesburg to Jersey.
      Paedophilia is here to stay, and so are the legions of people who resist it.

      You, Mr. Syvret, have largely moved to the bigger war in Westminster. But the local battle is still important to the little people and the survivors. While making your point there is no need to fight them. This CoI gives hope and potentially some closure.

      Personally I am hopeful. Not realistically that the CoI will deliver more than a half baked "ourchap" report, but that the war will be ultimately won both locally and nationally. An "ourchap" report will not be the end, it will merely be the start of the next painful and damaging skirmish.
      It is important to note that paedophilia is a messy little facet of human nature so there will always be a need for ongoing 'mopping up operations' but they shall never again run the show.

      @16:48 & 18:44 Please do not underestimate Ex. Minister Syvret. Either his intellect or his commitment.
      Let's get back to the blog subject, working together and giving respect to those who have earned it.

    11. Its the constant bickering, name calling, reference to legal twaddle that's unhelpful.
      The victims must not be put off from giving evidence like JCLA stated from the start and frankly Stuart, you've been nothing but a burden to the COI with your negativity. You've found every excuse going to avoid giving evidence and that's not fair on the survivors who had faith in you.
      Finish what you started.

    12. "legal twaddle" may indeed be "unhelpful", but unfortunately it is the name of the (rather expensive) game unless you plan to put heads on spikes and hang the abusers from lamp-posts

      As said, Please do not underestimate Ex. Minister Syvret.
      You may not agree with him on every subject but give him credit unless your commitment and sacrifice genuinely exceeds his.

      Unlike him you and I do not post under our own names or face the death threats.

  39. Thanks, much appreciated. Keep up the excellent work!

  40. Looks like Pip Ozouf is due to become a multi-millionaire property owner.

    1. Pip Ozouf is already a multi-multi-multi-millionaire property owner. From both sides of his Jersey establishment landed rentier family, he long-since inherited dozens upon dozens of private and commercial properties. The man's never had to, and has never done, a day's real work in his life. This latest venture will just be a bit of extra pocket-money to him.

  41. Is anonymous @ 16:48 & 18:44 genuine or not?

    1. Genuinely annoyed.
      The main protagonist refuses to give his evidence and only the people who fear him will be pleased with that.

    2. The people who fear me would assign me a BVI trust-fund and turn up with a Winnebago filled with super-models and cocaine - if they thought for one instant that would succeed in confining my evidence to Jersey and persuading me to legitimate the Jersey "process".

      Alas for them - I'm rather more problematic than that.

      I know what these people - and their protectors - fear.

      And, frankly - so do we all.

      We see it displayed - the fear dripping - in these comments.


    3. All I want is justice no one seems to be able to help me whilst he is still out there working !

  42. Are we to assume that the Jersey COI is a complete waste of time and effort then?

  43. Disagree! The people who fear him, will fear him more.
    For keeping his powder dry for the bigger, just started, London/UK COI.

  44. Is anonymous @ 16:48 & 18:44 genuine?

    I think the jury was out and anonymous was being given the benefit of the doubt .......until the rash of comments continuing from 19:16, where anonymous is showing it's spore.

    With desperation and an apparent inability to listen.

  45. "Desperation and an apparent inability to listen"

    Who is desperate?
    If people refuse to give their evidence to this Tax Payer funded COI then what's there to listen to?

    1. Q. Who is desperate? If people refuse to give their evidence to this Tax Payer funded COI then what's there to listen to?
      A. Lots. There are plenty of witnesses apart from the Ex Health Minister who WILL give his evidence in a better arena. Please get over your fixation.
      About 70% of his evidence is on his blog for anyone with a genuine interest in taking it into consideration.

      Anyways, more snippets from Janet Brotherton's evidence

      22 "Sarah explained that it would be my responsibility
      23 to hold future training events. Danny Wherry would not
      24 provide any further training." [because he was not trained ,or genuinely knowledgeable himself?]
      25 You then say this:
      PAGE 12
      1 "He did try to hold more training on a private
      2 basis, however he was stopped from doing this by
      3 management." {WS000610/4} [or mostly stopped?]
      19 In 2003 I'd published the Child Protection Training
      20 Programme which you have seen, an annual programme, and
      21 I was sitting at our desk and the phone went and it was
      22 a young man working with children and he said he would
      23 like to put his name down for a course. I said "Fine,
      24 that's good." He said, "I'd like to put my name down
      25 for the Advanced Child Protection Training course."
      PAGE 13
      1 I said, "We don't do a course called Advanced Child
      2 Protection Training, I don't know what you mean", "Oh,
      3 yes you do, yes you do", I said, "Well, I'm the training
      4 officer and I've got a whole range of courses here, are
      5 you sure you're not confused with any of them?", "No
      6 no", he was certain. I said, "Well give me your number,
      7 I'll make inquiries and I'll get back to you."
      8 Well, he was advertising via Jersey Child Care Trust
      9 and it was two evenings, it was Tuesday night and
      10 Thursday night for two hours advanced child protection
      11 training which to my mind -- I had been working my whole
      12 life to be in advanced child protection -- you can't do
      13 it in four hours, it was just not on and it was
      14 contrary -- we'd already got a training programme so it
      15 was challenging that. So I did and I went to Sarah
      16 again and he was stopped.

    2. Oh come on, there is no way there will be a second Inquiry after this because the victims alone cannot be expected to go through the whole process again. Think about it, its traumatic enough, and for some its been a very difficult thing to do. To then expect them do it all again because a select few on here don't like the way this COI is being run is not only selfish to the victims but ridiculous. The UK have stated that they will use the findings of this COI in their collective data so forget them doing anything further.

    3. Re;

      "The UK have stated that they will use the findings of this COI in their collective data so forget them doing anything further."

      Theresa May did indeed say that the "Oldham review" findings will be fed into the "Goddard Review." However when one looks at the Terms of Reference for the Goddard Review, and in particular TOR No.5, it appears this will not be happening.

      "5. The Inquiry will not address allegations relating to events in the Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies. However, any such allegations received by the Inquiry will be referred to the relevant law enforcement bodies in those jurisdictions."

      So it's even worse than you imagined. Any wrongdoing the Goddard Review receives concerning Jersey (and other Crown Dependencies/Overseas Territories) looks like it could get sent to the wrongdoers themselves.

      Goddard Inquiry TERMS OF REFERENCE.

    4. Sounds like a very familiar loop to anyone who has tried to raise the problems of Jersey beyond its shores.

      Doesn't bode well for the Goddard Review either if that is the attitude adopted there.

      Why don't they just ask the Government to write the Report now and be done with it?

    5. Thank you VFC:

      TOR No.5 -The Inquiry will not address allegations relating to events in the Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies. However, any such allegations received by the Inquiry will be referred to the relevant law enforcement bodies in those jurisdictions."

      That is shocking after Theresa May's assurance, which turns out to be yet another lie.
      The old chestnut of compartmentalisation to control the damage and hide the paedophile rings and trafficking links.

      But there is no need for read disappointment.

      The UK abuse inquiry is now on it's third chairwoman (they like women because they are perceived as caring and mothering and focused on child welfare .........even if they are in reality avaricious legal whores .....who didn't get to be a QC by upsetting the establishment)

      The previous two have fallen on their swords long after the "........... has our compete confidence" mantra has worn thin and hollow.

      Always worth a read of
      to put things in perspective

      The pressure will mount as more and more comes out

      The genie is not going back in the bottle with the platitudinous assurance that children are no longer being raped and abused.

    6. "any such allegations received by the Inquiry will be referred to the relevant law enforcement bodies in those jurisdictions."

      If the Police get new evidence from the COI then they will re-consider cases against people. Perfectly normal protocol and one person was in court only this week on historic abuse charges so these suggestion people get away with it is no longer viable.

    7. There are close to forty comments that have been deemed not fit for publication on this posting. The above comment, strictly speaking should be one of them, but it is important to show readers some of the desperate arguments people will make in order to protect paedophiles.

      The “logic” behind the commenter’s argument is that because somebody has been prosecuted then NOBODY has got away with it.

      This stuff does need to be shared with readers (occasionally) because it would be selfish of me to keep it all to myself and have all the fun on my own.

    8. The Goddard Terms of Reference are splendid. Simply splendid. On so many levels and for so many reasons. But I'll confine my observation to this simple point for the moment: -

      The quite extraordinary - attention-grabbing - a priori, overt lengths gone to in the Goddard ToRs to attempt to pro-actively excluded all matters relevant to events in the Crown Dependencies - even though such a position defeats the actual "legislative purpose" of the Goddard review itself - is rock-solid evidence for what we've known for these years.

      Namely - the events in Jersey - especially the illegal 2008 cover-up involving the illegal suspension of the Police Chief - are central to the whole scandal - and the powers-that-be in London are terrified - simply terrified - of "The Jersey Situation".

      There's another thing, too, which is very obvious. The Goddard machinery has rowed back from the Home Secretary's original position that the Goddard review wouldn't need to look at Jersey because the Jersey Oldham review (CoI) would be relied upon by Goddard for examining that aspect of the overall British child-abuse cover-ups scandal. Notice how there's ended up being zero mention of Oldham review in the Goddard ToRs.

      Do you think that's an accident? It's not. If there was any way at all the London PTB and Goddard could have used Oldham as a shield behind which they could hide from their failure to look at Jersey, they'd have stuck to their original plan and done just that. But they haven't - because they can't - because we've established and shown many times over that the Oldham review has zero vires - zero legal credibility - zero political credibility - zero credibility as an objective and comprehensive evidence-gathering exercise.

      Any UK process or "public authority" that now attempted to hide behind the Oldham review would be laughed out of court. As I observed earlier, the position of this Jersey soi disant "public inquiry" is without precedent in modern British administrative-law case-law; there is no - I repeat - no - prior case of a "public inquiry" abdicating core functions of investigating and evidence-gathering to key, centrally involved parties it's supposed to be investigating.

      Thus the Goddard machinery and its Whitehall bosses -- due to the naked incompetence of the Jersey inquiry and Eversheds - have been deprived of their intended "shield" they had planned to use as an excuse to dodge "The Jersey Situation". Instead, they're now reduced to the unsustainable spectacle - comical, really - a tragi-comic spectacle - of actually engaging in witness-intimidation so as to deter people from providing to Goddard evidence which would show Whitehall involvement in contemporaneous child-abuse cover-ups.

      We deal with a grim and serious subject - so it's rare we get an opportunity to laugh during these battles. But laugh now - laugh at these fools - let's laugh at this farce. We've earned the right to laugh at these clowns.

      And take heart. The chaos - frank anarchy - we're witnessing demonstrates that civil society in Britain is wining. We're going to get there.


  46. Any updates on Trevor and Shona VFC?

    1. Spoke with Trevor a day or so ago who said THE WALK and awareness raising is going well.

    2. How we could do with Shona and TF Trev back. They are sorely missed. The States is like a morgue these days. Whatever happened to Reform? Trevor and Stuart made politics 'sexy'. I.e. compulsive listening

  47. Stuart's latest comment on this site is well worth reading, twice or three times if need be. Its good to hear him being so positive. And it would seem that rather than just the end of the beginning, the beginning of the next phase is ready to start!?

  48. '......There are close to forty comments that have been deemed not fit for publication on this posting. .....'

    The Stella's been taking a beating then?

    Keep up the good work VFC. We all know that quantity of frantic trolling mean's this posting and its comments are hitting the target and gouging right into those raw-nerves.

  49. From

    Australian's TV special about UK's VIP Paedophiles

    Exaro, a highly recognised website for online investigative journalism, which led the field of exposing an extraordinary scandal of child sex abuse by people in prominent or powerful positions (1), has published this 3 part interview by the Australian TV regarding UK’s VIP paedophiles (2).

    This is not easy to watch and to listen too but with no doubt the lid has been taken off the cover up and the truth will come out. The Crown Prosecution Service has already admitted negligence in the case of Cyril Smith. (3)

    The UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse is also conducting a full investigation into the allegations of child sex abuse by Lord Janner. (4)

    If the secret services , the CPS and prominent and powerful VIPs have been linked to each other including Jersey and Northern Ireland, how can such a large high profile UK so-called Independent Inquiry not include Jersey and Northern Ireland?

    Who is afraid in the Justice System and Government ? Is it too much to bear but what about the victims who have to live with the consequences?

    The below Australian interview with abuse victims and an unrepentant paedophile just shows how damaged those abuse victims and how dangerous those paedophiles are. Nobody with moral integrity should allow this ever to happen! The same has been said about the Holocaust which has not happen again since but child abuse is still happening which is unacceptable!







    1. This is the type of hypocrite responsible for 'upholding standards' in the UK

      So his 'thing' is A class drugs and paying adult women for kinky sex.

      While some of these activities are illegal it is a relatively victimless crime .......unlike the appetites of a good number of his cross party colleagues

      The big wheels of Westminster have long been lubricated by the "dirt book system"
      In an environment where integrity is rare, the worse dirt you have on someone the more valuable they are to you or your political clique, so you may even help them into even higher office.

      This is counter intuitive to good people but it is how the SCUM floats to the top.

      soon the scum dominates and controls the police and the courts. Jersey is just a microcosm.

    2. "Westminster's Secret Service" BBC 1995

      49sec clip at

      statement of Tim Fortescue [CBE],Edward Heath’s Chief Whip from 1970-73, made public on Michael Cockerell’s BBC Documentary in 1995 called “Westminster’s Secret Service “. Talking about the role of the chief whip, Fortescue said ” For anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth ………….. it might be erm erm a scandal involving small boys ……….. we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points ……. and if I mean, that sounds a pretty,pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then,he will do as we ask FOREVER MORE.”

      I don’t need to tell you of the revulsion I feel towards our political masters having worked with sexually abused children for over 30 years when I heard of how the Whips ran the Dirt Book system.
      [With thanks to Dr. Liz Davies
      Thatcher invested yet further in this Dirt Book system to further consolidate her power.

      All the party animals are in it together

      Cyril Smith liked spanking naked boys. His "discipline" included punching teeth out. He would move on to new boys when the old one was no longer "tight"

    3. Tip of the iceberg. Thatcher even gave Savile a management position and KEYS to Broadmoor27 July 2015 at 10:39

      So when do we get the full SP on Ted Heath's Morning Cloud day trips sailing out from Jersey?

      Or didn't any of the boys "survive" into adulthood?


  50. Jesus I am a bloke and even I found number (2) above upsetting but the interviewers questions are spot on in the videos.

    It must be plain to see by Westminster that the Jersey inquiry must be taken over esspecially when two of Jersey's top government civil servants have got the job of sifting information for the enquiry panel and then sit there all day staring at their employees giving evidence. That is not an independent inquiry.

    1. Considering that "#2above" [] probably only scratched the surface of what has leaked out so far

      And if you bear in mind the Westminster "Dirt Book System" above ,the involvement of HM security services, the continued use of the Official Secrets Act to discourage police officers from telling what they know

      .........It must be plain to see why Westminster has judged that the Jersey inquiry "must" NOT "be taken over" (or even feed into). They are deliberately excluding Northern Ireland and Jersey in order to try to limit the damage and hide the guilty and corrupt.


      The law is being broken on an industrial scale by the lawmakers themselves. Yet we are expected to submit to their "authority" and tolerate the non prosecution of the most vile child abusers?

      They are revolting.
      Yet we don't.
      Both Jersey and the UK need a cross-party "Anti-Paedo Party" backed up with non violent direct action.
      Or nothing will change.

    2. The Dirt Book System abroad. Learning from the Dutch experience: BBC Corespondent May 2002

      I'm sorry this will make you weep.

      A policeman breaks his silence. Compare Jersey (or the UK) with 'The Belgian Protocol'

      Part 1 (in full):

      Part 2:

      Part 3

      300,000 outraged people can watch a Parliament being symbolically "washed clean" by the fire service.
      300,000 determined focused people can make a difference,
      Can bring a nation to it's knees
      Only then can such a nation stand up tall

      Proportionally Jersey would only need a few hundred committed individuals, a couple of thousand tops.

      The good people know the difference between right and wrong, our leaders sadly must be taught.

      Only by UNDERSTANDING the past can the good people CHANGE the future.

    3. Just to be clear. The "White March" in Brussels attended by 300,000 people (& two of the girls who survived the abduction, drugging and gang rapes) was a dismal FAILURE.
      They did not keep up the pressure, they thought they had made their point and they went home without a plan.

      Belgian State owned media then mounted an orchestrated campaign to rubbish the victims and the good police officers.

      Does this ring any bells?

      P.S. Gradwell went on to be a regular expert guest on the BBC for several years.
      Have not seen him for a bit. Will he appear before the CoI ?

  51. Mr Skinner today admitted that Child Protection had failed.
    Mr Syvret was the first to dare say this.

    1. Indeed. Anton Skinner also said that one of the "reasons" he didn't report the allegations of abuse against Alan and Jane Maguire to the cops was because he did not think it would bring a conviction. He played Judge, Jury and pardoner. All the more reason Jersey should adopt Mandatory Reporting.

  52. Take away his pension & hit him where it hurts

  53. Is he the scape goat?

    1. Anton skinner is as culpable as they come for what he did, and didn't, do.

    2. Jersey care home boss accused of abuse given social services job

      Allegations of physical and sexual abuse were made against Allan and Jane Maguire, who ran Blanche Pierre children's home in the 1990s.
      Former Children's Services chief Anton Skinner said he had agreed to give Mrs Maguire a job within social services so the couple would quit the care home.

      "I clearly believed the majority of the allegations but how could I remove the Maguires without the whole process becoming a secondary set of abuse?" he said. [WTF!]

      [even after the report] It took him three months to remove the couple from Blanche Pierre, during which time they continued to look after children.
      Mr Skinner said: "It's up to the inquiry to deem whether the children were placed in danger because we left them with the Maguires. I don't believe they were harmed further in that time."

      Despite the claims of abuse, the police were not involved and the Maguires were not disciplined. Mr Skinner said he felt this was best for the children. [WTF!]

      As part of the arrangement, Education Committee president Iris Le Feuvre wrote the couple a letter thanking them for "many years of excellent service".

      "The letter was all balderdash but it was a necessary price to pay to secure the Maguires' co-operation in leaving the Family Group home as soon as possible."
      [no Mr.Skinner, you immediately report the crimes to the police and suspend/sack the perpetrators. Or was this not a viable option under Bailhache law???....where the fish rots from the head down]

  54. "Jersey care system abuse inquiry: Ex boss apologises"

    Allegations of physical and sexual abuse were made against Allan and Jane Maguire, who ran the home in the 1990s, but the case against them was dropped when it reached court."
    (fraudulantly or erroniously dropped by Bailhache!)
    (Is this the first time that that the BBC has actually reported that the Maguire abuse was sexual as well as physical?)

    "On Wednesday the inquiry heard Mr Skinner had given Mrs Maguire - the then care home boss - another job in social services despite knowing she was accused of violent abuse.
    Earlier he said he gave her the job so the couple would quit the home - and admitted she had been sent a letter thanking her for "many years of excellent service".
    (I think it was the discovery of this letter by Iris Le Fevre which led to Health Minister Syvret sacking her as he fought to clean up children's services and protection.)

    "Jersey care system abuse inquiry: Ex boss apologises"

    Allegations of physical and sexual abuse were made against Allan and Jane Maguire, who ran the home in the 1990s, but the case against them was dropped when it reached court."
    (fraudulantly or erroniously dropped by Bailhache!)
    (Is this the first time that that the BBC has actually reported that the Maguire abuse was sexual as well as physical?)

    "On Wednesday the inquiry heard Mr Skinner had given Mrs Maguire - the then care home boss - another job in social services despite knowing she was accused of violent abuse.
    Earlier he said he gave her the job so the couple would quit the home - and admitted she had been sent a letter thanking her for "many years of excellent service".
    (I think it was the discovery of this letter by Iris Le Fevre which led to Health Minister Syvret sacking her as he fought to clean up children's services and protection.)

    This is Jersey. Those who fight to protect children are left destroyed and destitute. Those who fail (or even personally abuse or rape children) are safe living off fat taxpayer funded pensions.

    Why .....'A fish rots from the head down'.
    The fiefdom of Jersey is still not safe under the Bailhaches who are the common thread under all of this.

  55. Of course you could read this letter in full on Stuart Syvret's blog six years ago

    Our Ref: ILEF/SJR/G.H 26th July 1990
    Mr. & Mrs A. Maguire
    Flat [Address Excised] Road
    St. Helier

    Dear Mr & Mrs Maguire

    On Wednesday the 25th July, 1990, the Education Committee was officially informed of your decision to retire as house parents of the group home, Le Squez.

    The Committee recalled that you have been house parents to the children of the group home since 1980 and during the past ten years had cared for many children on our behalf.

    Several members of the Committee, including myself, were already familiar with your excellent work during this time having served on the Children’s Sub-Committee, and have always been impressed with your total commitment to the children in your charge.

    It is therefore with regret that we learn of your retirement. Although we fully appreciate that after ten years of extremely hard work for our children a change of direction and a rest from the 24 hour-a-day commitment you have shown over all these years was well deserved.

    My Committee therefore asked that I write on behalf of every member to thank you for your many years of excellent service on behalf of the children in your charge and to wish you all the very best for your future. We were delighted to learn that Mrs. Maguire will continue to work for the Committee in our developing Family Centre service and therefore would not be losing your services all together.

    Once again many thanks for your 110% commitment and hard work, the proof of which will live on in the children for whom you have shown much love and care.

    All best wishes

    Yours sincerely
    Iris Le Feuvre
    President, Education Committee.

    Not a cover up?
    A letter of reference like this would surely get a pair of abusers a job anywhere in care in Jersey or the UK .......for spending 10 years torturing, abusing and sexually molesting little children the Maguires were rewarded.
    When it eventually comes to light the prosecution is stopped by the Bailhaches

    1. "The letter was all balderdash but it was a necessary price to pay to secure the Maguires' co-operation in leaving the Family Group home as soon as possible."

      From BBC article at

      Absolute B/S Mr Skinner. No one in their right mind would write such a glowing reference when holding the view that you claim to have done at that time i.e that they were guilty but it was too difficult to take the correct course of action. You are a piece of lowlife.

      If you have reasonable doubt even, your actions should have been to immediately remove those children from their care and into safety. They should have been suspended from all activities relating to children's care pending a full investigation, and ultimate prosecution. You Mr Skinner in my opinion are as guilty as the Maguires.

      Interesting comment "I think it was the discovery of this letter by Iris Le Fevre which led to Health Minister Syvret sacking her as he fought to clean up children's services and protection." If that is the case I am sure this was a major factor in the galvanizing of forces against Stuart. I believe Iris Le Fevre was well known and connected.



      "After 10 years of child-torturing, the activities of the Maguires became too problematic – even for such scum-buckets as Anton Skinner, Geoff Spencer, and Marnie Baudains to carry on ignoring.

      So in 1990, with reluctance they carried out an “internal” investigation into the matter – during which many of the Maguires’ atrocities were so well-evidenced and exposed as to transcend continuing disguise.

      Iris Le Feuvre and her Education Committee received the resultant – albeit utterly lame and inadequate report – which had been authored by Skinner and the child rapist Geoff Spencer – and they decided the best way to avoid embarrassment all-round was to let Jane Maguire “retire” from running the Blanche Pierre group-home at Le Squez – and, instead, move to working in the ‘Family Development Centre’.

      Le Feuvre, Skinner, Spencer and Baudains failed to inform the police of the abuses they had been covering up, but finally had been forced to confront. Instead the police only discovered the abuses eight years later – purely by happenstance.

      And even though they tried to prosecute in 1998 – the atrocities were covered up then, in 1998 – by the child rapist Danny Wherry – and the child abuse concealer, Michael Birt.

    3. From Siobhan Gallichan's blog:
      "Most sickeningly and unforgivably – they [Anton Skinner etc.] allowed a young, vulnerable child to remain in the “care” of the McGuires for a further two years after 1990."

      So Anton Skinner knew about the physical, psychological and sexual abuse thought it was OK for the McGuires to continue to be paid to foster one of their victims?

      This "young, vulnerable child" has recently given evidence to the CoI and states that the placement with the McGuires was against her will and that the fear and sexual abuse continued.
      Mr. Skinner that is "a secondary set of abuse" (tertiary at least!)

      Was the Former Children's Services chief powerless to prevent this or will he again tell the inquiry that he "felt this was best for the children."

      Mr Skinner said: "It's up to the inquiry to deem whether the children were placed in danger because we left them with the Maguires. I don't believe they were harmed further in that time."
      WTF? We need a multi million CoI to "deem" that!????

      Skinner's evidence makes no sense
      The truth is that children were left in the "care" of the Maguires, not for "3 months", but for at least a further 2 years
      she says she "felt like she had been kidnapped"
      she was "sexually abused every night" by her foster father from the age of 10 (and they had abused her before at Blanche Pierre at the age of 7)

    4. Another witness "Miss K" said she was eight when Mr Maguire started to sexually abuse her.

      She reported the sexual assaults to the police in 1997 but the police later told her to REMOVE this from her statement and drop the allegation!!!

      She said she regularly wet the bed out of fear.

      "It was constant fear all the time, no matter what we did, whether it was right or wrong," she said.

      She was "physically and verbally abused by Mr Maguire and his wife Jane ‘on a daily basis’ after she was moved there at the age of five when her mother was terminally ill".

    5. Jersey victim says dropped abuse case was 'devastating'

      "Mr and Mrs Maguire were accused of abusing residents but a case against them was dropped in 1998."
      [dropped when Alan Maguire broke down in court and claimed to be suffering from a terminal illness. Bailhache conveniently accepted this, without actually requiring any evidence, and years later the Maguires were discovered by BBC Panorama......
      ....... very much "alive and kicking" in France in 2008]

      "A second investigation in 2008 led to the victims asking that the States of Jersey and Jersey Police not be involved in the case as they did not trust them. [I wonder why!]

      The hearing was shown a report by two officers, one from the States of Jersey Police and the other seconded to the island force, brought in to speak to the victims, ahead of a possible prosecution.

      In it they talked of a psychiatrist's report on the victims before the original case in 1998. It said heavy drinking, self-harm and aggression shown by the victims, were signs of childhood abuse."

      "In 2008, the two officers investigating said the decision to abandon the earlier prosecution was WRONG."

      But in 2008 this was again amongst the scores of cases which Bailhache declined to prosecute!

      Lessons have been learnt?
      Dream on. Still "The "fish rots from the head down" but now with royal approval.
      What the Bailhaches have cost this island (and will continue to cost) is incalculable.
      The infamous "£50 Million" quote is probably a massive underestimate.

  56. So what happens now? Probably the same that Wherry did, after he gave his story(?) to the COI. Skinner will no doubt, go on a celebratory holiday.

  57. The Jersey legislature - the States of Jersey - and its executive, the Council of Minsters - are a disgusting - simply disgusting - accretion of cretinous, morally bankrupt scum. And have been, frankly, for centuries.

    But as bad as our indigenous collection of gangsters and halfwits are - they're not as despicable - as decadent - as corrupt - as culpable - as the authority and power of the Crown.

    Make no mistake. It is that fundamental power that ultimately failed these children - and so many others like them - in Jersey. As tempting as it is to allow ourselves schadenfreude at the disgrace of the likes of Skinner and Marnie Baudains - and the impending disgrace of the Bailhache brothers, Michael Birt, Tim Le Cocq, Emma Martins, Richard Jouault, Bridget Shaw - etc etc - it would be a deep mistake to allow our thinking to personalised in that way.

    We want to fix the system - the system that failed so disastrously - but no amount of individual "heads-on-spikes" will succeed in doing that. Only fixing the stark failure and corruption of Crown power - as exercised over Jersey - will ensure the proper and effective protections of the rule of law into the future.

    Only when the Crown has been forced to confront its failures - its culpability - can we be confident of something approaching effective and reliable child-protection for today and tomorrow's children.


    1. As I recall the A.G at the time of the Maguires court case took their lawyers word that he (Maguire) had terminal cancer?, NO demand for a doctors or specialists confirmation of the facts, the case was then dropped for lack of evidence and then ten years later BBC Panorama doorstepped Alan Maguire in France, still alive and kicking. Surely the COI should be doorstepping the AG at the time and asking 'why' were no medical confirmations of the 'terminal' illness presented to the court.

    2. Alan Maguire is dead, wasn't that justice in the end?

    3. @2:55am "Alan Maguire is dead, wasn't that justice in the end?"

      Is there any evidence that Alan Maguire actually died other than a death notice published in the JEPaedo.

      Living a long retirement in idyllic France on your Jersey taxpayer's pension is "justice"
      No that is not "justice in the end". That is Bailhache Jersey-Justice.

      When are Wherry and your other friends going to be prosecuted?

    4. Patience young grasshopper

  58. "the impending disgrace of the Bailhache brothers, Michael Birt, Tim Le Cocq, Emma Martins, Richard Jouault, Bridget Shaw - etc etc "


    1. When?

      That's obvious.

      When the Crown is forced to meet its legal obligations and Jersey has a lawful policing, prosecution and judicial system as opposed to the present amalgam of criminal enterprises captured and run by that aforementioned coterie of spivs.

    2. Patience young grasshopper

    3. Be waiting for a long time then.

  59. Who was the lawyer or lawyers who made this bazaar statement that Maguire had terminal cancer? Lowest of the low is all that can be said.

    1. As despicable as that claim is, possibly the bigger "crime" is that of the prosecutor (Attorney General) who apparently did not, in any way, shape or form, question the statement. No evidence was required to authenticate the claim.

      The Defence Lawyer must have got "extremely lucky" not to have been asked for any evidence of Alan McGuire's apparent terminal illness as it is quite clear that he wouldn't have had any. Or did he know that he wouldn't be asked for any evidence? The AG looks to have done everything in his power to prevent BOTH McGuires from being prosecuted.

      This is one of the many cases that needs to be looked at by the COI where it looks as though certain people enjoy protection of the politicised, and corrupt, Law Offices Department.

  60. In all honesty I have often wondered if he is actually deceased at all? The stomach churning death notice that appeared in the JEP was far beyond the pale. and indeed, why place one in the JEP when he had re-located to France?

    1. No evidence was required of his "terminal illness" so why should any evidence be required of his death?

      The Bailhache spivs do not require evidence when it comes to protecting paedophiles and abusers

  61. Ask his wife also ask her if she still treasures that letter from Iris Le Feuvre?

  62. If it wasn't true the JEP would not print it.
    They are not in the business of misleading people

    THEY are not the ones banned from the media room, HA

    When have they ever knowingly allowed lies between their sheets?

    1. Pete are you related to any of the D'Ophiles that masquerade as masons by chance?

    2. They JEP are not banned from the Crown empowered Eversheds / Special Branch child-abuse "public-inquiry" because the JEP - having striven most strongly to conceal child-abuse for years - could be relied upon to carry a sanitised, spun version of the activities of the COI. Unlike - of course - the bloggers who - as the evidenced, historic, inerasable record shows - have lead and been instrumental in exposing the child-abuse cover-ups and have done so in ways that demonstrate more evidence-based investigative journalism than all of Jersey's MSM can show in the entire post WWII years.

      The JEP are not banned from the press-room - just like the BBC and CTV aren't banned - precisely and on the evidence, because they are in the business of misleading people.

      The JEP has so routinely published overt lies, and has lied by omission, it would be difficult to know where to start. But how about this? The JEP has - in the last few days - peddled the disgusting letter of thanks - drafted by Anton Skinner and signed by Iris Le Feuvre - and sent to the psychopathic child-abusers the Maguires - as though it were some kind revelation and journalistic scoop by the JEP.

      The horrifying and credibility-destroying truth is that I furnished the JEP with that letter - and a lot of other evidence besides - in 2007. Not only did the JEP burry it - they pro-actively joined in with a campaign they knew - because of their possession of such evidence - to be lies. Lies in support of the corrupt establishment behind the child-abuse cover-ups - lies pro-actively calculated and manufactured and peddled to obstruct those who were fighting for the evidenced truth to emerge. Truth - as evidenced - in documents such as that letter.

      So - here we are - for all of the MSM lies - and cowardly, deranged abuse peddled by their drunken, inadequate trolls - the evidence - the truth - is that Jersey's only "newspaper" has been a pro-active concealer of child-abuse.

      A concealer of child-abuse - and a number of other profoundly serious crimes.

      No hiding place.

      In so many ways "The Jersey Situation" is epochal. Epochal to the extant the present British 'constitutional' settlement cannot survive it. A key feature of that seismic change is for the first time ever - a British newspaper and its editorial team are shown to have pro-actively concealed child-abusers and rapists.

      Stuart Syvret

    3. Given the recent intense pro-paedophile-cover-up trolling I thought that readers might appreciate it receiving a bit of ridicule with a spoof post.

      I had noted that the JEPaedo had finally published the glowing letter of reference written for the known child abusers by Anton Skinner and Iris Le Feuvre

      "JEP- is it worth buying ?" [would you support the JEPaedo?]

      Having sat on this for 6 years it is too little too late. It is worth noting that the JEP article is very sanitised and minimised. There is mention of some of the physical abuse but NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the sexual abuse by this career paedophile. No mention that a girl was effectively kidnapped into his foster care for a further 2 YEARS of his abuse AFTER the stomach churning letter of reference written by Anton Skinner. A letter which he now describes as "balderdash" written "to get the abusers out of the house as quickly as possible". (that's bumcum, you utter excuse for a human being; prosecution would have protected children instantly and for the future)

      The JEP was was happy to publish Anton Skinner's excuses and (professional?) spin with no question whatsoever.

      As usual comments were disallowed. The JEPaedo censors anything which challenges their storyline or lies.

      I note the JEPaedo has a Deputy Editor named Carl Walker. Any relation I wonder?

  63. The state would have probably known full well that Mr McGuires had moved to France and he was still alive ( a miracle cure maybe ). The truth is that it took the BBC as an outside investigator, to blow the whistle.
    How can one be so sure that the states of Jersey new, unless the McGuires had inherited a lot of money they would be living off a pension ( maybe two old age and two ex states employee's ) paid into their bank accounts by the states of Jersey.
    It would be an interesting trail to follow to see 1) How long one or both pensions were forwarded to their bank account. 2) Was the pension topped up with of sick pay for having cancer.3) Was the cancer faked 4) Any decent authority would be looking into this as possible fraud of public funds ? Let us remember the doctors apparently prognosed Mr Macquire as having terminal cancer.


    1. Good question about the pensions. Well worth a check if this is possible.

      If the priority was to avoid imprisonment it would have been well worth forgoing one or more of the pensions.

      Though appointed as a houseparent (where he brutalised AND sexually abused scores of little children), Alan McGuire was not actually employed by Children's Services? Who were his various employers?

      IF any pensions were cancelled would this just be done on notification or would authentic death certificates be required? (& not a photocopy which can be doctored in 5 mins)

      Definitely in the pubic interest. Would a FOI request work?

  64. This "terminal illness" business is a bit of a red herring in view of the nature and extent of the McGuire's crimes.

    Being ill is unfortunate but does not of itself give indemnity. It was however an excuse for those interested in cover-up to sweep it under the bulging rug

  65. Boatyboy
    Was it a Doctor, a Lawyer, or a Bailhache?

  66. It seems the Met are seriously looking at the unusual nature of Sir Edward Heath.Given that it has been suggested that the Bailache blind eye was as a direct deference to the institutions on the banks of the Thames, it might become interesting for Jersey!

  67. Is the Richard Jouault currently seconded to the COI the same Richard Jouault responsible for the unlawful suspension of hospital consultant John Day?