Thursday, 26 November 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Witness. (Trevor Pitman)


Trevor Pitman.

On Wednesday 18 November (day 109 of Inquiry) anti Child Abuse campaigner, and former Jersey politician, Trevor Pitman, gave his, much anticipated, evidence as a public witness to the on-going CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY.

Mr. Pitman's substantial statement, with some 20 plus supporting documents, was believed to be a damming, and scathing, indictment on Jersey authorities, not only in Child Protection failures, but in the corrupt and politicised "justice" system which, it is believed, is at the heart of the Child Abuse cover-ups.

In the video interview below Mr. Pitman talks of his shock after being asked by lawyers to the Inquiry to familiarise himself with a number of documents because he was to be asked questions on them. Only to discover that NO questions were asked on the documents he was provided. Why would the Inquiry Team apparently mislead, or waste a witness' time like this?

Francis Oldham QC.

The fact is that Mr. Pitman was questioned on very little else other than his time working as a professional Youth Worker. This is a little concerning when one considers that Mr. Pitman was giving evidence to the Inquiry as part of phase two which according to the Chair Francis Oldham QC:

“In October the Inquiry will begin hearings in relation to Phase 2. At that stage we will look at the decisions taken in relation to the timing of the police investigation and subsequent decisions to prosecute alleged abusers. Did those responsible for deciding which cases to prosecute take a professional approach? Was that process free from political or other interference at any level?"

It is difficult to reconcile how experiences of being a Youth Worker meets the criteria for phase two of the Inquiry. It's further concerning (as discussed in interview below) to discover that, according to Mr. Pitman, the Inquiry Team does not have possession of a number of crucial documents needed to understand "The Jersey Way" and the culture that allows Child Abuse(rs) to continue on the Island despite the Establishment cry "Lessons Have Been Learnt."


Graham Power QPM.

These documents include the six appendices to The Sharp Report, The Hansard of the In-Camera debate where former Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis revealed that he had (possibly illegally) suspended the then Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM where Mr. Lewis has some significant questions to answer. The third set of documents are a number of boxes of documents, where there is a paper trail, seem to have gone missing. It is unclear as to whether the Inquiry Team has made any attempt to obtain any of these sets of documents but it was made aware of their existence some 17 months ago.

Mr. Pitman's live evidence lasted approximately two hours which, as mentioned above, largely consisted of questions relating to his time as a Youth Worker. When Counsel to the Inquiry announced she had no further questions for Mr. Pitman there were audible gasps from a packed public gallery who were left wondering is the Inquiry just going through the motions by calling Anti Child Abuse Campaigners as witnesses? Why was Mr. Pitman not questioned according to the criteria of phase two? Is the Inquiry burying crucial evidence that could expose "The Jersey Way?"

As we have mentioned previously the Inquiry looks to have done some GOOD WORK in some areas and some NOT SO GOOD work in other areas. This latest episode unfortunately falls into the latter category.




210 comments:

  1. BL**dly hell! For the first time in my life I am speechless. Fantastic interview Team Voice, perhaps even your most important ever. This is damnling. I knew things were bad but if the States can disappear evidence even once it has been rediscovered (do we know when this hsppened?) this whole thing will be a farce. Surely, but surely the abuse Inquiry team has the Power to now call in the Westminster government to take control? Absolutely shocking and an absolutely brilliant interview on you part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Face facts this Inquiry is just a sham. All right this revelation about boxes and boxes of evidence should be dynamite
      But it isn't because those in power simply don't care and I include the Chairman and panel of the Inquiry in this. We are powerless.

      Delete
  2. Is there no depth those who run Jersey as a private club for the rich and powerful will not sink to? The Care Inquiry lawyers must obviously know the names of those who had this crucial evidence last? So have or are those people being hauled in for questioning? I am sorry to say it but this will become the acid test by which the "independence" of this Inquiry will.be judged. Great to see Trevor Pitman back too. What a huge loss to both States and island he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'The acid test by which the independence of this Inquiry will be judged'. Was ever a truer statement made?

      Delete
    2. Your assessment is difficult to argue with. I fear our long awaited child abuse Inquiry is really at a crossroads with the revelations in this interview. One way out perhaps is for the Chairman to acknowledge they got this one wrong and invite the former Deputy back for further questions?

      Delete
    3. An excellent suggestion Anonymous but I get the impression admitting they have got anything wrong was not really fit in chairman's ethos.

      David

      Delete
    4. David is right in in his assessment. It grieves me to say this as a feminist, but Ms Oldham, who I've observed occasionally, certainly shares common characteristics I've encountered when working with other women in senior positions in Jersey. Namely a certain hauteur, an arrogance and egomania very substantially in advance of anything justified by their meager abilities. Emma Martins and Bridget Shaw being two similar cases. In fact so much the 'identicate' social-climbers, advanced far beyond their abilities and flattered by our establishment, they could have been produced by a production line manufacturing 'useful idiots'. These are people who will do anything for kudos, money and social status. It's no accident that a particular type of person is 'type-cast' by the powers that be into these petit bureaucrat roles. A big fat salary, plenty of opportunities to go shopping for Le Creuset down the Kings Road, and a few invitations to the 'correct' social functions, and they're anybody's. Don't though tar all women with the same brush. I've done the right thing throughout this scandal. And I know I'm not alone. I know of other women who've shown immense strength and fortitude to give damning testimony to this COI, testimony of the awful things they've suffered. It's sad that in 2015 some 'sisters' still won't get with the program, but instead carry on serving male power.

      Delete
  3. Great work VFC. A hugely important interview even by your own high standards. What a disgusting place OUR island has been turned into by those at the top.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Surely once this evidence was found it should have been handed to the police? This raises the question as to who was in charge of the police at the time. Hopefully.not Warcup and Gradwell?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sounds to me like the lawyers were just trying to keep the former Deputy distracted? Perhaps Stuart Syvret was right in his assumptions of this all being a facade?

    ReplyDelete
  6. One needs the transcripts of Andre Bonjour because I remember him talking about a large amount of files the SOJP had from HdelaG regarding another case before Rectangle. They got handed back? What happened to them? I bet these are these are the files that have gone missing and the files Wherry and Pryke were looking for up HdelaG before getting told to do one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A case of 'Oh dear, where did we put them?' Whatever we say about the shortcomings of the long struggle for this Inquiry or the Oldham investigation itself you have to say the twists and turns are like something out of an espionage thriller.

      Delete
    2. Rico you may have really stumbled upon something important and previously overlooked with your comment above. What were Pryke and Wherry looking for at HDLG? Truth be told we have never had even a half plausible explanation.

      Delete
  7. The files are the ones that were around when Pearson asked for a report about allegations of abuse. The same report that has left Bonjour with a "I don't recall" memory and its all John Pearson fault. What was in those files? We need the transcripts and so do the COI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fully agree Rico. I'm just stating the obvious facts. Good people like you, VFC and former Deputy Pitman himself are just wasting your time. The allegedly independant Inquiry are in fact already bought and sold.

      Delete
    2. Was it Bonjour who said something like 'l bet we would find some stuff in there!' ?

      Delete
    3. No, not Bonjour but Carter who said that.

      Delete
  8. There can be no doubt that for whatever reason the COI are now rushing through the witnesses. I have seen this with Graham Power, Andre Bonjour, Trevor Pitman and Mick Gradwell.

    Big Trev's was a joke. I

    They seem to get bogged down on issues that leave you scratching your head. Graham Police succession planning - Trev youth service etc etc. My gutt feeling when watching this is that they are just eating up time. I get this everytime i watch it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't quote Latin being from a pleb school. But what I can quote is "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" This is what we see in Trevor Pitman's observations on his experience of giving evidence.

      Delete
  9. Trevor and Shona Pitman, crusaders for truth, honesty and integrity, this is exactly why the bent Judicial system ( and the clique within it ) on Jersey would not grant them time to pay the money they owed. A sad loss to democracy in the States and people of Jersey.

    It hurts me to say this but maybe it is about time the UK took over this cess pit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree 100% with all of the above comment apart from the word 'maybe'. I would leave that out and say is IS time someone intervened.

      I was one of those who was stunned when Trevor's evidence came to a rather abrupt halt. Having read his lengthy statement, I fully expected this to be one of the longer hearings of the Inquiry. Trevor is a good, eloquent and honest man who had a lot of evidence to give and was denied the opportunity.

      It saddens me to say this, but for the first time I was very concerned about the future of the Inquiry if this continues. I only hope I am proved wrong.

      It was good to see Shona looking well and smiling too!

      Delete
    2. I appreciate the point about the Establishment wanting the Pitmans out of politics, and knowing full well that bankrupting them would be the ideal way to achieve it, after all they were clearly never going to do it via the ballot box in St Heleir. However there is a very big 'but' involved here.

      Why would the Pitman's ever want to pay when as they were to discover afterward their court demise was at the hands of a clearly unfit Jurat. A Jurat who a detective investigating the Victoria College child abuse cover up, Mr Cornelissen, told the Inquiry was actually bullying, intimidating children who complained to him about bring abused into silence.

      My point is the Pitman's case was beyond doubt ultra vires and as the Inquiry really should note yet another example of the judicial corruption in Jersey which has allowed so much of the horrific abuse to go on.

      Delete
  10. Don't mean to distract from some very good comments but is there any update on the recovery of former Deputy Bob Hill? Is he back in Jersey do you know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Bob is back in Jersey and is in Corbiere Ward at the General Hospital. I have been to visit him and he has minimal communication but can understand what is being said. He is up for visitors should people want to visit him.

      Delete
    2. Great news! Maybe sending flowers would be a good idea to show support?

      Delete
    3. So good to hear. Do you know what time his visiting hours are?

      Delete
    4. Do you mean he cannot talk?

      Delete
    5. Is it because of the stroke he cannot talk?

      Delete
    6. Stroke/brain hoemorage. Sorry about spelling)

      Delete
    7. What's the best addreess for cards?

      Delete
    8. Polo.

      Here is the address and he is on Corbiere ward.

      General Hospital
      The Parade
      St Helier
      Jersey
      JE1 3QS

      Further contact details are HERE.

      Delete
    9. So Bob Hill is presently being nursed on Corbiere Ward of the Jersey Hospital? Let us give thanks that this is not March 1999, & be thankful that a certain "Nurse M" is no longer present, running the "Night Shift" on Corbiere Ward, as he was back then in 1999. Let us remind ourselves: 'altered prescription charts', 'detached drips (with bungs inserted in them)', 'a number of uncannily accurate 'predictions' to concerned relatives as to their ill relatives 'not lasting the night'', 'always being so attentively on hand, ready to 'help' when unexpected crisies & downturns in patients' conditions 'occurred'', 'syringes filled with insulin, accompanied with bottles of potassium chloride', even 'ready & willing 'advice' on suicide methods, to those patients who were feeling especially 'down'', and 'dramatically anomalous high death rates during & in the immediate hours after his shifts'.

      I remember these details concerning 'Nurse M' because I was in the public gallery at the back of the Jersey court when Advocate Stephen Baker (who'd been involved in obstructing the police child-abuse prosecution objectives in 2008) was prosecuting Stuart Syvret for supposedly 'breaking the data protection law' by exposing the conduct of 'Nurse M'. The 'judge' hearing the case, who agreed with Baker that Syvret's entire public interest defence case should be thrown out (after 3 months) & deemed 'inadmissible' once they realised Syvret had won, was Bridget Shaw, chosen and appointed by Philip Bailhache. That being the same Bridget Shaw who'd been one of his brother, William Bailhache's prosecution lawyers based at the police station where she'd spent several years failing to bring child-abuse cases to court. That's the same Bridget Shaw who even this public inquiry, as rubbish as it is, has exposed evidence of her fatally conflicted entanglement in the child-protection failures Syvret was trying to expose.

      Then of course we come to the most amazing piece of serendipity, actually, karma may be a better description, a certain former policeman, one Barry Faudemer, due to be called to give 'evidence' any day now to the COI. I'm conservative, and used to believe in the rule of law, and that justice, at least British justice, was impeccable and was our ultimate protection against corruption and crime. And then I sat amongst a number of other members of the public and shared with them the chilling shock of seeing prosecution witness Barry Faudemer against Syvret make a number of unambiguous assertions, under oath, to the effect he was perfectly happy with the end of the 1999 police investigation into the murder suspicions concerning 'Nurse M', but then the deafening silence when Stuart Syvret, defending himself, quoted from the 1999 police team minutes which recorded Barry Faudemer objecting to the 1999 investigation being stopped. Syvret even quoted a passage in which Faudemer objected to the 1999 investigation being ended because 'they hadn't even interviewed the doctors yet.'

      It was one of those moments that remains printed in the memory of all who witnessed it.

      After about 30 seconds of panicked deafening silence, Barry Faudemer fell into bluster and nonsense, in an attempt to salvage himself from the rubbish he'd been stating under oath which had then been skewered by Syvret by citing the 1999 police team minutes.

      So, now poor Bob Hill, a fine & decent man, is in Jersey Hospital's Corbiere Ward, a Ward with a dark history. The public inquiry Bob fought to establish is about to hear Barry Faudemer, erstwhile 'good guy', but now with that indelible and widely witnessed moment of gross moral failure in public under oath, as a witness concerning the investigation of deeply serious crimes on Corbiere Ward.

      Delete
    10. I was there in court too and yes that's how it was.

      Interesting choice of words re Barry's conduct, 'moral failiure'. I'd use another word to describe his action, a word begining with 'p'.

      I know you don't read the JEP in these parts, so you might be interrested to know there was photo of a JFSC seminar in the rag. In the panel was Barry Fademere, appearing rather like a dozing bull-frog. Looks to be getting dangerously obese. Perhaps that is karma?

      Delete
    11. A thought occurs to me reading the comments about Faudemer and nurse m. These blogs have reported in the past that evidence given by any witness can’t then be used against that witness in any criminal or civil actions afterwards because they have immunity from self incrimination. So isn’t there a kind of win win scenario for Faudemer here? He could confess to being dishonest in his evidence in the data protection prosecution against Syvret. He’d then be immune from a perjury charge. And let’s face reality not even the Jersey establishment can keep up their open corruption of British judicial authority for much longer, so people in Faudemer’s position would be wise to think of possible future circumstances.

      And confessing up would also benefit Faudemer in the sense that he’d redeem himself in the eyes of many people. He’d turn the clock back and go back to being one of the good guys. At the moment Faudemer’s position is one of infamy. Really, it is one of the worst of all the establishment. He knew there were child abuse cover ups. Back in the days when he was a police officer, he was one of the good people who tried to oppose those cover ups. Barry Faudemer tried to bring abusers to book, and protected good cops like Cornelisson. But all that makes Faudemer’s disgusting actions against Stuart Syvret, the first public whistle blower against the child abuse cover ups, all the more shocking and reprehensible. It’s like, you could have expected an establishment man on the side of the cover ups to lie against Syvret, but for a man like Faudemer, who knew what the truth was, it’s a shabby and shameful legacy. But appearing before the COI, Faudemer has the chance to redeem himself. I wonder what Syvret would make of that?

      Delete
    12. No. He would not be immune. It is simply that the evidence given to the Inquiry is not, of itself, acceptable as testimony in a court of law. There is nothing stopping an independent investigation prosecuting Faudemer for perjury if there is independent evidence of this or if it can be obtained. The protection/immunity simply refers to self incrimination at the Inquiry. This has all been teased out earlier.

      Delete
  11. Forget this load of old irrelevant nonsence. The Jersey Evening Post is surpassing itself with cutting edge investigative journalism today. Yes! They are highlighting the ten worst places in Jersey for dog poo! No you really could not make this shit up. Pun intended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is Five Oaks bad perchance?

      They produce a lot of crap there.

      Delete
    2. Ha! Ha! Nice one Cyril!

      Delete
  12. How the heck can these Appendices to the Sharp Report be privileged/exempt or whatever the excuse is? This investigation was surely paid for by our taxpayers money?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forget who was on the board of governors at Victoria College while all this pedophilia was going on and it might be Philip Bailhache's himself who is preventing the Enquiry from getting the documents. That is if the Enquiry has bothered to try and get them.

      Delete
    2. Do you know if Trevor Pitman reads this - I assume he does having given you the interview? If so maybe I could ask if he could come on and answer a few of the points being raised? For starters I would love to know if he raised any aspects of his treatment with the COI? Secondly, if any of our disgraced MSM asked for an interview? Cheers.

      Delete
  13. Until the first brick goes through the States Chamber windows followed by enough to smash them all the weak less plebs of this Island will continue to be 'ruled' by these corrupt morons. Violence may be an extreme measure but when you have got into bed with the Devil you don't then question what happens next. Wake up Jersey and see the light. Any Civil demonstration like this will hit the U.K press and then perhaps the spotlight will be turned on this so called COI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand the commenter’s anger but will make the point that this Blog does not condone violence of any kind.

      Delete
    2. On the other hand inaction will just let this vile behaviour to continue. Need to come up with a form of civil disobedience that will hit hit them where it hurts

      Delete
  14. The COI team showed their true colours when they blatantly refused to investigate the arrival to them of a tatty and opened envelope of confidential documents.
    Sent, signed and well sealed from Lenny Harper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comment at 20:23 says that a file of document sent by Mr Harper to the COI was obviously ripped and opened before delivery to the COI? Is that correct, because if it's been reported before I'm missed it. I was certainly aware that a draft copy of his statement sent by the COI to Mr Harper got ripped opened and copied before he received it (because Eversheds apparently routinely send important legal documents through ordinary post) but I hadn't heard his submissions mailed to the COI had been opened? Is this a new twist in the saga, or is the comment at 20:23 confused with the earlier incident?

      Delete
  15. If a 'prosecutuon' witness of former Deputy Trevor Pitman's stature can have his evidence/insights treated with the contempt people here have described shouldn't we consider whether Syvtey's excuses for not engaginng may be valid after all?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just for purposes of clarification, have other witnesses been given legal representation?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Trevor speaks of a member of staff from Victoria College who was alleged to have ignored evidence of child abuse and who went on to be a Jurat. As I recall the person was called Le Breton. As I recall, one of the Jurats who sat on Graham Powers judicial review of his suspension was also called Le Breton. Are they by any chance related?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are the very same person. Rico Sorda published a number of Blogs concerning Mr. Power's Judicial Review and as far as Mr. Le Breton's conflict goes he wasn't the only conflicted person sitting on the JR.

      The whole thing was hopelessly conflicted as published HERE.

      Delete
    2. So a former school teacher known by the police and judiciary to willingly, and it appears quite off his own initiative, disregard evidence of child abuse and even bully abused school children into silence was allowed to sit on the review of a police chief who had investigated abuse! Yet the UK authorities do nothing. Incredible. I suppose we should be grateful this Le Breton wasn't allowed to sit on the court cases against other champions of the victims Syvret or the Pitman's.

      Delete
    3. He sat on the Pitmans'

      Delete
    4. The above comment - incredible as it is - is correct.Jurat John Le Breton great chum of Vic College child abuser Andrew Jervis-Dykes who he attempted to protect from prosecution was appointed to be one of just two Jurats on the defamation case brought by the Pitman's.

      Appointed by no less an individual as Sir Michael Birt - a Bailiff who was fully aware of Le Breton's contempt for abused school pupils because he was one of the senior judiciary involved in the Victoria College case. Yes Jersey's justice overlords take abuse very seriously. Almost as seriously as 'real' scandals like outside media criticism. #islandyoudeserve

      Delete
    5. Is it correct there was even a photo of this disgraceful man in the Filthy Rag? If so how ironic. Almost like flaunting that they had benefited from an unfit Jurat regardless. Are there any pictures of Le Breton on the net out of interest such as on the Jersey blogs?

      Delete
  18. It seems to me quite obvious that ex-Deputy Pitman should be recalled and allowed to deliver his evidence fully and properly. Anything less will show this enquiry as a farce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps a letter of complaint of some sort would be in order?

      Delete
  19. One has to pose the question to Jersey's silent - passive - majority, "for how much longer do you intend to carry on tolerating being the only community amongst the planet's established democracies to accept the plain non-existence of the effective rule of law?"

    The so-called "judicial" function in Jersey is - on the evidence - in-and-of-itself - a criminal enterprise.

    The island's policing function was captured by criminals - intent on perverting the course of justice - when the legitimate Police Chief Graham Power was illegally suspended.

    The Jersey "prosecution" function is occupied and run by a succession of corruption, rape, murder and child-abuse concealing - directly conflicted - gangsters.

    All of these people hold and exercise authority purely in the name of Her Majesty the Queen.

    Who represents the Queen in the Crown Dependency of Jersey? Who is supposed to act as the guardian and overseer of Her authority - so as to ensure Her powers are not abused, and Her subjects not oppressed by the local oligarchs?

    That's right - a succession of frankly not very bright and singularly ignorant former military personal - who - even more laughably - are not even chosen by the Monarch, but instead the Monarch has abdicated Her responsibility - by letting the rape, murder and child-abuse concealing Jersey gangsters select "Her" Lieutenant Governors, with Her and Her Ministers simply rubber-stamping the choice of the Jersey mafia.

    The chosen spivs are then rewarded handsomely with a variety of "non-executive directorships" awarded to them by Jersey's bosses and their associate City bankers.

    All of the above has been plain for years - and bizarrely - tolerated and passively accepted by 99% of Jersey campaigners.

    So much so - you're now faced with the prospect of having to grovel - to beg - a directly conflicted City of London Corporation law-firm - a commercial entity that is plainly just taking the piss out of you all - to maybe - perhaps "pretty-please-Sir - not humiliate us and rub our faces in the shit quite so much by only questioning our key witnesses for two hours - and maybe if we beg and debase ourselves a little more - and press our politicians to give you another £2 million of tax-payers money - you'll be so kind as to enable us to cling on to our delusional belief that we've done something useful - as opposed to being mugs and dupes - by deigning to call back a couple of our witnesses - and maybe ask them about the colour of their filling systems and did they ever read the Guardian? - for a couple more hours? You Know, just for appearances' sake?"

    Good luck with all that.

    Meanwhile the real battle for the the proper rule of law in Jersey remains - waiting to be fought.

    Untouched - a task not yet even begun - sitting in plain sight.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for not repeating "I told you so"

      Here, I think it was

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

      Delete
  20. Bozo Ozouf, thanks the long suffering tax payer, is having a all expensive trip to Malta and a nice chat with Charles, the Queens son. His pal and fellow minister Maclean has plans to attack the pensions of the old and retired, in order to get an extra £200,000 a year. Well some one has to pay for all this expensive five star luxury travel around the world for the Ministers and the so called senior clue less civil servants who hold their grubby little hands.

    ReplyDelete
  21. While we're on the topic of the Pitmans, has that nice man Bowron prosecuted the well known individual who ran Shona down at the traffic lights, and, if so, is the name in the public domain? And, if not, is that why nothing has been done about it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Polo, I haven’t heard of the identity of the driver who ran down Shona Pitman. Is the individual 'well known'? I know they were let off by City of London police boss Mike Bowron, but I didn’t realise they were 'well known'.

      Delete
    2. OK, I'm being (slightly) provocative here. But police tried to conceal the identity for as long as they could and only revealed it when obliged in connection with insurance. My feeling was that the person was known to Shona and probably to others besides.

      Would be good if we got an update from someone.

      Delete
  22. Graham Power's witness statement and transcript are now online.

    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/transcripts

    See 4th and 5th November.

    His written statement is filed under Day 107, 5th November 2015, 66.6MB file. It's an absolute belter, it will take you hours, if not days, to read in full. That the inquiry did not question him for more than a day and a half is, as others have commented, a huge issue. His verbal testimony is filed under days 106 and 107.

    Mr Power provides a vast amount of extra detail in respect of many of the issues that are already in the public domain, as well as providing some eye-opening new information. There is too much to list in the brief amount of time I have available today.

    Graham Power's honesty, integrity and decency leap from every page. Thank you, Mr Power.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Having now read Graham Power's statement to your child-abuse public inquiry, I'd like to ask if Jersey campaigners have a ‘sense’ as to whether there’s anyone of sufficient seniority in Whitehall who will now face up to the awkward and difficult fact that the axe, figuratively speaking, must unavoidably fall not only upon Philip and William Bailhache, but in fact the Office of ‘Bailiff’ itself? There must be limits, presumably, as to how long the mandarins can carry on letting the rot grow and jeopardise the reputation of the monarchy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Power's statement is (as one would expect) a substantial, and eye opening, document. I've not had time to go through it all, as yet, but a common theme through most statements is "The Bailhache Brothers."

      Readers are encouraged to read the statement of former St Helier Constable Bob Le Brocq and how he looks to have been stitched up by the Bailhache Brothers, as well as the disgraced Wiltshire Constabulary.

      Hopefully Mr. Le Brocq's story will be the subject of an up-coming Blog Posting but in the meantime his statement (and supporting documents) can be read HERE.

      Delete
    2. I am working my way through recent statements, including that of Mr Powers, and it does indeed make fascinating reading.

      Paragraph 101 tells of a Connetable who had issued a firearms licence to himself (and it isn't clear that he breached any specific legislation just by virtue of that alone), but subsequently did not notify himself of his change of address. (It goes without saying that he also did not prosecute himself for the offence of failing to notify himself of the change of address.)

      One juxtaposes episodes like the above against the prosecution of Stuart Syvret for forgetting to update his driving licence and similar. Potemkin Village stuff, as ex-Senator Syvret dubs it.

      Delete
    3. Their clumsy redactions show how little the Inquiry understands the environment it is working in.

      Redaction of Bob Hill's statement was inompetent. Redaction of Graham Power's statement is (i) incompetent, (ii) transparent and (iii) revealing.

      Delete
  24. The COI must recall Trevor Pitman otherwise it is clear Stuart Syvret is right. This Inquiry has been got at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would second this view 100%. I would also like to see (if it is possible?) a guest posting from Trevor or another interview on what he feels is the current situation in Jersey today. I mean Trevor and his wife must have been forced out of Jersey's government the best part of two years ago now? What does he see as the position now, the wider way forward? If you are reading this Trevor a lot of us also miss your blog and the brilliant ten minute news review videos you used to make. We need you back. Both of you.

      Delete
  25. http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/11/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-witness.html?showComment=1448666452536#c7428841673341861219

    It is important that readers do not miss the recent comment above (nested under 26 November 2015 at 16:03) by a witness to the mock justice system that was brought to bear against Ex.Health Minister Syvret. This contains detail unknown to most of us.

    The comment also highlights the danger that Campaigner Bob Hill might be in on Corbiere Ward if the rogue ex military male nurse that the Ex.Health Minister "blew the whistle on" were still working there undetected!
    Due to protection by the Jersey authorities "Nurse M" is probably still working with the vulnerable either here or in the UK!

    One can also observe that the stroke Bob Hill suffered a few days after giving evidence to the CoI may well have been brought on by the stress of assimilating the disruptive treatment he received from the CoI while trying to give his evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the notice.

      Nested replies can be easily missed. I missed it and it is an important observation.

      Re your last para: that had occurred to me. He was given the run around and his evidence demeaned in a disgraceful manner. The frustration must have been enormous. But we just won't know.

      Delete
  26. It will be most interesting to see how the manner in which Mike Higgins, one of 'our' good/bad guys, is questioned/ restricted next week when he gives his evidence. I fear that if it follows the same process as Bob and Trevor we do have something to be most concerned about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Understatement alert!

      "I fear that if it follows the same process as Bob and Trevor we do have something to be most concerned about."

      Quite.

      But we ALREADY have grave cause for concern over the "processing" of Bob and Trevor

      AND to a large extent Graham Power

      ....and the "constructive exclusion" of Ex.Health Minister Syvret

      ...and the non answer of Daniel Wimberley's 13 concerns published at:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      ...and the summary banning of Bloggers from the Media room to the benefit of State Media

      ...and the outsourcing of information collection to the actual people under investigation

      ...and

      ...and

      ....


      It has already happened. Eversheds have already taken us deep into Legal La-La Land.

      So deep that there should be no trouble recovering the £10m plus taxpayers money

      Delete
    2. A reader says: -

      "So deep that there should be no trouble recovering the £10m plus taxpayers money."

      That's a very interesting idea: "Could tax-payers' money be recovered from Eversheds LLP?"

      I would say - most certainly - yes - provided certain "factors" and "conditions" exist.

      The most obvious and prime point - a point which will be clear to anyone, even those without contractual or legal knowledge - will be "what are the terms and conditions of Eversheds' employment?"

      Let's not be fools - there are broadly two possible situations: that the contracting of Eversheds is as we, the public, have been led to believe - or - in reality the contracting of Eversheds has, in truth, been by the Jersey / London mafia (only with us, like mugs, paying for it)?

      Crucially - the issue is, "who is the client?"

      Who or what is the agency from which Eversheds have taken - and as lawyers will continue to take - "instruction" from?

      If “the deal” is straight – and the client of Eversheds are the general public of Jersey – with the “contract” and “instruction” being that as publicly approved by our legislature – then Eversheds, having repeatedly exhibited gross incompetence and multi-faceted professional negligence – and even overtly tortious conduct (constructively excluding key witnesses for exmaple) – then, yes, the public’s money - plus damages – plus interest – will be 100% recoverable from Eversheds.

      But – if – however, we’ve been duped – and the “instructing client” is not, in fact, the public of Jersey on the basis of the “terms” as passed by the Jersey parliament – but is instead a covert conspiracy of Jersey Crown Officers, their ultra vires “executive” agency, and/or authorities & agencies in London – then the public’s £10 million will be a little harder to recover.

      Harder – but not impossible.

      If the “deal” is straight – and it’s the Jersey legislature, on the basis of the public decision of that legislature, who is the “instructing client” - then Eversheds don’t have the proverbial leg to stand on. The overt breaches of the explicit - and implicit – terms of the contract – and incompetence, professional negligence, and tortious conduct – by Eversheds - are all clearly present on the facts. All that is required is the political decision of the Jersey executive / legislature to sue – and a non-contaminated / non-conflicted court before which to sue – and the full funds are recoverable – and will be recovered.

      If – on the other hand – Eversheds are a party to a confidence-trick against the public – if Eversheds are parties to a conspiracy – in which the public have been conned and duped into thinking they are the “instructing clients” of Eversheds (via the legislature) – but in reality it is Jersey’s Crown Officers, their executive agency (“The Government-within-a-Government” [G. Power] ) and/or their co-conspirators in London who are the “instructing clients”, then in the face of a legal claim to recover fees, damages & interest, Eversheds would attempt to advance the argument that what the public claim to be the incompetent, tortious and negligent conduct of Eversheds LLP was – instead – merely the action they were “instructed” to take by the “instructing client” (the covert forces of Jersey’s corrupted Crown Officers & co-conspirators).

      It would be the “we-were-only-obeying-orders” defence.

      Eversheds would cite the covert “instructions” given to them by whatever agencies are involved in so instructing them, and then argue that no breach-of-contract or ultra vires conduct occurred.

      However – as Eversheds are carrying out a function as a “public authority” – the tort of “misfeasance in a public office” (see Three Rivers, HoL) would be present – and no attempt to cite some quasi-private-sector “contractual” term would stand.

      So – the question is – do the Jersey public actually want any politicians who will recover their money from Eversheds?

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. Bravo.

      The unpacking of legal issues is akin to dismantling Russian dolls. The intrigue lays in discovering how small the maker has gone. Mr Syvret, I would suggest, sees the nucleus at the heart of all Jersey issues, the absence of ‘a non-contaminated / non-conflicted court before which to sue’. By stating that issue he challenges us to consider whether the non-functioning of an objective court in Jersey is a ‘thing’, an ‘entity’, or is it an ‘absence’ the ‘lack’ of a thing? Do we in our investigations get to a material point, or do we arrive at an emptiness, a vacuum? The difficulty which confronts civil society in Jersey is that your Establishment is able to have it both ways, as in the duality of the Schrödinger’s Cat analogy. Power in Jersey seems able to exist in both states at the same time, accountable, and non-accountable, lawful and non-lawful. And for its survival in that state of duality it continues to require that no-one ‘opens the box’ and looks at the facts, an action which would collapse the wave-function and force a materialisation of reality.

      One such materialising act which would force a crystallisation of reality would be scrutinising that factual condition, ‘who is the instructing client of Eversheds?’

      Bravo.

      Delete
    4. When will the full "208 page" witness statement by Trevor Pitman referred to in your interview be on line so that people can understand what he would have said had he been allowed? Also, will it have the dynamite redacted out of it on the orders no doubt of King Bsilhache?

      Delete
    5. Am I right in concluding that there is no set schedule for getting evidence up on line, certainly seems that way? In my view they probably leave deliberately in the hope the public will forget about it as our media certainly won't bother with it.

      Delete
    6. Anyone here Deputy Higgins' questions in the States today regarding missing evidence?

      Delete
    7. Unfortunately one can't listen to Jersey's House of Commons over here in England but if one of the local readers can report back I too would be very interested. Evidence going missing is endemic in just about every major Inquiry where top establishment figures are involved.

      Delete
    8. "lost" evidence in the UK's current inquiry

      http://wkvtradio.com/gmm/guilty-by-deletion/

      It is the establishment's M.O.

      Delete
    9. If Trevor Pitman is correct in saying he requested evidence be sought 17 months ago you have to say what the hell have Eversheds been doing all that time? If we are to believe the non-handing over is all down to States obstruction then the COI need to make that public.

      Delete
  27. FROM
    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=212.msg60536#msg60536

    November 24, 2015 Newsweek senior writer Leah McGrath Goodman talks about Britain’s failure to protect victims of sexual abuse and missing statements and documents

    - See and hear more at:

    http://wkvtradio.com/gmm/guilty-by-deletion/#sthash.frvSyYHy.dpuf

    Why are Jersey’s alleged perpetrators allowed to use different names and not the survivors in the child abuse inquiry? Why has vital information been lost as laid bare in Trevor Pitman’s statement in the Jersey child abuse inquiry? Why has little money been invested for the web software to lose highly sensitive witness statements, is this the same case in Jersey?

    Unbelievable to have to ask those questions and even more in the first place but it just shows that the victims of child abuse are not getting the high standard of inquiry they deserve to find justice for the atrocities they had to go through in their lives!

    The Jersey citizen investigative media VoiceForChildren, Rico Sorda and Stuart Syvret have published these clearly important issues in their blogs. Now the highly regarded international senior writer Leah Mcgrath Goodman has supported them again with her interview in the USA and confirmed that she is writing a book about Jersey which some Jersey establishment people won’t like to say the least. The Jersey establishment has to learn that the truth will inevitably come out!

    See and hear more about Leah Mcgrath Goodman and her take on Jersey:

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/leah-mcgrath-goodman-discusses-jersey.html

    http://leahmcgrathgoodman.com/?s=jersey+channel+island

    http://europe.newsweek.com/lost-u-k-child-abuse-testimony-335903


    So far, the Jersey’s child abuse inquiry has been excluded by the UK’s Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. This might change soon? They have just published the first phase of the Truth Project and 12 investigations have been proposed.

    No. 10 of the investigations:

    “The Protection of Children Outside the United Kingdom”

    Quote:

    18.

    Thirdly,we will investigate the extent to which organisations in England and Wales have satisfied their duty to protect children abroad. In recent years, grave allegations have emerged regarding child sexual abuse by individuals working for British institutions and organisations abroad.

    Our investigation will look at institutions based in England and Wales which recruit people to work abroad, including the Armed Forces, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council and private companies and voluntary organisations. It will examine the extent to which such institutions have failed adequately to protect children abroad by, for example, employing individuals who should not work with children.

    We will investigate how effectively the United Kingdom justice system is equipped to address the potential for abuse abroad by those known to authorities in England and Wales as posing a risk to children. And we will consider the adequacy of Whitehall responses to reports of institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse in overseas territories.

    https://www.iicsa.org.uk/sites/default/files/update-statement-november-2015.pdf

    How can the IICSA and why do they exclude the crown dependencies but not the overseas territories? What makes the Channel islands in particular Jersey so special to be protected by the UK in particular in failing to protect children which is a highly moral issue?

    Is the protection wall going to crumble and crash, if MPs and even Royals can be ordered to give evidence over claims they had connections to paedophile groups, it has been revealed.

    Read more:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3336241/Child-abuse-MPs-priests-celebrities-centre-new-multi-million-pound-inquiry-judge-reveals.html#ixzz3ssjbKjoX

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's increasingly obvious that the most significant documentation, forensic evidence, and key witness insight are made as irrelevant as possible to this COI. Whomever it was who first suggested that maybe Jersey people should simply hold their own inquiry was right. At the end of the day, what is documented on these excellent blogs, is far superior to what can ever come of an official COI with severe restrictions on what it wants to know. This COI will be as anemic as authorities and the Law Offices believe they can possibly get away with.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  29. VFC when people make comments with other web sights in them it's annoying to copy them and not being able to click them and go straight through. cant your sight automatically make the links work?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Clickable links:
    Wordpress does automatically make links clickable but Blogger doesn't. I have to do mine manually. However, it's not all that difficult when you get the hang of it and I have tried to give an example here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. VFC can you post a link to this new Leah Goodman interview mentioned please?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sean Step Away From The Email Photocopier1 December 2015 at 19:35

    Did the States actually sit today? If so was it another till.lunchtime marathon? What about Deputy Terry Sarah MacDonald's anti- Lenny proposition?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Former Senator Ferguson's proposition was beat by 32 votes to 8.

      Delete
    2. Good news indeed.

      Delete
    3. Could we have the 8 Smeargols voting pour? I have a bet I can name them.

      Delete
    4. Senator Zoe Ann Cameron

      Connétable Michel Philip Sydney Le Troquer

      Connétable Christopher Hugh Taylor

      Deputy Judith Ann Martin

      Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

      Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

      Deputy Simon Muir Bree

      Deputy Terence Alexander McDonald

      Delete
    5. Geoff Southern and Judy Martin??? No wonder the Pitman's left the JDA.

      Delete
  33. Any update on former Deputy Bob Hill please?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Was Deputy Anne Pryke asked by the Care Inquiry about attempting to gain entry to HDLG. Or about the reference made in recent evidence to her Department ignoring a clear child protection - I would say abuse - case all with her knowledge and non-intetvention?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not present at the Inquiry but have been told that she was asked about attempting to gain entry into HDLG when it was a crime scene. From what I was told she denied it.

      Don't know about your second question.

      Delete
    2. Could this be the infamous non-intetvention by Pryke and two of her senior officers including one Richard J...?

      Delete
  35. It's pointed out above that Deputy Judy Martin Deputy and Deputy Geoff Southern both voted for the absurd pro-corruption proposition tabled by former Senator Sarah Ferguson via her "useful idiot" proxy Deputy Terry MacDonald.

    Surely – given the underlying purpose of the proposition was to furnish an opportunity to the Jersey oligarchy to attack former Deputy Police Chief and child-abuse investigator Lenny Harper – no-one can be surprised that Judy Martin and Geoff Southern voted in favour?

    Both Judy Martin and Geoff Southern have – very plainly – both been fully committed to the Jersey Establsihment child-abuse cover-ups since 2008.

    Both Southern and Martin are “owned” by the Jersey mafia – and were before they even got elected.

    Both fulfil – “ideally” – the necessary cosmetic, fake “appearance” of being “opposition” members in the Jersey legislature; both non-credible, both non-threatening, both controllable.

    Geoff Southern and Judy Martin are “The–Lefties—You’re-Allowed-To-Vote-For”.

    A pair of useless fakes.

    You have the government you deserve.

    Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Syvret. Can you enlighten us as to whether Appendices do exist for the Sharp Report? It seems the Chief Minister is claiming they can only find one.

      Delete
    2. Judy Martin has completely sold out since leaving the JDA at the first hint of struggle. But since accepting an Assistant Minister's job, that's a glorified handbag carrier to you or me her voting has been quite disgraceful.

      Delete
    3. A reader says: -

      "Mr Syvret. Can you enlighten us as to whether Appendices do exist for the Sharp Report? It seems the Chief Minister is claiming they can only find one."

      The claim that there is "only one" appendix to The Sharp Report is simply a complete lie.

      That much is easily deducible to any thinking person.

      Consider; The Sharp Report itself states – very clearly – that there are six appendices to it.

      Now, were that not so – were that some mistake by Mr Sharp, at least two things would have happened; someone at the time – not least the then Attorney General Michael Birt who was amongst those who received the Report – would have said so. But no-one at the time made any response to the effect of suggesting “there were no six appendices”. Secondly, since The Sharp Report was obtained and published, and became a matter of known controversy, if the report was wrong to state the fact there are six appendices, then someone would have raised the matter with Mr Sharp and asked him to retract that point. That has not happened.

      There’s also the deeply significant fact that – in the wake of the Soham murders, and consequent Bichard Report, I then as President of the Health & Social Services Committee attempted a review of child-protection and child-safety standards within the Jersey “system”. As a part of that action I wrote to the then Attorney General William Bailhache and asked for the six appendices to be disclosed to the Health & Social Services Committee.

      William Bailhache was profoundly and utterly hostile – overtly obstructive – and deliberately sabotaging of the proper discharge of that lawful - statutory – duty of the then Health & Social Services Committee in accordance with its obligations under the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

      But even William Bailhache – as madly and recklessly corrupted as he is – never attempted to deny the existence or the six appendices. Instead he simply refused to disclose them.

      Whoever now might be claiming that the six appendices do not exist is either lying – or has been a party to the destruction of that evidence, and is thus guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    4. Thanks for this response Mr Syvret. To be quite up front I did think it probably just another ruse to try and discredit former Deputy Trevor Pitman after seeing his interview (they have pulled thses stunts with good people like you two so often) but I am grateful to you for taking the time to illustrate the truth in such a public forum.

      Delete
  36. I wonder if Sam Mezec would like to comment in defence of one of his most senior lieutenants in the Reform party ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. So, what's the low-down on Barry, ‘Mr P’, Faudemer then? How did what we must so loosely describe as his ‘evidence’ go today?

    I recollect a very powerful comment left on this blog a few months ago. The title its author gave it stuck in my mind. ‘Falls Into View’, they said.

    Well, are things ‘falling into view’ yet?

    Pip Pip!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry Faudemer's evidence was pretty much a mixed bag really but one came away with the impression that he was doing the Establishment's bidding.

      He had praise for Marnie Baudain and Diane (shackles) Simon and pretty much played the party line IMO. That said he did make some very sensible and crucial recommendations in his statement. To include protection for Whistle-Blowers, doing away with Centeniers as prosecutors, and basically what amounts to MANDATORY REPORTING.

      Delete
  38. The JEP do their usual re-writing of the truth in their 'coverage' of Deputy Ann Pryke's evidence. I also noted when going on their on line pages no mention at all of the disturbingly repressed evidence of Trevor Pitman. Even allowing for the Beano's hatred of the former Deputy and his wife who the paper tried so hard to intimidate I suppose this shows once again how some things never change.Pryke is a numpty and a dangerous one but the Beano's yet again doesn't tell the public the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I was told by those at Deputy Pryke's public hearing she was made to look a laughing stock. Her appearance there seemed to emulate her appearances in the States Chamber. Couldn't/wouldn't answer a straight question and knew nothing about nothing.

      Of course there is nothing laughable about any of this as children under her watch were needlessly, and avoidably, abused and she claims to know nothing about it?

      Delete
  39. Deputy Pryke stated that sending three children to the UK was one of her toughest decisions, perhaps she should have asked how they had got into such a serious condition when they were in the system for a long time, these were not hidden children and why did it take a court case to achieve their placement

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "why did it take a court case to achieve their placement"

      Because Deputy Pryke is an incompetent, dishonest waste of space?

      Delete
  40. Anne Pyke " God bless her " is headlined in the JEP on line gave us the story of a sympathetic lady who had the difficult job as health minister of sending a messed up and abused family of three children to the UK for help after a serious case review regarding their plight found the states departments to be lacking.

    How kind and thoughtful of the JEP to give this lady such a chance to glow, when anyone and everyone knows it was Deputy Paul Le Claire that was the main force behind getting these kids off the island and into safe and healing hands.

    ReplyDelete
  41. VFC How do you think the CoI will deal with the 'mis-match' between Anne Prykes HDLG Gateway denial and Lenny Harpers probable recollection that the event did happen.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, speaking for myself I calculate that this so-called "public inquiry" - in the case of the stark conflict in testimony between Anne, the wife of the late child-abuse concealing DS Pryke - and former Police Chief Lenny Harper - the CoI will align with what ever version most suits the Jersey oligarchy.

      That is how Eversheds and their puppet "public inquiry" will "perform" on every single occasion when serious and centrally relevant evidence and testimony conflicts. On all such occasions - when it cannot side-step or elide things, and instead is forced by the magnitude of the conflict into taking a position - the CoI will find for the Jersey & London establishment every time.

      Just imagine – for exmaple – when Functional Phil Bailhache and Barking Bill Bailhache give their testimony – which will obviously have to profoundly and directly conflict with evidence from a number of honest witnesses such as Mr Power, Mr Harper, Trevor Pitman – and others – does anyone seriously imagine – for one instant – Eversheds and this CoI will find that the Bailhache brothers were “unreliable witnesses”?

      No. Sadly there’s no mystery here as to what way these City of London Corporation lawyers are going to act. Don’t believe me? OK, that’s the free choice of readers. But ask yourselves, how often was I ever wrong, on all & any major political issues in Jersey?

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    2. "why did it take a court case to secure a placement ? "
      Because the children needed to go to a specialist facility in the UK which was expensive ,the states did not want to pay for it they wanted them cared for in Jersey, the children's advocate took it to The Royal Court and won the case, he also requested a serious case review which was completed in 2010

      Delete
    3. I think the case being referred to is HERE.

      Delete
  42. Thinking about Anne Pryke, let me suggest she represents the dichotomy at the heart of the toxic “Jersey Situation”. Her many acts and omissions as Health & Social Services Minister are of profound significance; but she is not. The public office she held possessed dramatic responsibilities and concomitant powers; but she doesn’t possess even the most basic power to explain and defend herself in any political or legal sense. Any good office-holder would be expected to have the ability to answer for themselves; somehow, it’s just “accepted” that she’s a cretin, so that expectation isn’t applied. The role she held was of dramatic importance; she herself is simply a walking vacuity. The rudimentary failure of the “office” of Health & Social Services Minister (a failure I was a part of) ought to be most seriously accountable to the public interest; she as an office-holder like most others betrayed that public accountability (I tried to meet it, and was oppressed by the rest of the culpable system). The head of a “public authority” with statutory powers has to exercise those powers legally objectively; she was an obedient sock-puppet. Office-holders who do the right thing & act with ethics should be supported by society; she did the opposite, yet remains a member of the Jersey feudal mafia’s Council of Ministers. Any candidate for, let alone office holder, who failed to declare the conflict of interests she had (her late husband being a known child-abuse concealer, and her being friends with culpable civil servants such as Richard Jouault) would, in any functioning polity, resign in disgrace; in Jersey she’s protected and no-one even raises the subject of her conflicts. In any lawful society, any witness appearing before a quasi-judicial tribunal such as the CoI, would state at the outset, for shame, if a person involved in the functioning of that tribunal was known to them; in Jersey it’s considered just fine that she should fail to make that declaration before this CoI even though her friend Richard Jouault has been instrumental in its “work”, and it’s being run from the building of the law-firm of another associate and ally of hers, the fatally conflicted Julian Clyde-Smith.

    Jersey is a perversity.

    It represents everything profoundly sick, unaccountable, unlawful and abusive which inheres in feudalism.

    In so many way’s the “functioning” of this supposed “public inquiry” can be held out as the very nadir of it.

    Jersey - a primitive feudal society - yet one bathed in uncountable wealth, the untold billions of modern off-shore finance activities - a society yet in which no-one in real power is accountable in any real, modern sense to anything recognisable by modern-world standards as the rule-of-law – a small rock in which some whim of the long-dead monarch Elizabeth I is claimed by the island’s foul gangsters to place them above the rule-of-law – Jersey, feudalism + the un-imaginable riches of modern – off-shore, thus unaccountable – finance industry activity; the ingredients for the “perfect-storm” of Western-world politicised corruption. And, predictably, that’s what’s come to pass.

    So much so, it long-since reached the levels of “too-big-too-fail” – and now represents a growing canker in the very hull of the British Crown. All because no-one who mattered would reign-in the collection of obvious spivs, cretins, nut-cases & villains who were running rampant on the island.

    Jersey: - a strange parallel universe in which democracy, accountability – the functioning of the very rule-of-law – has been stood on its head – by overt gangsters.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  43. Was Barry Faudemer asked in his evidence about his being exposed as a liar in court by Stuart Syvret? Or does the "independant" Care Inquiry not care about such trivialities? #jobsfortheboystobuytheirsilence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If memory serves correct I believe Mr. Faudemer did give differing accounts of an event during Stuart's court case. I'm not comfortable with calling him a liar but would be more comfortable with "appearing to have discrepancies in his evidence."

      Delete
    2. VFC, I can understand your “concerns” – after all, this is a polity with – on the evidence – no functioning, lawful judicial system, but rather a conflicted, politicised oppression-body, with zero regard for the obvious, evidenced facts.

      So let me say this: yes, Barry Faudemer gave a version of events - when he was the Bailhache brothers, Michale Birt’s, Tim Le Cocq, Emma Martins – and Stephen Baker’s - star “prosecution” witness against me for whistle-blowing – a version of events – mysteriously - not compatible with the actual, recorded, adduced, undisputed, documentary evidence.

      A startling “discrepancy” that was, however, deemed perfectly acceptable and just fine – by the Philip Bailhache chosen – recent employee of William Bailhache – child-abuse concealing prosecution-lawyer – close friend of Jersey Dean Robert Key - “magistrate” Bridget Shaw.

      To answer the question, “does the Jersey soi disant “care inquiry” not care about such trivialities”, on the available facts, I’d say “no”. Not least because the team running the so-called “public inquiry” – City of London law-firm Eversheds, and the three sock-puppet panel – simply aren’t really interested – and are not really thinking about the real issues.

      It’s pretty much a certainty that no member of the panel – and none of the legal team running them – are even aware of the – err – “difference” - between witness Barry Faudemer’s pro-Jersey oligarchy – anti-whistle-blower – Jersey “court” testimony – and the actual, evidenced, documented facts before that “court” at the time.

      I imagine that even if a witness were to raise with them Mr Faudemer’s – err - “mistake” – they’d do the easy thing and simply brush the matter aside as “not relevant”.

      And it’s even more of a certainty they’d find “reasons” for not assembling evidence – evidence and testimony they already possess – in connection with the Jersey Financial Services Commission – and the present lucrative employment of Mr Faudemer by that supposed quasi-judicial regulatory body.

      All this comes down to a simple issue: - “does – in reality – the writ of the proper rule-of-law run in the British Isles?”

      Though this may seem strange to some – I’m in the small minority of optimists – in believing that it does; that – ultimately – what Britain and the British state stands for – our values – the genuine rule-of-law – proper accountability – will out, in the end.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. Reference Faudemer's impossibly conflicting statements you exposed in Mike Birt's kangaroo court instead of writing about it on here what you really have to is get yourself before the Inquiry and tell it there. No ifs. No buts. Please do it.

      Delete
  44. Has anyone looked into this?

    http://missingpersons.police.uk/en/case/09-000378/25cF44F

    Body found around the same time as the HDLG scandal was reported on.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Has anyone looked into this?

    Body found off Havre des Pas beach near St Helier at around the same time HDLG allegations were first reported.

    http://missingpersons.police.uk/en/case/09-000378/25cF44F

    ReplyDelete
  46. Any news on Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob is still at the General Hospital where he is having daily physiotherapy. He still has no power of speech but can understand what is being said to him and is able to communicate his approval/disapproval and even manages a little chuckle in places.

      He is still paralysed on his right-hand side and has, fairly recently, been able to feed himself to a degree. His condition has improved but it is a slow process. I believe the family are meeting with his consultant today and I hope to get an update which I will share with readers.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for this update. May Bob have a steady and strong recovery!

      Elle

      Delete
  47. I have read Graham Power's statement to the Inquiry and intend doing a post on it soon. It is very long and I will only hit it in spots, hopefully the most interesting ones.

    Meanwhile I have compared the redacted version of Wiltshire, as published on the Jersey Government web site, and the un-redacted version included in Power's statement.

    I have highlighted the differences here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great work Polo. It would make for a very good, and informative Blog. Will you publish it as a Blog?

      Myself, and Rico, are currently working on a couple of Blogs concerning Mr. Power's damming statement to the Child Abuse Inquiry and hope to have them published after the weekend.

      Delete
    2. Will be publishing some general comments on Power's statement, including attached documents, as a blog post.

      I'm leaving the Wiltshire comparison in the RTF document format as it was a scissors and paste job and messy to put into html. However, I will reference it in the blog post, and will alert you here to the post when I've done it.

      By the way, can you remind me why Wiltshire is referred to as discredited. I know that there are criticisms of the criteria used (normal UK police investigation rules applied to a not comparable situation in Jersey) and too much credence given to witnesses who were either found out lying - Tapp - or scarpered - Warcup and Gradwell). Were there other criticisms? It reads as having been very thorough. This is the first time I have actually read it in any version.

      Keep up the good work.

      Delete
    3. Polo.

      The whole damming sorry story of the disgraced Wiltshire debacle can, and should be, read HERE.

      If you don't have time to go through it, I can pick out some "highlights" for you and publish them here tomorrow?

      Delete
    4. No, you're OK. I'll plough through it and links. The devil is in the detail and should not be allowed escape.

      Delete
    5. I know that the rule of law is a flexible concept in Jersey, but in going through the Graham Power material, including your excellent interview, the following thought struck me.

      Ian le Marquand claimed that he could not overturn the original suspension decision of Andrew Lewis, because of the legal concept of "corporation sole" which meant that for official purposes, as Minister, he and Andrew Lewis were one and the same person and could not in effect contradict each other. Therefore, he could not "review" (ie examine with the possibility of reversing) the original decision.

      Then we come to the Judicial Review, where he claimed to have reviewed the original decision and confirmed it. On the basis of this "review" the original decision was rendered moot and could no longer be judicially reviewed. The only thing subject to judicial review was now his post review confirmation of the original decision.

      Surely, as his own idea of corporation sole ruled out any possibility of reversing the original decision, this was not a real review and the court was misled? A real sleight of hand.

      I have some time ago illustrated ILM's dilemma here.

      Delete
    6. Have just done a post. May tweak it a little in the cold light of day.

      Delete
    7. A great piece of very revealing analysis at the above link. I would urge all Team Voice readers to check it out.

      Delete
    8. Indeed. So much so that I believe it should be submitted to the Child Abuse Inquiry.

      Delete
  48. Deputy Anne Pryke, has gone missing, sadly not from the States, but from the internet offering by the JEP.

    Any bet's that the JEP read this blog and on this occasion actually get, understand and agree with the comments on this most useless pretend politician that acts like a puppet with not obvious mind of her own, and normally against her own people. Pension tax increase, or health police anyone ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The JEPeado says5 December 2015 at 19:28

      "SENDING three young abuse victims to the UK to receive specialist care was ‘in some ways the hardest decision I have ever made’, a former Health Minister has said.

      Speaking at the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry yesterday, the now Housing Minister Anne Pryke said that the children needed the best possible care following years of abuse.

      She was referring to the case of the ‘X family’, who former Deputy Paul Le Claire in 2009 said ranked as the most ‘damaged children’ in Jersey and described them as being in the ‘top tier of all such children in England’.

      And Deputy Pryke, who took over as Health Minister in 2009, told the inquiry that the matter was taken to the States in order to secure the required funding for the specialist care.

      She said: ‘I made the decision that to give the best possible care to those three children they should go off-Island.

      ‘It was a traumatic time. In some ways it was an easy decision to make but in some ways it was the hardest decision I have ever made.

      ‘Those three children were leaving Jersey - was it the right thing to do, leaving their home, leaving their Island with their peers? Or was it right that they should go off-Island to somewhere totally new for the best possible care?

      ‘To this day I still believe I made the right decision for them.’

      Last month a serious case review found that children from three families were subjected to sexual abuse which care authorities failed to adequately identify or address."

      Delete
    2. http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/needless-and-avoidable-suffering-of.html

      If (in reality) it took an expensive court case to start to undo the damage Jersey did to "Family X" then The JEP are aiding and abetting a vacuous lier

      Delete
    3. If memory serves me correctly, the Health Minister (either Jim Perchard or Anne Pryke, I forget which one it was) initially instructed their lawyers to deny that the Health Minister had ANY duty of care towards the Family X children...

      It was only after a determined fight by Advocate Tim Hanson that the Minister was forced to admit liability.

      This was totally, totally disgusting behaviour on the part of the Minister and his/her lawyers. What is doubly disgusting is that these Jersey lawyers who give this advice - which is antithetical to the public good - cream off thousands and thousands of pounds of our money in the process, no questions asked.

      Does anyone have a link to that story?

      Then you get the likes of Jim Perchard on twitter, whining about government spending. He needs to be tweeted a link to the above story.

      Delete
    4. That's right. Shenton, Perchard, Pryke - all sock-puppets - went along with the foul lie the "Family X" children weren't owed a duty-of-care - and didn't require the specialist UK placements.

      And these were three Health & Social Services Ministers who came after me - after I'd exposed the systemic collapse in child-protection in Jersey - so had the advanatge of knowing the true facts. They knew - but still sided with the "system" which had abused and so profoundly failed those children.

      It's one of the things I will never - never - come to understand about Jersey - just how people can act in such disgracefull ways yet still sleep at night and live with themselves.

      Jersey is poison.

      Jersey cannot function as a safe, lawfull community.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  49. Nothing to do directly with the post but simply to say that in my opinion Trevor Pitman has never been replaced in the States. Nobody quite got under the skin of our feudal masters like the Bald Truth. A legend and all round good bloke.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The Bailhaches and Co have just what they wanted. States sittings finishing before lunch and no hard questions asked.
    Long may it NOT last. Come back Pitman and Co.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All very if depressingly true. Which sadly begs the question why would Trevor, or Shona, Stuart, dear old Bob or even Daniel Wimberley ever WANT to come back? All of them can hold their head high due to their efforts while 95% of their colleagues were either colluding or keeping their own head under the parapet. Frustrating it may be but I think we can only ask the Trevor's and Cos of this world to give so.much.

      Delete
  51. I think you'll find that I was the most - err - "problematic" States member Jersey's feudal, Monarch-empowered & protected cosa nostra of overt crooks ever had to contend with.

    I think "events" - let's call them that, shall we - speak for themselves.

    My point is, to say - again - we have - you have - The-Government-You-Deserve.

    For all the self-righteous efforts - halo-polishing-self-aggrandisement - made by many people on our side – WE’RE NOT ONE STEP FURTHER FORWARD IN THIS WAR – THAN WE WERE EIGHT YEARS AGO.

    Indeed - we’ve gone backwards – such is the basic failure of honest self-criticism – and strategic appraisal – on the part of civil-society in Jersey.

    Look – we have a so-called “public-inquiry” into child-abuse – WHICH YOU – YES YOU - ARE TOLERATING – which is, a) in plain breach of the ECHR, b) oppressing and intimidating witnesses, c) ignoring the established Salmon Principles, d) co-opting actually directly conflicted child-abuse concealers into its "processes", e) providing zero – YES ZERO – full-time professional legal representation on the public side as opposed to at least seven full time professionals present on the side of the government, f) nakedly marginalising and limiting witnesses on the public interest side, g) has acted unlawfully in so many ways – not least being in stark breach of its “legislative purpose” by ignoring Part (e) of the empowering “legislative decision, h) has failed to secure the necessary steps to lift the restriction from the giving of evidence which lays on certain Crown Office employees, i) has a Chair who’s so incompetent she has put on written record to USA media her contempt & hostility to Jersey’s only organised survivors’ group, j) is being run by a City of London law firm with direct conflicts of interest, k) has refused to give legal representation to a significant number of abuse-survivors, and l) is - actually – being run out of the building of a Jersey law-firm which is centrally – and profoundly – conflicted in - involved in – the concealment of many serious crimes in Jersey - including child-abuse - and which occupies the heart of the stark judicial corruption which is the central toxicity and systemic crime in this Crown tax-haven.

    Our side has lost.

    We lost - because our side was too ignorant – too shallow – too stupid – too contaminated by false “allies” – too egotistical – and, ultimately – just too weak and spineless – to fight a battle for something even as rudimentary as the basic rule-of-law. In the 21st century.

    We lost.

    I, at least, can go to my grave with my conscience intact – knowing that I never blinked. I understood the truth. And always carried on fighting.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart, I happen to agree with everything apart from point L, more on which below. The problem is, as you well know, that when people live and work in a 'company town' their options for all out protest, when they have others who depend on them, are limited. They know that, you know it, I know it. Jersey's problems are just like Sark's problems but on a larger scale. It's a company town.

      As regards part L, then I'm not yet convinced. The law firm is based on the Esplanade. The Inquiry is held in offices at 11-15 Seaton Place. The buildings are near to one another (they might back onto one another, not sure) but I am not yet convinced that the law firm owns 11-15 Seaton Place. Do you have real evidence to the contrary, rather than what someone might have just said? If the law firm does own the building, then I would agree with you, that is not good for the independence of the Inquiry.

      Delete
    2. Let's not squabble or split hairs. The former States Members named above can all, along with one or two more perhaps, indeed hold their head high. They all refused to sell out and play along like the one time progressives i.e. Southerns, Martins and Le Clair's of this world did.

      When one considers the time span he survived Stuart Is without doubt the most 'problematic' the Establishment had to deal with. I think what your reader was getting at though was Trevor Pitman's uncanny ability to 'get under the skin' of the Old Boys like Bailhache in the pitbull way he would never let go or be backed down. Personally I loved Trevor's in your face swagger in fighting for those who had elected him. No one did this better.

      The fact Is that both Stuart and Trevor were excellent orators and sharp as a blade with it. Rare indeed in the desert of the States Chamber. The tragedy is that the pair are not in the States now. They could have been the progressive Let's dream ticket to reforming our island.

      Delete
    3. Pretty rich Mr Syvret to read you calling other people egotistical. If you had not been so obsessed with remaining the loan Big Cheese after the electoral swing of 2008, and just as bad helping destroy the Clothier reforms because your ego demanded you be a Senator things just might have moved forward. For Heaven's sake those of us wanting change actually had an abundance of progressive talent to follow for the first time in living memory. The whole must be greater than the individual ego Mr Syvret and admire you as I do I don't think you were ever able to climb over that hurdle. Just like you keep finding excuses to avoid giving evidence to the Care Inquiry now. It's the only show in town in case you haven't noticed. You can give you crucial evidence and still condemn it if it fails. Play the primadonna and you simply become irrelevant. Just what the gangsters want.

      Delete
    4. Who let Geoff Southern on here? I jest obviously. But what do others think of these observations? The progressives who could be our salvation have definitely failed to stick together no matter what as the political right has time and time again.

      Delete
  52. Beware What you wish for!
    The reaction by 'The Jersey Way', is already in train , and the final destination is no less than de facto totalitarianism.This is no joke , the mechanism is being wound up now, today for exactly this.
    The response to lessons learned, co-ordinated government, increase protection, and all encompassing overview of a subject that you cannot be realistically against, is Children's Minister................

    Look below the shiny shiny, motherhood and apple pie gloss and you have .....

    A Ministerial body that with a single common voice has a built in majority in the house , no matter what.The Troy rule goes out the window with democracy. The Minister become the unstoppable force and all for the good of children, "you would have to be mad to criticise this' to paraphrase a Soviet aphorism.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Are there any hearings this coming week?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. The Hearings start on Monday. The Inquiry Timetable can be read HERE.

      Delete
  54. Stuart, when you say our side has lost do you not think that the majority of the tax paying public are on our side? Do you really think when the COI come back with their verdict/conclusion, of lessons have been learned, and a Children's Minister is needed, the tax paying public will be happy? After a 2 year investigation and the spending of 10+million of the tax paying publics money and if the COI come back with this blinkered and predictable decision, there will be a public outrage, surely?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Best lube yourselves up cos this is going to be hard and rough6 December 2015 at 17:10

      The Jersey electorate and tax paying public will take it lying down. They always do.
      They are too busy trying to make ends meet to really follow what is being done to them.

      How else did we saddle ourselves with a States full of spineless retards and spivs?

      We are where we are, and that is how we got there.

      The shyster whores running the CoI have a myriad of techniques of preventing troublesome "facts" becoming "evidence"

      Delete
  55. Why all the fuss just because an ex and very anti authority Deputy reveals a few boxes of evidence has gone missing even if he does seem able to prove it in this case? With all the years that have passed these little mishaps are almost bound to happen. They have happened in almost every contentious abuse investigation so why single Jersey out or give an ex politician so much coverage?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point @16:23
      The loss and theft of evidence has indeed "happened in almost every contentious abuse investigation"
      That sets off alarm bells in most thinking people who are not paedophiles or sympathisers.

      The shysters and perverts do like to clear up after themselves, both in Jersey and elsewhere.

      Delete
  56. Ian Le Marquand was on BBC radio Jersey this morning talking about how good God is. Then Mrs Fiona (Frank) Walker was on.
    BBC Jersey radio. Business as usual so they think.

    ReplyDelete
  57. A reader says;

    “Ian Le Marquand was on BBC radio Jersey this morning talking about how good God is. Then Mrs Fiona (Frank) Walker was on. BBC Jersey radio. Business as usual so they think.”

    Of course. What do you – or anyone else reading this site – expect?

    The BBC conduct in Jersey is able to be so corrupted and captured – and churning out vacuous bullshit - because civil society is not organised – and thus fails to force real news onto their agenda. Look, as good and as important as blogging is – and as necessary as working out of the public gaze with abuse survivors and whistle blowers is – if you don’t organise, and don’t force events into the news agenda, that news agenda will be filled with empty crap.

    How many public meetings have campaigners here organised? How much effort have campaigners made to communicate to – as another reader above mentioned – “the majority of the tax-paying public” – the fact that this is not solely a child-abuse issue, but instead goes to the heart of all aspects of the functioning of the expensive, unreliable, unsafe – dangerous - Jersey polity?

    It just doesn’t happen, does it?

    There’s no effort expended to bring into the public's consciousness the fact that Jersey’s unaccountable crown “prosecution” and “judicial” systems are an overt criminal enterprise – bringing and representing actual profound danger to the vast majority of ordinary islanders.

    Why aren’t there public meetings organised, to explore, discuss and debate these issues?

    Not only are such meetings unavoidably necessary to promote public awareness and engagement with the issues – but are also necessary to fill the vacuum which allows the BBC to carry on racketeering the public’s money to act merely as a free PR service for Jersey’s entrenched elites.

    The failure of campaigners here and more broadly civil society in Jersey to organise, see the interconnectedness of issues, and to give the msm news they’d have to report, leaves the msm free to deliver propaganda.

    Your efforts have been feeble.

    Rather than leading events, setting an agenda – you’re sitting down like obedient children and hoping that the Big, Important, Grown-Ups will deign to do the right thing. (When they plainly aren’t – and never were – going to.)

    You have the government you deserve.

    And that’s not a cliché. It’s a fact – which many readers of this site would be well-advised to give some honest reflection to.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And exactly how many public meetings have you organised over your 20(?)/years as a politician with a large and very privileged platform?

      How many since you committef hari-kari by sitting on you behind in London for six months?

      Bloody hell, I am a supporter of yours. I admire do much that you have said/done as a politician.

      But now I hate to say you sound like a scratched record. It is all of our faults but yours. Well sorry this just doesn't wash any more.

      Practice what you preach and drop the nothing is ever good enough histrionics. Give your evidence.

      God knows you must have enough of it.

      Delete
    2. Stuart you are the one who has been saying the 'Train is coming down the track' and nobody else.

      Delete
    3. A reader says: -

      “And exactly how many public meetings have you organised over your 20(?)/years as a politician with a large and very privileged platform?”

      Actually – a very significant number.

      This is an example of the failure of Jersey campaigners (or their incubus trolls) to demonstrate any competence. Do some rudimentary research, eh?

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    4. So if you have organised all of these public meetings (can't think how I missed them all- last one I attended as supporter was upon your return from London in 2010) my question is this. Why are you asking us to do again what had obviously not worked? Jersey as you and so many have rightly said is in a mess. So I repeat public meetings of which you have organised so many have achieved didly squat. So how will this help us now and when is your first meeting on the Inquiry subject?

      Delete
    5. A fair question. Answer keenly awaited. I will definitely go along though should one be forthcoming.

      Delete
  58. Come on Stuart give your evidence. This scenario was made for you. Not only that you now have the benefit of seeing how the good guys like Graham, Trevor and Bob have been short-changed and the victims with them. Stick it to the buggers my old son. You owe it to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Everybody is being short changed.
    This Inquiry is redacted as it goes along.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hunting paedophiles, Channel 4 at 9.00 pm.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Interesting article in Guardian

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/08/fall-of-jersey-how-tax-haven-goes-bust?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+Charity+appeal+081215&utm_term=142205&subid=12748902&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Ozouf, the architect of Zero-10, lost his ministerial position after last autumn’s elections, and now works as a sort of roving ambassador. It was in that capacity that we met in Jersey’s Westminster office in September. He is passionate, fluent, charming and prone to speaking in extremely long sentences, without taking a breath. He immediately launched a long denial of the existence of a black hole at all."

      Delete
  62. Stuart Syvret -
    "Do you hear that train a' coming http://photopol.blogspot.com/2015/12/power-points.html … - toot, toot! Its coming for you - "Person 373". Yes. You."

    Stuart can you promise for once that this Person 373 story will be concluded?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the avoidance of doubt.The Cipher number is "737" not "373."

      Delete
    2. Dirty Squirty Mac And A Verty9 December 2015 at 18:36

      To just tweak Zodiac Mindwarp's legendary 'primemover' smash hit...

      .
      'I CAME from the sky like a 737
      I'm a bad boy baby I fell out of Heaven...'

      Hopefully fall right into hell that is? Better late than never, eh?

      Delete
    3. Yes Stuart.
      Don't drag this till the new year, get that Train to its destination before Xmas.

      Delete
  63. So where is ex-Deputy Trevor Pitman's 208 page statement and supporting documents?

    I know things go missing at our 'independant' care Inquiry but this is becoming both blatant and ridiculous.

    All we have up of the former Deputy is his on the day 'evidence' two hours of going through the motions irrelevance about his time at ESC.

    Yet oddly we have the prior witness's evidence and statement up in full AND the witnesses after Pitman up in full.

    Excuses on a postcard to Jersey 'independant' Care Inquiry, 15 Whitewash Towers, Seaton Place, Lord Bailhache street, St.Helier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps they are awaiting legal advice. You know how long this can take in Jersey and then even at the last minute ...

      Or perhaps they are awaiting the return of one of their number from an advanced redaction course. Badly needed after the recent mess.

      Delete
    2. Really? I'm afraid to say my confidence in this Inquiry and those running it has all but ebbed away.

      Delete
    3. It is concerning to see that the days previous to Trevor's appearance have been published in full and the days after his appearance have been published in full. It could be an oversight or administrative error but it does little for the confidence in the Inquiry.

      Delete
    4. Redacted until all 208 pages have disappeared? LOL. What a farce this has become. And the biggest mugs are we who gave them the benefit of the doubt. What odds can one get on the good Deputy's lengthy testimony now being buried in a box somewhere under Property Holdings?

      Delete
    5. Understatement of the year there VFC. If it is correct that more than 200/pages are involved and attached documents that is one hell of an "administrative" error.

      Delete
    6. I think the technical term is taking the piss?

      Delete
    7. I'd probably be a little more concerned if some of Trevor's supporting documents were published and some not. The fact that none of them are published could point towards an administrative error. It is still concerning nonetheless.

      Delete
    8. Thank you for your evidence Mr Pitman. It will be on-line as soon as we get it back from our consultant advisor Mr Gradwell to whom we have sent it for analysis.

      Delete
  64. Does Deputy Mike Higgins evidence tomorrow start at 9.30 or 10.00?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Didn't your interview say Trevor Pitman had come all the way back to Jersey for this? Must be feeling a right mug now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having now read Trevor's session it is clear he was badly treated. His evidence was, in general, very interesting, including about his work with youth. There was very little of his political career and it appears the inquiry have ruled out anything to do with the Jervis Dykes case, despite it being a barometer of official attitudes then, and even more recently.

      My feeling now it that the delay in publishing his statement is (i) they are trying to exclude part of it, and (ii) they are trying to figure out how to handle the matter of the missing and/or still confidential material which he sought but has not got.

      Delete
  66. Email to the former Deputy from the Inquiry Panel?

    Dear former Deputy Pitman

    We write in regard to your witness statement and supporting documents. You will by now no doubt have noticed they are not on line with all the other evidence. We thus write to set your mind at rest.

    The crux of the matter is this. Wishing only to do the best for all we took the liberty of sending your evidence away to the mainland for analysis and redaction.

    Unfortunately in the course of this process it appears that your evidence and supporting documents have changed size, weight, shape and texture. To not beat around the bush what this actually means is this.

    You gave us 208 pages plus some 20 + documents. Unfortunately, after necessary redaction what is left is, to use a legal term fcuk all.

    We must reassure you however that this Total War - sorry redaction had nothing whatsoever to do with compelling evidence of paedophile protecting Bailiff's, Jurats or former Education Presidents.

    It also has nothing to do with protecting former Health Minister Pryke and her officers from revelation of gross neglect in regard to a recent child protection scandal.

    Nor, it should go without saying has this complete eradication - sorry, redaction of your evidence in its entirety got anything to do with your expressed support in regard to the many legal abuses orchestrated against former Senator Syvret

    In further reassuring you that despite vapourising your evidence we really have taken all of it on board, as a gesture of this reassurance and our goodwill we would like to recall you as a much valued witness for the peasants - sorry, victims.

    To this regard we advise you that we believe that we will have a vacant slot available in late January

    2049.

    Many thanks for your understanding.

    Chairman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL
      whitty but depressing

      Delete
  67. Get on with your life Trev and do so with pride. People like you and your good lady have done your bit for this uncaring island of ours. You two have paid the price for your bravery more than most too. Just like Stuart you.both should be able to ride off into the sunset and a new life without a backward glance. Jersey made its bed. Let those who did nothing while you few stood up to be counted now lie in it and face the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get on with your lives Trev, Shona, Stuart, Lenny H, Graham P.......
      but DO give us a backward glance

      and periodically remind us that "I told you so"
      You have even earned the right to take some enjoyment in saying those words
      Enjoyment, no doubt totally eclipsed with the sadness of a parent whose child suffers from unexplained psychopathic retardation and will never grow up.

      The truth hurts.
      Noses in the trough as we drown in sh1t.

      Delete
    2. Reference Trevor Pitman's appalling abuse as a witness at the hands of this Inquiry. I genuinely think it is time to stop making excuses for this panel and their lawyers. Trevor Pitman was one of our side's big guns whichever way one looks at it. His questioning by the Inquiry counsel was inadequate to the point of farce. This is excruciatingly obvious if one managed to read through his huge witness statement before it was vanished and then compare it with the ludicrous questions focussing solely on his youth service career. There can be only one explanation for this. The Jersey Establishment, hating Pitman with a degree of vitriol reserved only for Stuart Syvret and Lenny Harper similarly have pressured the Inquiry into all but pretending Pitman's evidence simply doesn't exist. No doubt in tandem with trying to undermine his credibility as a witness generally. What this all says to me is that this Inquiry may be many things. It may be the only show in town. But independent it is not. The evidence speaks for itself.

      Delete
    3. Hey - I'm going to say it - "I-Told-You-So".

      But far from the comment from of the death-threat troll below, which urges people that "yup 2016 is the year for everybody to move on" - the conduct of this fake "public inquiry" shows that - for those who want Jersey cleaned-up - 2016 has to be the year a new start is made.

      Most readers of this site will agree with the troll - and disagree with me; most readers of this site want to cling - will cling - to the futile notion that this "public inquiry" wasn't mere bullshit - which, at best, could only be a staging-pots on the path to the effective, objective rule-of-law and the proper application of the ECHR.

      The Question – facing Jersey in 2016 is - and remains - even more strongly than it was in 2007 – “does this community want the real rule-of-law?”

      It’s as simple as that.

      The conduct of this plastic, openly contemptuous excuse for a “public-inquiry” has served only to amplify that question.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  68. ---------READERS PLEASE NOTE----------10 December 2015 at 01:56

    READERS PLEASE NOTE

    The number of comments on this blog is nearing 200

    If (when) it passes that point readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they clicks on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ---------READERS PLEASE NOTE----------10 December 2015 at 15:09

      Also after the 200 comments when the "Load more..."[comments] text appears st the bottom, commenters would be well advised not to 'sub-comment' i.e. click "reply" to any comments before this point, but instead to reply on the main thread and state the 'time stamp' of the comment they are replying to.
      Otherwise readers will only find your comment id they re-read the thread after clicking "Load more..."
      Life's a Blogger!

      Delete
  69. Yup, 2016 is the year for everybody to move on.

    ReplyDelete

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