Thursday, 12 November 2015

Unhappy Anniversary. (7)

Former Police Chief 
Graham Power QPM.

Seven years ago, to the day, the then Chief Police Officer of Jersey, Graham Power QPM, was (possibly illegally) suspended from duty during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation Jersey has ever seen. (Operation Rectangle)

He was (possibly illegally) suspended by the then Home Affairs Minister, Deputy Andrew Lewis, in the only significant Ministerial Decision he made during his very short time as Home Affairs Minister. Deputy Lewis then retired from politics, for six years, only to be re-elected in 2014 as Deputy in St. Helier District ¾ under a banner of “honesty and integrity.”

When Deputy Andrew Lewis suspended Mr. Graham Power seven years ago he, and the Establishment, thought that they would achieve a quick kill, Mr. Power would walk away quietly. As mentioned in the Blog Posting of RICO SORDA “If you had said then that after 7 years of unceasing controversy they themselves would be called to give evidence under oath to attempt once again to justify their actions they would have laughed.” 

But last week they had to listen to two days of critical, and damming, evidence from the former Chief Police Officer and soon it will be their turn. Andrew Lewis, who has so far given a number of contradictory accounts of the (possibly illegal) suspension, will be called to give evidence under oath. 

Deputy Andrew Lewis.

Deputy Lewis’contradictory accounts include this account to the Island’s Parliament:

"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.” 

And this account from the Napier Review:

As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it.

Andrew Lewis further added (in the Island’s Parliament):

“If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.”

Yet according to the Metropolitan Police (OPERATION TUMA)

“The review does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle.”

Remember Andrew, telling lies on oath is called perjury! Perjury is punishable by prison (if/when we ever get the Rule Of Law in Jersey). Granted, you or any other politician, can tell lies in the States Chamber with IMPUNITY  but which of your many versions of events will you be turning up with on the day? Better get it right this time or you may have more than a bit of bad press to worry about.

Mr. Power’s statement to the COI is believed to be considerably larger than his (94 page 62,000 word) statement to the Wiltshire Constabulary. His statement to Wilts is his interim defence case that has been leaked to all island State Media but despite reporting on the prosecution case against Mr. Power, his defense case has been buried by them including the BBC   

Former AG and now 
Bailiff William Bailhache.

Mr. Power’s statement to Wilts along with a large number of other documents has been submitted to the COI. It is now hoped that it, and other documents submitted to the COI will be published on its website thus making them public documents and giving the State Media one less excuse for burying them.

It is believed that a lot of what Mr. Power had to say to the COI (in his statement) is new but was not spoken about at the hearing when he was giving evidence. One presumes that’s because it was not contested (rather than any other sinister motive). They also seemed to use Mr. Power as an "expert witness" on the history of the police and government in Jersey. Indeed perhaps too much time was spent on this and not enough time spent on his (possibly illegal) suspension. There was very little mention, or questioning of, Mr. Power’s suspension during his Public Hearing, and to be frank it seemed that it was only mentioned by counsel as a token gesture. Perhaps when Mr. Power’s transcripts are available this will make for an interesting, and informative, Blog of it own?

Also one would have hoped that more would have been mentioned in the State Media of the new evidence relating to a possible "obstruction of justice" by the then Attorney General William Bailhache. Who already has some uncomfortable QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.    

Evidence was given in 2008 that Police Officers reported to Mr. Power that children had been abused after they had knowingly been put in a situation of risk by Children’s Services and that front line police staff thought that the neglect of duty by the Civil Servants concerned was so gross that it amounted to a crime under the Children’s Law. Mr. Power asked for an opinion from the AG on the law. He (Mr. Power) said in evidence that William Bailhache responded by saying that he would have a "quiet word" with the then Chief Executive Bill (Golden Handshake) Ogley (who is being called as a witness to the COI). 

Former Assistant Health Minister
Jimmy Perchard.

It is also believed that the COI was able to obtain evidence that supported what Mr. Power was saying. He said that he was "appalled" and that this was the sort of behaviour "which had got us into this mess in the first place." The allegations should have been dealt with openly and transparently, not brushed under the carpet (The Jersey Way.) It is unclear which case was being referred to but we are led to believe it might be the one, which ended up in a civil action against the States of Jersey after the catastrophic failings of BEN SHENTON ANDJIMMY PERCHARD. “Family X”

In conclusion: I repeat the call from Rico Sorda asking Andrew Lewis, when giving evidence to the COI, to finally “do the right thing.” Rid himself of this Albatross round his neck and put those who leant on him in the frame. This could be his final opportunity to put the record straight. Your choice Andrew, what do you want to be remembered for? The bloke who never had the gonads to do the right thing or the bloke who helped put the record straight and assisted in terminating the infamous “Jersey Way?” Will you emerge as the Hero or the Villain?

The six previous “Unhappy Anniversaries” can be viewed from Below.


  1. "what do you want to be remembered for? The bloke who never had the gonads to do the right thing or the bloke who helped put the record straight"

    This really boils down to a question of whether scum bucket Lewis fears the COI and Jersey justice system more than the guys down the lodge (allegedly). Sadly the answer to that is I think plainly obvious.


    1. This is a "truth and reconciliation" moment.

      This is Andrew's chance to say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
      For those few hours he will be protected by privilege. Nothing he says at the CoI (if true!) can be used against him. His one chance to lay down that get out of jail free card.

      He will have to grit his teeth. What hold do the establishment have over him? He was always a party animal in search of a good time and a quick errr...."buck".

      The other aspect is that when this happened and he was blinking in the headlights finding himself momentarily in a "ministerial position" he was just a little boy in short pants. A boy too eager to please.
      Andrew was groomed, taken into the fold, made to make "choices", made aware of what was expected of him.
      These are the techniques used by experienced abusers to get what they want and to ensure the silence of the victim.
      Make them feel that they made choices and that it was all their fault.

      Will Andrew Lewis do the right thing and become a man?
      A man with a future.
      Like Paul Le Claire

    2. Did nobody follow the Ian Le Marquand testimony last week when he said he reviewed the suspension and carried it on?

    3. @09:44 Good point. ILM is a total shyster isn't he.

    4. To get the measure of Ian Le Marquand readers should CLICK HERE.

    5. If (allegedly) Lewis belongs to the 'funny handshake gang' there is even less chance of him telling the truth!

  2. I thought Mike Bowron was doing a great job?
    Peado Whitehouse has been charged and imprisoned under him.

    1. Classic distraction technique by 'Shitty of London' Bowron

      ....and by Jon 'Doh!' @9:07


    2. I had never seen Bowron in the flesh until two days ago. He was in uniform walking in Union St. clumsily dragging one foot slightly behind him, smiling innanely and muttering , and as for the perma-tan! Genuinely is this man OK?

    3. RE.'Shitty of London' Bowron

      VFC (true to form) was very keen to give Mike Bowron the benefit of the doubt when he was leaked news of MB's appointment:

      Perhaps VFC had not seen Mike's CV:

  3. That's what is known as a show case, mate.
    Stuart Gull is there to protect the big fish and sacrifice the little uns to make it look like Jersey gone good.

  4. Andrew Lewis is being given a second chance here by the Committee Of Enquiry to finally be rid of this burden that should be eating him up. Don't waste this opportunity Mr Lewis because what you say and do at this enquiry will define you as a person and be a part of your legacy.

    1. There is always a price to pay.

      Would a Christian really choose to pay it in this world rather than the next?

    2. There is always a price to pay.

      Would a Christian really choose to pay it in the next world, rather than this?


    3. God doesn't do typos .......or deathbed confessions

  5. The Chief Minister will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier –

    “(1) Will the Chief Minister set out for members the entire cost of the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police from October/November 2008 to the present time, breaking this sum down into –

    (a) the costs of his salary during his suspension and the salary of the Deputy Chief Officer of Police who acted up for him;
    (b) the cost of the Napier Report;
    (c) the cost of the Wiltshire Report;
    (d) the cost of the Judicial Review into his initial suspension;
    (e) the cost of time spent by the Law Officers dealing with this matter before and after his suspension;
    (f) the costs of the UK PR consultant who was employed by the States immediately before the suspension?

    (2) Is the Chief Minister satisfied that this money was well spent?”

    1. The true cost will run into the £millions. Next time Andrew Lewis, as Chairman of PAC, wants to look at money being wasted by the States he should look at his own track record first.

  6. Voice, can you tell us when former police officer Barry Faudemer is going to be giving live evidence to the public inquiry?

    A quasi-judicial process has to, obviously enough, be able to rely on the credibility of witnesses, (hence taking evidence under oath). Any party who is affected, or likely to be affected, by the process and findings of a statutory inquiry is therefore entitled to challenge the credibility of X or Y witness. Although this inquiry for unknown reasons decided to eschew legal credibility by forgoing cross-examination, it remains possible that some witnesses could appear after Mr Faudemer, and who might be in a position to suggest that the former police officer was a less than credible witness.

    Interesting times, indeed.

    1. Oh, Barry, Barry, you always were a 'nice guy', very plausible, used to even believe it yourself. Do you remember those conversations we had during the early & middle years of your paid police career? You knew what wickedness was then, that knowledge and your self-confidence in your own righteousness was a refreshing palliative to this jaundiced observer of the 'Jersey Way'. With hindsight it's not so surprising they saw in you a fine, nay, ideal candidate for 'useful idiot' status. Recruited, big-upped, displayed internationally, inserted into all the right administrative circles - the word 'groomed' seems especially fitting - and now here you are. Owned. And you know, lets face it every close observer of this end-days perturbation in the world of Jersey knows, just why you're owned. I'm sure I'm not the only interested observer who could quote certain sentences from the evidence.

      What are you going to do, Barry?

      How did the good man get here? Where did it all go wrong?

    2. I should add, Barry, there's going to come a time when even John can't save you. But you see that, surely? Though John won't grasp it, having arbitraged power in Jersey as he has done so cunningly these decades, no soldier is indispensable. There are times in every firm when made men exceed the bounds of their usefulness and are jeopardising the viability of the enterprise. That time, I'd say, is here as John's going to discover. The indisciplined overreach by the Jersey division has to be addressed with some reminders of reality. And once the hammer's dropped on John?

      Association with him won't be a source of income and protection anymore.

      On the contrary.

      Oh how cruel and taxing fate can be. You, Barry, don't deserve this. You almost were one of the good people.

  7. As I said under the previous posting, it’s useful to have a run-through the likely ‘plays’ if the Jersey public inquiry subpoenaed Stuart Syvret. So let’s assume the panel has a subpoena served on him. In broad terms there are 3 responses Syvret’s likely to consider,

    S1. Ignore the subpoena. Perhaps just publish it on his blog, explain his reasons for defying it, then wait to get jailed again.

    S2. Acknowledged the subpoena, register an immediate judicial application in respect of it, perhaps challenging the subpoena entirely, or applying for a court order to compel the public inquiry to provide him with legal representation funding.

    S3. Obey the subpoena, and turn up on the demanded date to give live evidence.

    We can all be reasonably confident Syvret’s consider all 3 options. We then need to consider the realistic moves Eversheds have available in the present circumstances,

    E1. Maintain the stand-off, in the hope that Syvret relents in the end (perhaps gambling that he’s just playing for time with all his human rights ‘worries’ and really he’s just waiting until after all of the villains have given evidence before he gives his.)

    E2. Find a way they can legally recover their position (& save face) and agree to give him unconditional legal representation.

    E3. Carry on regardless, ignoring & marginalising Syvret, take the handy opportunity to make him a main target of critical ‘findings’ in final report, and attack him for not co-operating (and keep their fingers crossed that no-one big and nasty in the real world notices that his exclusion was a constructive decision of Eversheds.)

    E4. Subpoena him, with each of the attendant risks he responds as in S1, S2 or S3 above.

    I invite comments and thoughts on the chess board we face. There are risks & downsides for both our players in each of their available moves. Let’s explore those.

    For what it’s worth, I’m confident of the 3 Syvret options, he wouldn’t choose No.1. In my assessment, that leaves him with the moves 2 & 3.

    But perhaps my chess is rusty and I’ve missed plays?

    1. Got to be S2 ?

      Then what would the the planet-Jersey court judgement on the judicial application?

      If S2 wins legal representation then what could the Eversheds La La land response be to nightmare situation?

      If S2 loses, do we revert to S1 imprisonment !!!!!!!! and look like a banana republic?
      and after all that has happened would the Jersey population take this travesty lying down? This island could be brought to a standstill by a few hundred determined volunteers. Would Jersey police use Tazers in response to peaceful protest? Would there be enough support for a sort of general strike? -there is no precedent for this in Jersey.

    2. Move S1 would be a nightmare for Eversheds, but not as much as a nightmare as S2 and S3 would be. But I wouldn't discount S1 as a possible Syvret move. After the last 2 years he's gained rightful standing in the broad UK and international #CSAinquiry campaign & developed influential contacts. The Jersey establishment dodged under the radar screen with their Stalinistic imprisonment of him the last 2 times. Do it again, and I think they get a firestorm on their hands this time. But that said, I agree, S1 least likely move by Stuart.

      I'm thinking that whilst S2 is probably his response to the subpoena, because another chain of events flow from it, he could still surprise everyone and go with S3 and just show up on the summoned day to give live evidence. Oh, that would be a nightmare for the panel, Eversheds & their Jersey Establishment bosses. Very few people would be capable of adopting that tactic, but Syvret is a brilliant unscripted public speaker, a natural orator and a formidable debater. I say this as someone who observed him in the States. and then in court, when day in and day out he trounced supposed big time Advocates like Stephen Baker and Stuart had to hand over his law books to the judges so they could keep up with his arguments. The prospect of the Eversheds lawyers taking him on when, in the case of a live, non-pre-scripted hearing he would be setting the course with his testimony, and they have to be responding to it there and then, would be laughable. The panel would be having to be acting in just the same way as Jersey's corrupt judiciary, and constantly interrupting him, attempting to deflect his testimony, telling him he can't say that, preventing him from making his case, failing to disguise their fear and hatred of him, deeming his evidence and testimony "not relevant" once it becomes clear that evidence is damning on the establishment, etc, having to be trying on the hoof to make 'protected witness' rulings left, right & centre to carry on delivering state provided secrecy and protection to every real scumbag he named, and generally showing their bias to the world.

      Yes, thinking about that, Eversheds has chosen a strategy of prior, behind closed doors interviews with all witnesses so far, and have then constrained the witnesses statements in written form, and constrained them even further in respect of the particular, and often not very relevant, questions asked by their house trained lawyer solely on the basis of the pre-known and shaped 'statement'. Which of course a big team of Eversheds and Establishment lawyers have then had lots of lucrative time to pick over and devise their questioning, (ensuring its in the main useless , and either minimizes or ignores the key testimony of the witness) before the day of the hearing.

      And just think how a live, real unprescripted appearance by Stuart would clash with their stupidly short time spans for hearing witnesses who, in any real public inquiry would have been questioned for days, in some cases weeks. Stuart's opening unscripted testimony would go on for days, just his opening statement, before they even got on to cross examination.

      I vote for the S3 play. Now that would pack out the public gallery. It'd be like the days of the Colosseum.

    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    4. I inadvertently published a comment that was in poor taste and have removed it. If the commenter would like to re-submit without the reference to the late Advocate then it should be acceptable for publication.

    5. RESUBMITTED: Terribly sorry VFC. Always a pleasure to be a guest at "Château Voice".
      Shall try not to let spill anything else unsavoury :-)
      Respect need for sensitivity and political correctness but do feel you take it a bit far in the circumstances.

      "It'd be like the days of the Colosseum" .....Except that on this occasion the lone "Christian" would savage the lions and then likely take the opportunity to publicly piss on the paper caesars in the royal-box.

      Syvret is of course more of a humanist, but he is more "Christian" than the Faux-Christians who dominate this island. That must make them hate Syvret all the more!

      Very interesting observations regarding the "Sanitization" of evidence and witnesses prior to presentation at the CoI. This corresponds to an interesting observation by Póló on the runaround Bob Hill was given at:

      Also interesting observations above regarding option S3, but is this a pantomime island where they could find an excuse for clearing the public gallery (or "pre-book" it for TeamPaedo players) and find a reason for holding Syvret's evidence in camera?
      Is there a mechanism for Syvret to be held in contempt by the CoI, for being contemptuous of their contemptible behaviour?
      These "switch the lights off and change the rules" tactics by TeamPaedo could also equally apply to option S2, but Syvret would at least have conventional legal backup who could burst out laughing on his behalf ......prior to arguing the toss

      Also, a variant on the TeamPaedo response to option S2 is to refuse Syvret's right to his own choice of council and to say that he can have the legal representation appointed by THEM.
      TeamPaedo have form for this in previous jailings of Ex-Health Minister Syvret.
      BTW, Why did [reference to the late Advocate REMOVED]? Mid life crisis or something else?

    6. All hypothetical. Not only is it unlikely the inquiry would want to make a martyr of Syvret - something, I'm sure, he'd be only too happy to oblige - but his thoughts and experiences are all very well documented, mainly by him. These are in the public domain and as such are available to the inquiry. I'd put money on their never being any subpoena.

    7. "All hypothetical"
      .....errrr Isn't that the general idea with a "what if" discussion??????

      But yes the CoI have quoted off the blog so they can't claim not to know it exists.

      If this is adequate for the main whistleblower witness then why are they bothering with all the evidence and transcripts etc. etc...................

      Of course it is not adequate. They are either running a CoI or a farce!

  8. Did people commenting on here miss this paragraphs?

    "Evidence was given in 2008 that Police Officers reported to Mr. Power that children had been abused after they had knowingly been put in a situation of risk by Children’s Services and that front line police staff thought that the neglect of duty by the Civil Servants concerned was so gross that it amounted to a crime under the Children’s Law. Mr. Power asked for an opinion from the AG on the law. He (Mr. Power) said in evidence that William Bailhache responded by saying that he would have a "quiet word" with the then Chief Executive Bill (Golden Handshake) Ogley (who is being called as a witness to the COI)."

    William Bailhache's as the Attorney General having "a quiet word" with Bill Ogley when there might have been crimes committed against children by the officers he was responsible for.

    Doesn't anybody find this alarming or is it now accepted as "The Jersey Way" and doesn't merit comment?

    1. Wot! isn't that the normal way of dealing with things?

  9. The care enquiry don't give a hoot if Stuart gives evidence or not. Its that simple. Not sure which number that comes under.

    1. I think it was position E69 ?

      Yup, maybe if they keep their heads down no one will notice that Eversheds are doing the whoring at the bidding of the Bangkok Pimp.

      They wish! The world changed while they weren't looking.

    2. and when Eversheds are done with the "business in hand"
      and pocketed the wad
      will they spit or will they swallow?

      At least a conventional whore can wash herself/himself clean afterwards
      and could even go to sleep with the satisfaction of a job well done
      and good PR by word-of-mouth to build the client base.

      Eversheds' stains can follow them to their graves
      (and, who knows, maybe beyond)

    3. I really admire the work you've done for survivors Rico, but I think you're wrong when you say the COI 'couldnt give a hoot' if Stuart gives evidence or not'. He's a key witness and public inquiries are expected to interview all key witnesses. It's their job and it's what a public inquiry is brought into existence for. I think you're displaying a poor understanding of what are the binding necessities on the COI and worse than that, you're letting them off the hook of their responsibilities. The point is Rico, the COI don't actually have any choice. They have to interview all key witnesses. Interviewing the known key witnesses is not something they have the luxury of 'not giving a hoot' about. It's recognised in law that there'll be occasions when witnesses to some controversy might not want to give evidence. That's why the law gives the COI the power to compel attendance. In such a case a COI facing an intransigent witness HAS to use that power. This is a dimension I think that's been missing from this whole discussion for a year. People don't seem to understand that the issue of whether Stuart is called to give evidence to the COI is a decision of the COI, not of Stuart. The COI doesn't have a legally credible choice in this. They have to summon him, regardless of the consequences. I repeat, they don't have a choice. The law requires them to summons him.

    4. That's surely right @19:11
      Makes it all the more amazing that in full public view Eversheds are keeping their heads down position E69, &(ignoring the fact that establishment nether regions have not even been washed for years!)

      But for Eversheds Jersey is a side show. A pushover with a controlled population who render themselves powerless and are even gullible enough to re-elect the likes of Andrew Lewis in spite of what he has done and what he has shown himself to be. Eversheds are lawyers to the UK cover up, to Special branch and probably the security services. The forces who protected and even made use of Power-Paedophilia for decades on the Mainland and Northern Ireland.

      The CoI has revealed much and has thrown shreds of comfort to islanders and victims. Nonetheless the Conduct of this CoI is already beyond belief and the entirely credible pro-bone legal advice is that Jersey taxpayers CAN RECOVER THEIR MONEY from Eversheds !!!!!


      Eversheds can return their "immoral earnings" or perhaps reveal a secret contract clause authorising the misconduct and cover up which case we have a few more local villains to hang by their bits.

  10. Replies
    1. These were actually THREE Serious Case Reviews dealt with as one

      Amongst the recommendations:
      the voice of children should be reflected at every stage, to make sure that their wishes and feelings are taken into account in the decisions made about their ongoing care.

      "First and foremost I would like to say sorry to these children and their families. I would also like to thank them for participating in the SCR process; their insights have contributed greatly to our understanding of what happened and why.
      All staff and all professional groups must work effectively together and we must create a new culture; one in which we challenge each other."

      Empty words?
      Is Routier one of the ones who needs to apologise to Stuart Syvret, the Health Minister who was sacked for taking on the Civil Service and identifying these very problems, prior to the last decade of denial?

      Anyone who thinks that Jersey children are now safe is living in fairyland.
      The rule of law is a prerequisite for the protection of the public and children.

      The Establishment has even formalised their control of the Police under their fake Police Authority.


      "I will recount the detail of this episode in a later post, for now it’s sufficient to know that I was barracked, shouted-down and unlawfully prevented from giving my speech by the Jersey Oligarchy.
      As the meeting was curtailed, I stood looking around the States chamber as members rushed off for their lunch, and the abiding memory for me was experiencing a sensation akin to trying to swim across a lake of vomit and putrefaction."

  11. Why do you think the COI is going to chase Stuart through the courts to give evidence? That's ridiculous. This is full steam ahead with him or without him. Stuart doesn't recognise a jersey court so wouldn't turn up. Not rocket science. They know that, we know that and Stuart knows that. This isn't about one person. No one is more important than the other.

    1. We know that the CONi has no intention of subpoenaing Syvret, because they and their client do not want his evidence and appears to be ignoring it's statutory obligation to do so with an escapade into legal La La land

      As a result of this the Commission Of Non-inquiry can only produce a final report out of La La land. They know that, we know that and Stuart knows that.

      The final report will be seen for what it is. It's hand wringing contents will still be damning so this attempt at protecting the higher echelons can only damage Jersey more.

      The UK lawyer gives the following advice

      "I haven't contacted the public inquiry and asked that Syvret be subpoenaed because I have no locus, no 'standing', to do so. I have no direct particular 'interest' in the legal sense in the Jersey child-abuse issues and I'm not even a resident of the island. Were I to write to the inquiry making such a request they'd refuse on those grounds. However, any person who can show a reasonable 'interest' in the subject matter of the inquiry, for example individual survivors, survivor representative organisations, involved whistle-blowers, campaigners who can demonstrate a genuine long-term involvement in the subject, etc will have the necessary 'interest' and 'locus' to ask that Syvret be summonsed. And the same is true for criminals, the culpable. They too have the right to require any key witness be summoned. I'm assuming no one has asked the public inquiry to subpoena Syvret as I imagine there'd be publicity if they had? It would be reported in the media, or at least on the blogs? Syvret himself I imagine would have something to say about it. Let me also put it this way, if a person or group with the necessary 'standing' has in fact asked the public inquiry to subpoena Syvret, and the inquiry has refused to do so, then it's vitally important for your case that that fact be made public. You should ensure the correspondence get's published on your blog. Documents like the e-mail or letter of request, and the corresponding written refusal from the public inquiry. If such a process and exchange has taken place, then what 'reasoned explanation' has been given, if any, for the decision to refuse to subpoena Syvret? As I say, I'm assuming that process has not yet taken place. But if it has and the panel has refused to summon Syvret, then that itself would be damning and very necessarily material which should be made public. On the face of things I can see no remotely lawful ground on which this public inquiry would or could refuse to summon an indisputably key witness."

    2. Also

      "My understanding of the Syvret position is that he was concerned with the legal consequences of a number of the protocols draw up by Eversheds and rubber-stamped by the 3 member panel. One the things he needed legal advice for was to answer his concerns about those protocols. Basicly, his suspicion about the protocols was shown to be correct by the instant refusal by Eversheds to let him have legal funding with which he could question the protocols. As usual, he hit target.

      Looking at the resultant stand-off Eversheds, very unwisely, decided to press on regardless without engaging Syvret even though he's a core witness, on the gamble that he'd eventually cave-in and engage with the inquiry anyway. Good luck with that.

      The consequence is that Eversheds took a punt at the beginning of this process and gambled that they could doubly satisfy their clients by avoiding the messy business of primary engagement with stakeholders by ignoring part (e) of the decision of your legislature, and keep their fingers crossed and hope no-one noticed. But if anyone did get stroppy about it, they had in reserve the insurance-policy that they had the resources to just brazen it out, and no-one on the side of the good guys would have the resources to challenge them. Unfortunately for Eversheds and their clients, into that 'clever-clever' plan stepped Syvret. The result is they're running a public inquiry which is obviously and on numerous grounds unlawful, and which, far from delivering the 'line under the controversy' sought by Evershed's paymasters, they've instead delivered just another layer of obvious corruption, another example of attempted child-abuse cover-up, which is now in the mix as a part of the culture of concealment that Britain's authorities are unavoidably going to have to come to terms with.

      As a professional I'm very confident that, in the fulness of time, once you have a better legislature, your government will be able to recover every penny of fees that have been paid to Eversheds on the plain and evidenced grounds of gross professional incompetence. Look, Jersey tax-payers have spent their millions on this public inquiry, in the expectation that what they're getting for that payment is a public inquiry that meets the basic competencies, and satisfies the basic requirements of vires. They haven't got that. Instead they've been ripped-off by Eversheds with a process so incompetent it imagined it could go on its merry way whilst constructively excluding the key whistleblower witness.

      Note my advice. Your government, if comprising people of sufficient calibre and the right political determination, can recover your money from Eversheds."

    3. Rico, your intransigence and repeated willful ignorance on the subject of Syvret being called as a witness is starting to trouble to me. Who speaks to you on this issue? What influences are you under? Has someone been 'advising' you on this? I have to ask because you're just so wrong about this there has to be an explanation.

      Not for the first time you seem to be almost frightened of the prospect of the public inquiry meeting its statutory duty and summonsing Syvret. It just doesn't make any sense.

      Here is what you say, 'Why do you think the COI is going to chase Stuart through the courts to give evidence? That's ridiculous. This is full steam ahead with him or without him. Stuart doesn't recognise a jersey court so wouldn't turn up. Not rocket science. They know that, we know that and Stuart knows that. This isn't about one person. No one is more important than the other.'

      That set of assertions by you Rico is so wrong its hard to know where to start. Firstly, as another commenter suggested there are several options facing Syvret, and him just ignoring a subpoena is most unlikely. It's far more likely that he takes the subpoena to court and uses the opportunity to successfully force the COI to stop breaking the law, and provide him with legal representation. There are limits to just how corrupt even your courts can be. Look, the public inquiry is a statutory quasi-judicial inquisitorial body. It can no more fail to call a known, key witness, than could any criminal or civil trial in a court fail to call a key witness. What is obviously one of the fundamental things to have gone wrong in Jersey? Clearly, its the failure of statutory bodies in Jersey to obey and meet their legal obligations. You Rico, in increasingly puzzling desperation seem hell-bent on defending and supporting the continuance of that Jersey failure, by supporting a COI that is failing to meet its unavoidable, obligatory lawfully compulsory obligations by it a) refusing to give a key witness legal funding, and b) failing to call a known key witness. I repeat, the COI is legally obliged to act in certain ways. Far from it being 'ridiculous' for the COI to summons Syvret and enforce his attendance (& give him a lawyer) the way they're acting now, unlawfully, is what is 'ridiculous'. The COI must subpoena Syvret, because the COI doesn't have any choice in the matter. It is legal obliged to subpoena Syvret.

      It looks increasingly likely that someone has 'got to you' Rico and filled your head with nonsense. The sight of any Jersey campaigner supporting a COI in acting unlawfully in the customary 'the Jersey Way', and agreeing with and supporting the unlawful denial of legal representation to your sides's key whistleblower is 'obviously ridiculous'.

  12. Someone has got to me??? Are you having a laugh. The COI Is going on. Stuart has decided to not attend it. That's it. No lengthy court cases required. That's the truth. No need for war n peace replies.

    1. OK Rico, have it your way. But there is no escaping the fact that by being an apologist for the COI in not summonsing Syvret, what you're supporting is, a) unlawful, b) wrong & not in the interests of transparent inquiry, and c) just what the Jersey Establishment wants. You are obviously and simply wrong, Rico. I hope for their sake there are survivors reading this who'll act independently and regardless of your bad advice on this question, write to the COI and require it to summon Syvret so those survivors ultimately get the benefit of Syvret's testimony.

    2. I too am perplexed by Rico's position on this.

      Rico is a reasonably intelligent guy and is very knowledgeable and chances are that we are not privy to all the information he has.

      There are other aspects like the threats to the whistleblower Health Minister's life or the understandable emotional concern that survivors get their CoI (in whatever form)
      This does look like an emotional reaction. If it is a well though out response then Rico seems unwilling to share what is behind it or explain why the (legal) advice and analysis is wrong

      Without such a central witness it will be a Commission Of Non-inquiry
      It is a fatal error to play by their rules.

  13. This is a good time to restate our gratitude and respect for our Jersey (& UK) bloggers and campaigners.

    Our thoughts and prayers are with Bob Hill and his family.

    Those with only a passing interest will not appreciate just how demanding and time consuming this work is. In addition to the workload it can be fraught with dilemmas, stress and uncertainty.

    This is even without the unwarranted attention from the Jersey authorities or their unofficial (but protected and funded) representatives.

    Play audio at

    Male Nurse M:

    It is unlikely that any campaigner has escaped the attention of Jersey's protected thugs:

    Having failed to intimidate Jersey's more resilient campaigners Team-Peado turned their attention to the blogger's nearest and dearest. Rico's wife came under sustained attack even though she was pregnant, seriously unwell and at risk of loosing her baby. Despite being furnished with the evidence Bowron's Police refused to investigate:

    We are all aware that tireless campaigner Bob Hill has been getting older but his stroke has been a shock nonetheless. Age and stress are all factors which can contribute to stroke.

    I have not yet had time to read Bob Hill's evidence to the CoI/CONi but I am very concerned by the apparently gratuitous way in which he was treated. One suspects that this was done in order to make his evidence as difficult and disjointed as possible:

    "Póló 8 November 2015 at 09:06
    I don't know where [Counsel to the Inquiry] Patrick Saad was coming from, but to my reading, you were treated disgracefully.

    The inquiry was hopping all over the place, interrupting you, not having the relevant quotes always up on the screen, and so on.

    I have appeared before parliamentary committees of politicians, many of whom were grandstanding in a disgraceful manner, but I never had to contend with the runabout you were put through.

    Much of your testimony was from intelligent analysis of what was reported to be going on around you. And that was perfectly valid. In your testimony, it is made to look like a fault just because you were not directly at the receiving end of much of what was reported.

    Without the blogs, much of the analysis would not have been done in the first place because the source material would still be locked up or destroyed.

    Just as well submissions are all being published. That interrogation did not do you justice."

    Good luck Bob.

    As for the bad guys and their over zealous representatives; May their god teat them mercifully
    (but not too mercifully!)

  14. Public witnesses this week :

    Day 11120 Nov 2015

    ​09:00 Public witness

    ​Michael Gradwell

    Day 11019 Nov 2015

    ​10:00 Tbc

    14:00 Public witness


    Deputy Michael Higgins

    Day 10918 Nov 2015

    ​10:00 Public witness

    14:00 Public witness

    ​Trevor Pitman

    Andre Bonjour

    Day 10817 Nov 2015

    10:00 Public witness

    14:00 Public witness

    Ian Le Marquand

    Daniel Scaife


  15. Roy Boschat's claim against the States of Jersey Police has been thrown out. He had all the time in the world to bring a case within the normal time limits, but failed to do so. That's what the judgement says.

    It's an interesting read, and gives even more background on the serious professional standards issues that Lenny Harper had to deal with.

    Nevertheless, in a States Assembly proposition scheduled for 1st December 2015, Deputy Terry McDonald wants to give £360,000 of taxpayers' money - our money - to Mr Boschat.

    I do hope that all of the Harper/Boschat correspondence is given a proper airing in the States debate. Team Voice, perhaps you could draw the attention of the sensible States members with whom you are in contact to make sure that they are fully informed of all the circumstances?

    It beggars belief that Deputy Terry McDonald thinks this is an appropriate thing to do.

    By the way, I am not posting this under your Bob Hill posting as it would not be appropriate

  16. Anyone know who is appearing tomorrow as an anonymous witness ?

    Day 11019 Nov 2015

    ​10:30 Anonymous witness
    Evidence relating to working within Jersey Residential Care Homes

  17. Bit of a pattern developing here?

    Anonymous18 November 2015 at 22:48
    Shocking betrayal of all people like Bob have fought for in the truly abysmal range of questioning put to Bob's former colleague Trevor Pitman today at the Care Inquiry. This was a key witness by anyone's standards and the Care Inquiry wasted him. No wonder more and more people are reluctantly concluding this just another whitewash. Maybe Philip Bailhache was right in wanting it closed down - if for all the wrong reasons. Frankly he and the other untouchables really need not have worried.

    Anonymous19 November 2015 at 08:04
    Absolutely so true. It was just a quick 'whizz through' of his time as a Youth Worker, and no interest shown in the remainder of his very relevant evidence which I know he had taken a lot of time and effort to collate and prepare. Shockingly amiss on the part of the CoI and hugely disappointing for Trevor. However, being the feisty character he is he did take the opportunity to put some strong opinions across.

    I too sadly am now starting to have my doubts. I just hope I am proved wrong.


    Being shamefully jerked around in an already stressful situation is very likely to have been a contributory factor in Bob Hills stroke a few days later.

    Thank you [not] Commission Of Non-inquiry