Wednesday, 6 January 2016

Jersey Lieutenant Governor and "Crown Interest(s)"


Current Lieutenant Governor.
(Credit JEP photo)

What does the term “Crown Interests” mean exactly and who is responsible for them in Jersey? Who are Crown appointees and who appoints them?

We know that the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and the lieutenant Governor are Crown Appointees but as far as my limited knowledge on the subject (of Crown Appointees and Crown Interests) goes I believe it is the Lieutenant Governor who represents the interest(s) of the Crown in Jersey.

The Jersey Government House WEBSITE has a short “job description” of the LG but it is a little sparse on any real detail, including any accountability, who is he accountable to if he becomes part of the Jersey rot and corruption?

What does his job entail exactly? I see it that he has (Crown) responsibility for the rule of law and good governance on this Crown Dependency of Jersey. Is he adequately preforming this role? Who is watching over him? How is he appointed? Who appoints him?

According to Government House website (above link) “The Lieutenant-Governor is appointed by Her Majesty The Queen for a period of 5 years to be her personal representative and impartial adviser.”

But according to WIKIPEDIA: In 2010 it was announced that the next Lieutenant Governor would be recommended to the Crown by a Jersey panel, thus replacing the previous system of the appointment being made by the Crown on the recommendation of UK ministers.”

So the people he is supposed to be watching over recommend him to the Crown? Who exactly is on this “Jersey Panel” that recommends him for appointment? According to the BBC “A selection panel made up ofthe Bailiff, a senior Jurat and a member of the appointments commission wouldthen make the decision.” 
How can it be that the very people he should be grassing up for any wrongdoing effectively get to appoint him? Why is there no mention of this change in the appointment process on Government House’ website?


William Bailhache.

The Chief of Police is not a “Crown appointee.”  He is appointed by the States but thereafter becomes (according to a legal opinion by William Bailhache) an "Officer of the Crown."
This is explained in paragraph 458 of former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power’s statement to the ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry:

“458. During my time in office there were many examples of ways in which there were subtle attempts by Ministers to control the SOJP. At one point, there was a draft employment law being debated where Ministers would be responsible for disciplining police officers and it was also suggested that they should be “employees” of the States. I asked the Attorney General (William Bailhache) for support and he gave a helpful opinion that police officers were not “employees” but “officers of the crown.” I cannot avoid observing that being an “officer of the crown” did not do me much good when I was removed from office at the stroke of a pen by a single politician. I do not remember the representative of the Crown, HM Lieutenant Governor for Jersey, having much visible influence in the matter.”(END)

Surely it must have been of interest to the Crown when (officer of the crown) Graham Power QPM, was (possibly illegally) suspended by the then Home Affairs Minister ANDREW LEWIS?  But apparently NOT.

Regular readers will recall that the former Chief of Police (after being possibly illegally suspended) wrote a letter to the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC), which was NOT shared with the Committee by its Chairman Constable Juliette Gallichan.

VFC published this letter HERE and strongly recommend that readers take a close look at it. It’s difficult to single out the most damming paragraph but offer this one as an example of the letter’s content and alleged criminality and of “a government within a government.”

“It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.
On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.” (END)

We know by the statement submitted, by the former Police Chief, to the ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry that the Lieutenant Governor (Crown Appointee with responsibility for the rule of law and good governance in the island) received a copy of Mr. Power’s letter to the PPC.

So this begs the question whether the LG considered what it revealed to be "good governance?" If he did then one has to wonder what he thought bad governance would look like? If it was not good governance then what exactly did he do about it and where can we read about the outcome?

Letter of acknowledgment from LG.

The relevant paragraph of Mr. Power’s statement to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, which reveals the LG received the letter to PPC, is paragraph 571 but it needs to be read in the context of paragraph 569-571 reproduced below.

“569. I believed then and I believe now that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis conspired to commit perjury in respect of the circumstances leading to my suspension. I drew my overall concerns to the attention of the Jersey Authorities by way of my letter to the Privileges and Procedures Committee dated 30 October 2009, attached as my Exhibit GP71

570. On 13 November I had a reply from the chair of the committee, Juliette Gallichan, saying that they would not deal with my complaints. The response is attached as my Exhibit GP72. I subsequently learned that the matter was not in fact put before the committee and members learned of it indirectly at a later date. Given that I had provided detailed evidence indicating that a number of senior government figures had apparently conspired to commit serious falsehoods, the response I received was disappointing but not surprising.

571. The letter was shared among a number of friends and supporters who were assisting me at the time. It appears that someone within that group sent a copy of my letter to the Lieutenant Governor for Jersey. I know this because I received an acknowledgement dated 4 November 2009, at Exhibit GP73, which appears to assume that I sent the letter which was not the case. The responsibilities of the Lieutenant Governor include the “good governance” of the Island. It is not known what action if any was taken in response to receiving a copy of my letter.”(END)


Constable Juliette Gallichan.

Juliette Gallichan's response to Graham Power was published HERE. Note the Committee (PPC) Was not made aware either of Mr. Power's letter to PPC or of the Chairman's (Juliette Gallichan's)reply. 

Did the Crown “OK” the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former police chief? Did the LG mention (to the crown) the alleged illegality contained in the letter sent to the Privileges and Procedures Committee and received by the LG himself if not why not?

As far as I understand it, the LG exists in order to represent British Crown interests in the Island and part of his remit is to observe and come to a view on whether the Island has "Good Governance" and can therefore be left to its own affairs or whether there are any grounds for UK intervention?

The letter, from Graham Power to PPC, draws to the attention of the reader a sequence of events which cast serious doubts upon the integrity of the Island's government at the highest level. It falls plainly within the remit of any interest in "Good Governance" and yet we know nothing about what (if anything) the LG did. It might be that things were done behind the scenes. If they were their effects were/are not visible. 

The existence of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry now raises an interesting question. The Inquiry has repeatedly and publically asked for anyone with relevant evidence to make contact with them. It could be argued that for anyone in public office to be in possession of evidence and not to declare that evidence to the Inquiry is a breach of duty. Particularly as the Inquiry is being repeatedly drawn into the question of whether the Islands institutions are capable of providing a level of protection of the vulnerable which meets UK standards. 

So has the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry asked the LG, to give evidence if not, why not?  Will he be offering evidence from the files on the whole episode, which will undoubtedly exist in Government House? Does Government House have a view to offer? If not, then exactly what use are they when evidence of corruption and malpractice lands on their desk? Does this make the LG (the crown) complicit in the Jersey cover-up?

The Lieutenant Governor MUST be called as a witness to the Child Abuse Inquiry, as Must Juliette Gallichan.

207 comments:

  1. Part 1 of 2

    As a person with some working knowledge of employment law but by no means an expert, I would like to raise the heretical question of whether, apart from the absurdity of the Lieutenant Governor being selected by a Jersey panel, the current criteria for the post is in any event unlawful, on the basis of it being in breach of discrimination laws and of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which prohibits discrimination. It is probable that in consequence of this illegality many suitable people are disqualified from applying for the position. Before too many folk choke on their Calvados, I ask that they read the reasoning which I shall attempt to set out below.
    The advertisements for the post which I have seen in the past have specified a requirement that candidates have experience in a senior rank in the armed forces and are able to undertake the role of Commander in Chief of the armed forces in the island. It is apparently always the case that the successful candidate has been a General in the Army or equivalent in the Navy or Air force. But hang on. Just when exactly has a Jersey Governor actually been required to exercise military command apart from when Churchill was still alive? I cannot think of any occasion in modern times when any Governor has been required to act as Commander in Chief, and if he was, I suspect that he would be quickly usurped by a serving military officer from the UK. What he (and it is always a he, but more of that later) is actually required to do for much of the time is to attempt to manage the increasingly complex constitutional and legal interface between Jersey and the UK, and I suspect that they do not teach too much of that at Sandhurst.
    The practical effect of the requirement to fulfil the Commander in Chief role is that candidates are drawn from what is effectively an exclusive boy’s club, in which most members share a similar background and view of the world. The club might be exclusive but it is nevertheless bloated, and opportunities to re-locate members in a quiet number offshore may be welcome. The top-heavy nature of the British military establishment has been commented on elsewhere, but by way of illustration, the Royal Navy has for some time employed significantly more Admirals than it has ships, and the Army now appears to have reached the point at which it has at least as many Generals as it has tanks. (Anyone wanting to study these figures in more detail, could do worse than read the excellent book “Losing Small Wars” by Frank Ledwidge.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part 2 of 2

    So it is from this military boys club that the Governor is appointed. But is that right or even legal? I have experienced enough of the pitfalls of employment law in the UK to know that it is not enough for an employer to avoid direct discrimination, such as by advertising for a “barmaid,” but that there is also a legal requirement to ensure that the terms of any vacancy are not set out in a way which has an indirect discriminatory effect. For example, one UK employer which claimed to be advertising vacancies on an equal basis was found to be at fault because they had unreasonably fixed their terms and conditions in a way which made it near impossible for a woman with a family to occupy the post. Similar considerations apply to ethnicity and other personal characteristics. It is for the employer to demonstrate that all of the conditions of the post meet the requirements of equal opportunities, or if they do not, any conditions can be justified on an objective basis.
    So would the apparent requirement that any potential Jersey Governor has an armed forces background “stand up in court?” (By that I mean a proper tribunal or court, not a Jersey one.) On the face of it I think not. This is not just an academic point. It has a real cost to the Island. There are out there in the big world people of all genders, ethnicity and backgrounds who have legal, diplomatic, public service or other relevant experience which would be of value to the Island. But they are not even allowed to be considered. It might be argued that this is a Royal appointment and is therefore not subject to the laws which affect ordinary folk. There could be something in that but in response I make two points. The first is that it is surely a convention for the Crown to follow the guidance of its own laws wherever it can, and secondly, I have a clear recollection of Prince Charles being taken to a tribunal over his own employment practices a while ago. Is there any other reader out there with the necessary legal or employment background to take this argument any further? Or is Jersey to remain stuck with an arrangement apparently designed to ensure that the Lieutenant Governor is always the “right sort of chap” who can take his place in the feudal hierarchy?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So Bailiff's and Jurats - people we know collude with and protect paedophiles - are responsible for appointing - in real terms - the Queen's representative meant to keep them in check? No wonder judicial abuse has become the favoured form of local political oppression.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Trevor's statement back up on Jersey Inquiry site. Dynamite.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At last Trevor Pitman's statement is back up? Could he confirm on this site what reason he was given for its removal in the first place? And could he tell as what, if any, changes or redactions have been made to it?

      Thanks

      Delete
    2. Does anybody know when Lenny Harper is due to give his evidence?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 6 January 2016 at 13:29.

      Trevor will answer your questions this evening.

      Anonymous 6 January 2016 at 13:55.

      Mr. Harper, and his legal representative, are awaiting confirmation (from the COI) concerning the Giving of Mr. Harper’s evidence (or not). Mr. Harper’s legal representative, as I understand it, has had to give the COI a deadline to respond. The deadline is tomorrow……..May be more to follow…………

      Delete
    4. Perhaps they are having some difficulty getting the required assurances from the establishment regarding him coming to Jersey.

      Or perhaps the COI/Oligarchy would be just as glad if he never came.

      Delete
    5. Dynamite indeed. Explosive! I just hope he has someone watching his back because I can there being an attempt at revenge from the powers that be. Among so many fascinating instances I can see why Trevor has been so disgusted at not being questioned on the disappeared boxes of hidden HDLG evidence. This ought to be ringing alarm bells for the Inquiry team but is it?

      Delete
    6. I must admit I have never been able to agree with all of the former Deputy's politics not being a full blown Leftie.

      But what I will say is he sure has a lot of balls, especially after all that has been done to him and his wife.

      Good to see someone speaking up for Syvret for all his faults as well.

      Delete
  5. As you may remember VFC, sometime ago, I wrote a detailed set of FOI questions to the relevant authorities in the UK, a number of which questions raised the very issues you touch upon in this article, and raised a number of further, related issues.

    Notwithstanding the fact - as you point out – these question are fundamental to the very safety of basic governance in the Crown Dependency of Jersey – and there is no other authority from which this information could be obtained – the response of the Whitehall mandarins was treat the questions as though they were some kind of irrelevancy or trivial matter, and refused to answer any of them on the grounds of supposed “cost”.

    They refused to answer even one question.

    The real reasons the “Friends At Court At Whitehall” – to use the infamous phrase of a previous Lieutenant Governor – refused to answer the questions is mixture of (a), they couldn’t answer them – because no thought – and no legally safe or credible policy, or administrative decisions had ever been applied to the issues raised in the questions, and (b), the answers to many of the questions would have been – plainly – damning, either in substance, or the underlying acts of omission.

    So we have a Whitehall apparatus which is – by its own admission – ultimately responsible for good governance, the rule of law, proper administration of justice, and the application of the ECHR in the Crown Dependencies – but which simply refuses to answer reasonable questions about its policies, methods and practices in discharging that self-admitted public policy and constitutional responsibility.

    I had a meeting with the former Lieutenant Governor Andrew Ridgway in late 2007 and briefed him on the numerous examples of plain criminality – of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in a public office – which was being engaged in by a number of senior civil-servants and others in respect permitting and unlawfully concealing child-abuse.

    He was wholly uninterested, plainly didn’t possess even the first grasp of the legal, constitutional and democratic implications of what I was informing him of, and he treated me with contempt.

    Quite aside from his involvement in and support for the subsequent Jersey oligarchy child-abuse cover-up, the man was, and is obviously an ignorant fool.

    He was later instrumentally involved in endorsing the illegal suspension of the good Police Chief Graham Power – and also instrumental in the astonishingly un-constitutional, anti-democratic and suppressive exclusion of the USA journalist Leah McGrath Goodman from the UK.

    Not only is the commenter above – who raises the question of compliance with Article 14 of the ECHR, and compliance with employment law – absolutely correct on those points, the situation is far worse. There are many, many aspects of the Office of Lieutenant Governor which are non-compliant with a number of Articles of the ECHR, non-compliant with UK law, and non-compliant with administrative law. For exmaple, the oversight role of Lieutenant Governor in respect of the Jersey “judicial-function” is itself wholly non-compliant with Article 6 of the ECHR, given the post-holder is chosen by, and routinely socialises with, becomes friends with, the very people who he is supposed to be monitoring and regulating, via Crown authority, for the proper protection of the great majority of Her Majesty’s ordinary subjects in Jersey.

    It is also unlawful for a “public authority” – in this case the Crown – to “abdicate” core powers which it possesses in law. It is thus simply and starkly wholly ultra vires for the Crown to have ever “abdicated” its responsibility for appoint its Lieutenant Governor, to a tiny grouping of directly and profoundly conflicted crooks in Jersey.

    The Office of Lieutenant Governor has been utterly “captured” by the Jersey Cosa Nostra – and that fact lays at the heart of the un-reckonable and amplifying crises in Jersey.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trevor Pitman's observations on the use or otherwise of Jersey's esteemed Lieutenant Governor echo the message of this blog 100%. His highlighting of McColl's outrageous praise of Barking Bill on his promotion to Bailiff sum up the whole farce in a nutshell."All the qualities necessary to succeed". Bloody priceless aye?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a disgraceful attack on our Lieutenant Groveler !

      .... Governor, I mean

      Delete
  7. As has been pointed out by the blogs for many years, the obvious foundation of the crises in Jersey, the breakdown in the very rule of law in your island, is the degree of judicial corruption which hides, or at least attempts to, hide in plain sight. There are so many examples it would be hard to know where to begin.

    The Office of Lieutenant Governor is instrumental to shielding and maintaining that corruption.

    Successive Lieutenant Governors have been chosen by your Mafia for the very reason of their personal inadequacy. From the outset, former military personnel are obviously - obviously- the very last category of people who should be appointed as the external oversight of an ultra-conservative, mediaevally feudal, culturally hierarchical, entrenched oligarchy in which silence, obedience and blind deference are the very toxic drain-blockage of the place.

    As a matter of "culture" former military personnel naturally fit right in - perfectly - to such an intrinsically anti-democratic, un-accountable, non-ECHR environment - and could be, pretty much axiomatically, relied upon to support and bolster an environment which is so conducive to greed, wild levels of corruption, personal conflicts of interest, assaults upon democracy, and abuses of power it could have been designed with those outcomes in mind.

    But not content with having artificially and discriminatingly constrained the selection-pool of Lieutenant Governors to former military staff - a pool of people with zero relevant training or experience for the post, and who are thus going to be automatically unfit for the role from the outset, the Jersey Establishment have cunningly manoeuvred themselves over the last three decades into a postilion where they are actually selecting the particular individual who will be Lieutenant Governor. Your 'oligarchy' can thus be doubly-assured that they're getting a real, cast-iron, dopey, text-book 'useful idiot'. Just like they so successfully do with every other significant role in the Jersey polity.

    And having helped prop-up Jersey's naked judicial corruption, where's a former Lieutenant Governor to go once his term of office has ended?

    Why, even though he has zero qualification for the role, and is fundamentally unsuited, and should in fact be investigated by the NCA for aiding and abetting judicial corruption, where better for the self-protecting FACAWS to place the clown, other than in the UK Judicial Appointments Commission?

    Like this: -

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-appointments-for-the-judicial-appointments-commission

    Yes.

    You couldn't make it up.

    Andrew Ridgway's appointment to this body is so obviously extraordinary, it smacks of the desperation which that faction of the British judicial establishment which is corrupt, feel in the inevitable consequence of propping-up their gangster brother-judges in their secretive off-shore money laundromat of Jersey.

    Pip, pip.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like many of your readers I am from outside of your country and I have been reading your blogs to find out more about these events, after I first read about them in our own newspapers. I have also enjoyed reading this blog about your Governor. In our history lessons we learned about the British Empire and your Governor Generals but I did not know yours still existed. I hope that, not like some Governors we learned about in our lessons, he gets on well with your natives.

    The story about the historic child abuse is complicated and I sometimes find it hard to follow the story and to work out who is who. Reading about these events also gives me an opportunity to learn more about Jersey and its people. There is something which I find a puzzle and you might be able to help me with.

    I find it interesting that although people in Jersey speak in English they sometimes have surnames which are not like those in England. From what I have been reading so far the name “Bailhache” appears to be very popular in your island. I say this because so many of the people who I read about in this story have this name. For example, the person who was Chairman of your Victorian Boy’s College where I read that sex abuse was covered up was called Bailhache. I have read that your Committee of Inquiry into historic child abuse was given evidence about one of your Attorney Generals who knew about a case of child abuse but did not tell the police, and that he was also called Bailhache. A different Attorney General who your people say did not want to prosecute the abusers and who they say played golf with one of the people who was accused was called Bailhache. The judge who made a public speech criticising the abuse investigation before any of the cases came to your court was called Bailhache. The Senator who tried to close down the Committee of Inquiry by stopping its funding was called Bailhache. The Chairman of your Parliament who decides which questions members are allowed to ask of your government, he is also called Bailhache and the person who is now your Chief Judge is called Bailhache. I see also that the person who chooses your Governor is called Bailhache but that the Governor has a different name. Perhaps that is a mistake which will be changed soon. It is unusual for so many important people to have the same name. Are they by any chance related?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Helga, I love you. That was just priceless.

      Delete
    2. Helga's second cousin also called Helga6 January 2016 at 21:51

      Helga.

      We have yet another man called Bailhache who claimed there was no child abuse cover up at the Victorian (values) College you mention. I am quite sure he was not the same man who was chairing the Victorian (values) College Board of Governors at the time. He must also surely have been a completely different individual to the Bailiff Bailhache who allowed a Deputy Head of the College who covered up some of the abuse to become a lay judge in our court. We are a very close knit community here you know.

      Delete
    3. Helga.

      All the Bailhaches you mention are in fact two people, they are brothers William and Philip.

      It's an easy mistake to make thinking there are loads of them because between them they've got the place bl--dy surrounded!

      Delete
    4. Thank you for the clarification.

      Delete
  9. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman6 January 2016 at 20:57

    Reference various comments above:

    Unfortunately where I am this evening I am, for some reason experiencing problems getting the apparently newly re-loaded version of my witness statement to download.

    For that reason I will endeavour to answer the questions put to me tomorrow when I will hopefully have better access. If it is still there?

    What I can say is that although I have requested the information no less than four times I have, as yet, never received any details of why my statement was, to use someone else's words, vanished so quickly upon being put up.

    One really would have thought that out of simple curtesy if nothing else being the witness responsible for the statement I might just have merited being contacted by the COI? But no.

    Having since written requesting answers/explanations on a number of important matters relating to both the statement and what was passed off as my public questioning however I am currently awaiting a response to this.

    I repeat that I will respond further when I can. I am afraid that my own reluctant conclusion, certainly on the punlic evidence was that this non-event was probably the result of pressure from within the Jersey Establishment who didn't want a punlic, and thus likely reported airing of some of the stuff im the witness statement. Not least being certain names.

    I have a reason for coming to this conclusion which I will enlarge upon in the near future.

    One matter relating to this post itself that I will comment on however is in regard to the Lieutenant-Governor.

    Over the course of two meetings I made our current 'Crown Appointee' very aware of many of the judicial/constitutional abuses and problems which so many of us are concerned about.

    I am aware that Deputy Mike Higgins, sadly our lone opposition and champion of the victims left in the States, had also done this.

    The above is important if only because it renders null and void the basis for any claim that the man paid, very handsomely, out of the publics' pockets to ensure law and order and good governance' on behalf of 'Her Majesty' the Queen 'didn't know'.

    He does.

    Which means an explanation would be both appreciated and highly intriguing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor

      Once bitten, twice shy.

      I have downloaded the present version and if it disappears again will put it up on my website. So, sleep tight.

      Delete
    2. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman6 January 2016 at 21:21

      Thanks.

      Delete
  10. Forgive me if this is naive, but I had rather assumed your child abuse public inquiry would have automatically demanded, and have obtained, all records, files, letters, e-mails, faxes, notes, memorandums, records of meetings, support-papers, minutes, advice, etc which have been generated, held, received and/or so forth by Government House, the Office of Lieutenant Governor, and all authorities (in Jersey & in London) with which that Office communicated?

    All and any such records, such evidence, which in any way relate to the Jersey child abuse cover-ups scandal.

    Are you suggesting, VFC, as you appear to be, that in fact the Jersey child abuse public inquiry has not yet done so?

    If so that is a remarkable state of affairs.

    Any person with even a moderate familiarity with the Jersey controversy since it first publicly erupted in 2007 knows that the Office of Lieutenant Governor has been centrally involved, and is a key public authority which must be required to hand over all evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Helga's sister (adopted)6 January 2016 at 21:13

    Come on all. Of course your L/Governor knows.

    He just doesn't care. Even worse it is obvious from all of this that he was put here to ensure nothing will ever change.

    You have to say he is doing a damned effective job.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trevor, surely you have forgotten Monty who has been instrumental in helping the abuse survivors!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman6 January 2016 at 22:05

      Not at all. Monty did a truly great job then, particularly with the Inquiry TOR.

      But the facts are that these days even though he has been battling cancer Mike Higgins is all too often left to battle on his own. He needs some support from the one or two other States Members of conscience.

      That is all I am pointing out.

      Delete
  13. Here's one of the many examples when Stuart Syvret nailed and eviscerated the mafia which controls Jersey mainly through captured & corrupted Crown authority. The judicial corruption of Jersey

    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/a-confidence-game/

    Could someone make a clickable link to that posting because it's so important your readers should be able to get to it as easily as possible.

    He is so right in that article. The system you're supposed to rely on for the basic protection of the rule of law is, in Jersey, nothing more than a big 'confidence trick'. It depends on sheer effrontery, these people put on the traditional fancy-dress then just grit their teeth and brazen it out. But anyone who knows even just a little bit about how the administration of justice is supposed to work can see that the 'justice system' in Jersey is structurally unlawful. It isn't even a 'justice system' in truth. You don't have a 'judiciary', at least, you have nothing which meets the established and respectable description of a judiciary'.

    What you have in Jersey is a fake. But what is especially shocking to overseas readers like me is that the British government carries on covering up for this fake, unreal 'judiciary' in Jersey by refusing to step in and clean the place up. A fact which goes to show that you're not only battling against Jersey corruption, your battling against London corruption too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/a-confidence-game/
      was one of your Health Minister's blog postings from which all the comments were removed as a result of your Law Offices tricking Google into removing Mr Syvret's original blog.

      Over the next few days we will attempt to find all the deleted comments and resubmit them for posterity and historical record.

      Delete
  14. Is TPs statent still up? New to this but struggling to find it. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bl--dy hell! Never mind why wasn't Pitman questioned on 99% of this. Why hasn't some if this staggering evidence been reported on? We have a free and politically independant media here in Jersey. Don't we?

      Delete
  15. Day 12415 Jan 2016

    ​09:00


    ​Tbc
    Yes
    Day 12314 Jan 2016

    ​10:00


    ​Tbc
    Yes
    Day 12213 Jan 2016

    ​10:00 Public witness



    ​Leonard Harper

    Yes
    Day 12112 Jan 2016

    ​10:00 Public witness



    ​Leonard Harper

    Yes

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is this the 15th January?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12th and 13th. The timetable can be viewed HERE.

      Delete
  17. 12th & 13th....
    For 2 full days!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I am aware it is the full two days. That said, with the amount of evidence Mr. Harper must have, I'm not convinced two days is long enough. Certainly a day and a half would be a travesty.

      Delete
    2. What price another Deputy Pitman farce - all over in hours and all the most important issues ignored?

      Delete
    3. The 14th and 15th are "to be confirmed" What's the chances of the witnesses being the lieutenant governor and Juliet Gallichan?

      Delete
  18. Anyone else find it disturbing that it appears from the mysteriously restored missing statement that American journalist Leah Goodman was being monitored while in Jersey? And in fact almost certainly being followed? With what justification I have to ask?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I note with interest that Mr Power, according to his evidence to the Committee of Inquiry, was apparently advised by the then Attorney General that he was not an employee of the States but an “Officer of the Crown.” It is therefore reasonable that he should ask in his statement to the Inquiry, and that others should ask in this blog and elsewhere, just what if anything did the representative of the Crown, namely Jersey’s Lieutenant Governor, do about it when he was effectively dismissed from office by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, without a hearing and without any apparent Crown involvement. And further, what action did the Governor take when, from the evidence shown in this blog, he was made aware that at least some of the basis for the suspension was apparently fraudulent?

    Over the past 7 years or so debate has focussed on whether Lewis acted fairly and honestly. The balance of the evidence appears to show, to put it mildly, that there are serious questions regarding the fairness and integrity of Lewis’s conduct. We might learn more about that when he gives evidence in the near future. But in keeping with the heretical tone of this contribution I offer the suggestion that there is a bigger question which has yet to be fully addressed.

    From previous blogs I understand that the authority used by Lewis was a disciplinary code which was produced by the HR department of the States without any Crown involvement. I do not think that it at all a stupid question to ask whether the Jersey government had any legitimate entitlement to unilaterally produce such a code and to purport to act upon it. Senior politicians in Jersey might call themselves “Ministers” in the same was as they do in the UK but I think that there is a crucial difference. Apparently the constitutional theory in the UK is that Ministers are appointed by the Crown. In Jersey they just appoint each other and, thankfully, have no claim to any Royal authority. I am aware that this raises legal and constitutional questions which are over my head, but I wonder about it nevertheless and ask if there is anyone out there who can cast more light on this issue. If Mr Power really was an officer of the Crown then was the Jersey government acting outside its remit when they unilaterally acted against him? And if they were within their rights, should they have been? It does seem odd that someone solemnly sworn in as the Chief of Police and told that he is thereafter an officer of the Crown can effectively be removed on the basis of a document drafted by a Jersey civil servant.

    The only other further enlightenment I can offer on this subject, is to share with readers that I have researched details of the oath of office which Chief Officers of the force swear in the Royal Court. (Note the ROYAL Court.) It appears that when asked in Court to swear to carry out their duties and promise who they will serve, two individuals are mentioned. One is the Queen. The other is God. Andrew Lewis is not mentioned at all.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thought I would dowload a copy of Trevor Pitmans statement and I am getting a warning which says:

    An error exists on this page. Acrobat may not display the page correctly. Please contact the person who created the PDF document to correct the problem.

    Anyone else have this problem of the page not displaying also very curios what exactly is not being displayed ? - Has it been messed with ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we got same message having saved to disk.
      It would be good if someone could confirm but I think it is probably a harmelss glitch.
      old version of Acrobat?
      MASSIVE file size?

      ????

      Delete
  21. Got the same message. How do we update our old version of Acrobat? Or is it an excuse. Can anyone at all, access these much awaited and fought for, Trevor Pitman statements?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given some people's difficulty in downloading Trevor's statement, and in a spirit of assisting the Inquiry in their pursuit of truth and openness, I have put up a copy of that statement on my website.

      Anyone accessing it should be aware that it is 86MB

      Link to full document.

      To facilitate those with slow connectivity I have extracted Trevor's initial statement, without the supporting documentation, into a separate document. This is 28MB.

      Link to initial statement only.

      You can get the latest version of Adobe Reader <a href="https://get.adobe.com/reader/ />here</a>. Make sure to untick the box in the second panel if you don't want to also download a new antivirus product.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, link to Adobe reader here & don't forget to untick the box.

      Delete
  22. Thank you all for the responses and kind things which have been said about my first entry on your blog. It is humorous that some people say that they are related to me and have the same name. Actually I am the only live person in my family who now has the name Helga. I was named after my great grandmother who we all admired. Recently I have been sorting through some of her old papers and was reminded by them that for some of the time when she was a young woman it was wartime and so many people lived under a bad regime. Towns and countries were run by a small group of powerful people such as generals and top officials. Sometimes there was a puppet government but it had to do as it was told. Any politician who disagreed was cast out or jailed.The top people controlled the police and the courts so they could decide who got charged and who got away. Even the papers and the radio dared not criticise who was in charge and if people wanted to know true news they had to get it by underground means. It is good that these things have now changed.

    I am thankful that you have corrected my mix-up about the name Bailhache and the top jobs in your island. I thought that there were lots of different officials with the same name but now you have explained that these are two brothers who have lots of different important jobs.They must both be very good and popular men for your people to elect them to control so many important things.

    I feel sorry for Mr William Bailhache because he is just a “Mr” while his brother and other people who were Bailiff were “Sirs.” This might be because these things are shared out among worthy people and he has to wait his turn, but I did read that he was once part of a secret plan to break-up Jersey from the UK. It might be that your Queen has heard of the plan and that she is now cross with him because of it and will not make him a “Sir.” If that is so then the next time that he appoints a new Governor he must pick someone who will speak up for him about this. Or perhaps your readers could organise a petition on his behalf. It would be a big pity if a man who has done so much for his people did not get everything he deserved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: "but I did read that he (William Bailhache) was once part of a secret plan to break-up Jersey from the UK"

      In fact his brother Philip was also part of that "secret plan." It's not quite so secret any more due to the AFFIDAVIT of the former Police Chief Graham Power QPM. Even less secret now after Mr. Power's statement to the Child Abuse Inquiry.

      Quote:

      "In 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailhache brothers. The purpose of the group was purportedly to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence, should there be some kind of breakdown in the relationship between Jersey and the UK, although most of those involved were aware that the Bailhache brothers had known sympathies for the prospect of independence and may have had more personal political motives for the preparation of the plan."

      Delete
    2. More on the Bailhache Brothers from Mr. Power's statement to the Child Abuse Inquiry:

      There is a belief by many in Jersey that the island is run by a small number of powerful people and powerful families. Factually, it can be said that the Bailhache brothers have been in prominent positions of power for some time and have immense influence on the island. Whilst I was on the island, Philip Bailhache was Bailiff, and therefore the Senior Judge, and William Bailhache was Attorney General. I think it is fair to say that the Bailhache brothers are very conservative and strive to maintain the culture of the island and the island's independence, something that I will touch upon later in this statement. They see themselves as the 'protectors' and 'guardians' of Jersey culture and are very defensive in respect of UK influence.

      Delete
    3. Helga.

      Re: "I was named after my great grandmother who we all admired. Recently I have been sorting through some of her old papers and was reminded by them that for some of the time when she was a young woman it was wartime and so many people lived under a bad regime. Towns and countries were run by a small group of powerful people such as generals and top officials. Sometimes there was a puppet government but it had to do as it was told. Any politician who disagreed was cast out or jailed.The top people controlled the police and the courts so they could decide who got charged and who got away. Even the papers and the radio dared not criticise who was in charge and if people wanted to know true news they had to get it by underground means. It is good that these things have now changed."

      How old are your Great grandmother's papers and how did you get to the conclusion that things have now changed?

      Delete
    4. VFC,
      Yes. Satirical genius! LOL
      I suspect that the ever delightful (and lovable) Helga may be related to our own "Proud Jerseyman"

      http://proudjerseyman.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/the-sword-of-truth-and-trusty-shield-of.html

      An unfounded accusation that I would expect her to strongly deny :-)

      Delete
  23. Polo. Neither link helps. But thanks anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Crown removed Crown Officer Vernon Tomes! The Home Affairs Minister removed Crown Officer Power. Mis-match?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a slight difference and that is Mr. Tomes was a "Crown Officer" and Mr. Power was "an Officer of The Crown." I'm not an expert in this stuff but the (legal) point was made by (the then AG William Bailhache) that Mr. Power was NOT an employee of the States, so therefore, one must assume he can't be sacked by the States. We know he was (possibly illegally) dismissed (by stealth) by Andrew Lewis.

      All a bit of a mess really.

      Delete
  25. Great to see Lenny Harper is to give evidence next week by video link. I could never understand why Mick Gradwell, the Establishment flunky brought in to trash the abuse Inquiry and who now whines about his reputation being in tatters did not return to the island to give evidence but I sure understand why Lenny is doing so by video link. Almost certainly he would have been stiched up by out corrupt court so desperate to undermine evidence which is exposing them as corrupt and even paedophile protectors. Lenny is a true champion of the victims and unlike Gradwell can hold his head high. By the way while on the subject of Lenny Harper can I let your readers know that should they be misled by 'anti' comments about LH on the JEP on line version of this story all of these comments so far have been identified as fake accounts run by the infamous Jersey troll. AllyKing, Graham73 and a whole load more are all this sad individual. The same fake accounts are being used to attack others who have supported the abuse victims. Pathetic and not a good sign for a newspaper that would have us believe it is credible and straight down the middle. Hope you don't mind me alerting all of Lenny's supporters about this. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And they wonder why they are still known as the JEPaedo?

      There is so much more still to come out before we can start afresh.

      It can be quick and embarrassing, but washed clean
      .....or it can be long drawn out and devastating

      All in the full view of the world.

      halfwits@establishment

      Delete
  26. Ally Sharrock King9 January 2016 at 22:16

    Really looking forward to Lenny Harper giving evidence. What a legend he is. Certainly puts Mick Gradwell to shame.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ally Sharrock King's doctor.

    Mick Gradwell's interview consisted of what was actually a chat on video link ? Lenny Harper submitted a 200 page statement and affidavit, Mr Graham Power and the excellent ex Deputy Pitman offered large printed statements with Mr Pitmans over 1,300 pages long.

    It is clear to all who the interested and caring good guys are. A mention also for the local blogs putting it out there unlike the subdued ( or is that captured ) local paid media.

    Rico Sorda published the dynamite affidavit by Lenny Harper telling of corruption on a grand scale. Here are just a few snippets from the affidavit in case you are interested.

    " A ‘SEACAT’ Missile Launcher was also taken from his home."

    " Accused of arrogance and of acting at odds with the wishes of the politicians to whom “we were accountable”,

    " The most serious difficulties with the Criminal Justice system however (before the Historic Abuse Enquiry) arose when we started to deal with the small number of corrupt police officers and staff in the force. "

    " We arrested the Head of the Information Technology Department and his two most senior members of staff, including the Information Security Officer, following a tip off from within the department that they had used police funds to purchase expensive IT equipment for home use."

    Most bloggers will know that one of the security personal working in police IT that was sacked from the department after being investigated by Lenny Harper and found guilty was directly related to Ally Sharrock King.

    Link to Lenny Harpers Affidavit

    http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/sworn-affidavit-of-mr-lenny-harper_17.html








    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Most bloggers will know that one of the security personal working in police IT that was sacked from the department after being investigated by Lenny Harper and found guilty was directly related to Ally Sharrock King"

      If memory serves:

      "directly related" being his brother in fact?

      They had apparently ordered high spec games machines which were also used for accessing storing pornography?

      Thank you Jersey taxpayer! You are being abused by an unfit inquiry. Take it lying down, you always do.

      Delete
  28. Any thoughts on the so predictable re-dacting of the Rag Rapist material so revealing with regard to Graham Power's suspension in the excellent Deputy Pitman's remarkable witness statement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not something to do with the JEPaedo is it?

      Delete
  29. The national news

    www.exaronews.com/articles/5735/jersey-s-former-deputy-police-chief-slams-island-s-abuse-inquiry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so Eversheds Whitewash® doesn’t wash whiter after all !

      Delete
  30. Lenny Harper is spot on and I hope he hammers the point home by highlighting the ludicrous waste of evidence by key witnesses such as Graham Power and former Deputy Trevor Pitman when he takes the stand.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Fully endorse the above comment. Could you just confirm what time Mr Harper's evidence starts tomorrow?

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://www.jerseylaw.je/law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%2fconsolidated%2f15%2f15.360_InterpretationLaw1954_RevisedEdition_1January2013.htm

    ReplyDelete
  33. Frank Walker is giving evidence on Thursday at 10am

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thanks to Exaronews The World will be watching what Lenny Harper will have to say at The Jersey Committee of Inquiry tomorrow and the day after. And maybe The World will be interested in what Ex-Chief Minister Frank Walker has to say on Thursday....
    Make or break this week surely!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let us hope that Mr. Walker is a little more open to questions than he was HERE.

      Delete
  35. I would like to see as many people as possible to be there on Thursday when FW gives his evidence especially Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  36. I sure that I am not the only person looking forward to Lenny Harper giving evidence tomorrow. I suspect that whatever the content it will be entertaining. If asked the relevant questions he may once again re-enter the debate with the former and disgraced Senior Investigating Officer Mick Gradwell who once notoriously claimed (under whose orders we do not yet know) that there were no cellars and no bath at Haut de la Garenne. The fabrication about there being no cellars has long since been demolished by Bob Hill and others who have produced photographs and measurements which clearly show that Harper was right and Gradwell was wrong. They have also reminded us all that the Jersey media were allowed to view the cellars and had no problem calling them by that name until reminded of the regime’s party line, after which they published the Gradwell nonsense without challenge.

    While any reasonable person would now consider the cellar issue to be resolved there may have been less discussion about the bath. That might be because at some stage in the enquiry it was moved and therefore became less available for scrutiny.

    In this context my attention has been drawn to an interesting historical gem of a book entitled “St Martin Jersey. The story of an Island Parish” by Chris Blackstone and Katie Le Quesne. On page 51 they quote a former resident of Haut de la Garenne who says “We were made to bath 25 at a time in a huge stone bath filled with water and Jeyes fluid. Any boy who failed to remove every trace of dirt was ordered, naked and trembling, from the water to be flogged or kicked by the master in attendance.”

    I am told that, during the height of the abuse enquiry, Le Quesne was employed as a propagandist by the Jersey government. No doubt she had to remove any “false memories” before she was appointed.

    This brief glimpse of the truth is encouraging in itself but also once again highlights a wider truth exposed in this blog and other unofficial sources. Namely that although the Jersey establishment are a thoroughly dishonest and ruthless rabble who use their power, wealth and taxpayers money to suppress the truth, they are also a bunch of incompetent clowns. They repeatedly fail to get their story straight, they contradict themselves and each other and their seemingly impregnable arguments can be demolished by even rudimentary examination.

    Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. Just book me a seat on the front row please.

    Have a good day Lenny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Herectic.

      A very well informed comment. The cellars that don't exist according to Mick Gradwell can be viewed HERE.

      You might not know, or forgot to mention, that the bath had, what appeared to be, traces of blood on it. Under the leadership of Gradwell and Warcup the whole bl--dy bath went missing!

      More to follow...............

      Delete
    2. Some more evidence concerning the bath and of a politician who has STILL kept his head down.

      Here is some “redacted” parts of an e-mail correspondence I had with Deputy Kevin Lewis, some time ago."

      “the comments below is information I have received from former residents from 1935 onwards”


      “originally the Bath area was accessed by an external door (existing) to enable buckets of hot water to be brought in I believe the bathroom then was uncovered, at that time it was a boys only school, all the boys had to line up and were sent in ten at a time having to scrub the back of the person in front then out and the next ten in.”

      But in the Gradwell/Warcup Press Release they say this

      “This bath in the under floor voids has no water supply and has not been used as a bath since the 1920’s”

      Like I said this is very curious. Deputy (Kevin not Andrew) Lewis, it would appear, has witness testimony from residents of Haute de la Garenne who used the bath which is from 1935 onwards. But Gradwell and Warcup have another story."(END)

      More can be read HERE.

      Delete
  37. I've long observed the break-up of the viability, even the cosmetic viability, of Jersey as a polity which attended the child-abuse controversy. It seemed apparent to me in November 2007 that this was an issue which had 'asked' the most basic question of your polity, namely, 'does this arcane system of governance work'? Events, even at that stage, had laid that question, that test, on the collective desk of your polity. And the answer then was 'no'.

    That examination, issued and administrated under the eyes of history, was a simple test. There's a certain accidental functional beauty in such occasional acts of fate which strip societies bare then record the dark realities revealed.

    Your Establishment knew too, then, that the answer was 'no'. Let us be clear, the mere existence of multiple-cases of child-abuse concealment, spread over decades, predominately occurring in government funded institutions, frequently committed by government employees, all of which happened under the close oversight of a contaminated & entangled mish-mash of hobby-policemen, policeman-politicians, privately controlled prosecution-legal-advisor-executive-system, politician-judges and political-courts - was terminal.

    That fact was there to be seen by reasonable observers in the days immediately after the States Police made Operation Rectangle public in November 2007. The fact that your polity is irredeemably non-functional was laid open back then. Events since then, the insane heaping of illegality upon illegality, of state-corruption upon state-corruption, folly upon folly, continue to be proof after proof that everyone involved knew in November 2007 that, a little after 800 years, it was over. This was the end. That 'governance', such as it was, was finished in its present form in Jersey.

    Seen in that light, the conduct of the Jersey authorities, their allied protectors in London, and all of the many directly conflicted individuals involved becomes understandable. Socio-psychological explanations for the disaster we observe are not limited to Groupthink, Bystander Effect, or Diffusion of Responsibility. Criminology and Criminal Theory also explains the behaviour you’re witness to in Jersey. These people have gone ‘all-in’, so to speak, on a serious criminal enterprise, which had its locus in the earlier events of 2007. The consequences for them as individuals and the network (or ‘system’) of which they are a part and to which they owe ‘loyalty’, of apprehension and punishment for the original criminal conspiracy are so great that further and yet further acts of criminality seem of little consequence. They are totally committed to the path they embarked upon.

    These people, self-entrapped as they so obviously are in a serious criminal enterprise and associated inflating cover-up, will never (can never) cease the course of conduct they are on, until forced to do so by some theoretical ‘rule-of-law’. The fact there’s been no sight of a functioning rule of law in Jersey during this long atrocity is another answer, another ‘no’ in response to the question fate posed your island: ‘is this place capable of safely governing itself?’ The answer is ‘no’.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @21:14
      and damage the (complicit) British nation but also the monarchy.
      Traitors!

      We hope that the monarchy or the wider royal family is not complicit in this.

      "be ye ever so high"

      Power without responsibility belongs in another age.
      We clean from top to bottom.

      Delete
  38. All the best Lenny for the next two days truth will out!,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor's statement to the Inquiry appears to have been taken down again.

      It should be at Day 109 on this page.

      I have put up a version of the full document here [PDF 86MB] and of the bare statement here [PDF 30MB].

      People will recall that when it was first published by the Inquiry it lasted about an hour before being taken down. It then reappeared and, so far, nobody has confirmed whether what reappeared was the original or in some modified form.

      The one I put up is from its first reappearance.

      I suspect the problem is the transcript of the in camera debate despite this being in the public domain from way back. But you never know with this shower.

      Delete
    2. First link in my last comment doesn't work.

      The page you have to keep an eye on is here.

      Expand the November link and scroll down to Day 109. That should have two documents (i) transcript of the oral hearing, and (ii) the written statement provided by the witness. It is the latter that has been disappearing in Trevor's case.

      Delete
  39. Well spoken anonymous at 21:14 above. In a previous blog a similar point was made quoting Shakespeare: "I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er" (Macbeth Act 3.) In this famous quote Macbeth acknowledges that he is now so incriminated by his crimes that he has passed what we would call the "point of no return." He can only wade on through the sea of blood which he has created. Likewise, the Jersey establishment had their "Macbeth moment" in 2007/2008. Like Macbeth they can only wade on towards the inevitable end.

    ReplyDelete
  40. An excellent turn out for Lenny Harper's evidence today possibly even larger than that for the farcically inept questioning of ex Deputy Trevor Pitman.

    Hats off to Mr Harper himself too he was a superb and obviously honest witness. Highlight of the day was surely police lawyer (Mr Glasgow?) made to look a buffoon claiming civilian staff who spent tsxpayers' money on IT and recording equipment was all legit.

    Only for Harper to point out the truth that using computers to store pornographic videos and even giving computers to family members to use at university was anything but.

    Priceless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bet you won't see that on BBC, ITV or JEP!

      Delete
  41. One coat of Eversheds® will not be nearly enough

    ReplyDelete
  42. Does exactly what it doesn't say on the tin.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Eversheds are in a condition of no-gain-total-loss screw-up. They never did intend to service the real clients of the Jersey child-abuse public inquiry, that is, the victims, the whistle-blowers, the good politicians, the decent front-line staff, the honest cops. This was supposed to be an easy, "traditional" 'gig' in classic British whitewash over the plebs manner. It was was never going to be that. That much was openly clear from the outset.It's now very apparent that Eversheds are so fare in to the swamp and floundering out of their depth, they may not even be able to retain the moneys they've obtained. Really, the position Eversheds is that clear on the legal facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on the meaning of "service".
      e.g. "one dog could probably service several bitches in a day"

      What a FCUK UP.
      Surely castration of the would-be studs is in order?

      Delete
  44. Some compelling, and revealing testimony, from former SIO Lenny Harper at the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry today. His focus remained on the Victims and survivors of abuse who, at the end of his evidence he paid tribute to and thanked them for the trust and support they gave him and his team investigating Operation Rectangle. There were two spontaneous rounds of applause from a packed public Gallery who witnessed Mr. Harper, who was basically on trial, come through it with flying colours.

    VFC hopes, in the next couple of days, to have an in-depth video interview with Mr. Harper to be published soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Harper, top bloke. He never fails to mention the victims & survivors.

      Delete
  45. There is a superior " force " to Eversheds you seem to forget. That force is the enquiry panel themselves who set the Terms of Reference and decided on the structure of the enquiry. Given that Francis Oldaham is in the spotlight not just now but further down the road when the UK child abuse enquiry starts up and refers to this Jersey effort by the panel.

    It is a long road. The truth is - cover ups in both information not being transparent ( witnesses having different numbers and names ) and some poor legal questioning plus a concerted effort to keep documents out of reach is being noticed and not just by Jersey.

    It is all laid fairly in front of Francis Oldhams QC and her two colleagues. They need to up their game and move out of first gear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A most interesting comment. Yes, of course you're right in that the Committee itself, the Committee of Inquiry is, in law, the 'public-authority', the 'public body' which, in theory at least, exercises the powers, and carries the responsibilities.

      What used to happen with the standard-British-white-wash was that some overly paid "Ourchap" (more-often than not these days Chapesess - they're more "plausible, you see? A lot of people aren't aware of the official studies which have shown a growing existence of female Freemasonry (has the Chair been asked????) would be wheeled out of a club somewhere and it was easy money; 95% of the "work" (engineering the requisite structure) would be done by the faceless, unaccountable lawyers and the resultant £10 million would be necked amongst the lawyers senior partner, a £10 thousand bonus for the troops here,£50,000 there, a £100,000 here, for those who'd done the really disgusting stuff - and similar sums, a pat on the head and gong for the actual tribunal members.

      The key factor being that, no matter what, the Panel members have that suit-of-armour of always being able to say, in their defence, "we acted strictly in accordance with legal advice". Hey Presto! - they're out of jail, free - and - AND - no one can get to see and test that purported "legal advice" - because of "legal professional privilege".

      Remember how so instantly rabid this COI was to state it was accepting "legal professional privilege" as a given modus operandi in their self-generated ex cathedra protocols? No accident, that.

      And that was that. Safe as houses, guv.

      But now we live in the age of the internet - and the age of the perpetual campaign.

      The problem that all these traditional, old-fashioned white-wash crash-teams people face, is that, unlike in the old days, people don't give up - don't get broken down - after a decade - and are no longer intimidated - or deferential.

      So in the Jersey case - the lawyers of Evershed LLP - and the three Panel members - are currently engaged in carrying out a Non-Salmon-Principle-compliant, fake, non-ECHR-compliant farrago which - of it self - is one of the most dramatic, and in so many ways contemptible phases in the long - so long - war in which on the one hand, some are fighting to maintain the cover-up - and on the other hand, others are fighting against cover-up.

      And in that war, instead of being a process which poured soothing water on the flames - instead of getting even on the radar-screen of being a "Truth And Reconciliation Process" - which some persist in claiming it to be, although that is not its "legislative purpose" - the Jersey Public Inquiry has ended up being the worst of all possible outcomes; shabby, non-ECHR compliant, Salmon-Principles-non-compliant, startlingly incompetent to a Laurel & Hardy degree, corrupt, secretive, nakedly biased against victims & whistle-blowers - yet laughably biased in favour the abusers and the corrupt and failed civil servants and Crown Officers.

      And because these people are dinosaurs - especially the three creaking, ancient Panel Members, they've simply no idea, no idea at all, of the magnitude of the situation they're now in.

      A few naïve people may think the three Panel members are in charge of the Jersey COI. But, they’re not. Not in reality. The real controllers of the COI are the lawyers, are Eversheds. But when the high condemnation drops upon this farcical ultra varies COI, inevitably, the lawyers will be nicely hidden behind that concealer of all and any sins, “legal professional privilege”.

      The three panel members will go down in infamy.

      Delete
    2. @3:11
      we really need an "upvote" facility on this site.

      Very well phrased and explained.

      Delete
  46. you did good Lenny, thank-you

    ReplyDelete
  47. I know former Deputy Pitman isn't based in Jersey any more but do you know if it is true that his blog the Bald Truth is set to return? This would be great news if true as with VFC, Rico and Stuart's BT really made up the Big Four of Jersey's political blogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has he been vanished into cyber space like Oldham has done with his evidence on the Inquiry website?

      Delete

  48. DAVID BROWN, CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT FOR THE TIMES:

    "We've heard Lenny Harper, a very experienced police officer, make these extraordinary allegations of wholesale corruption, corruption in the police force, allegations about the Attorney General's Office, allegations of the most serious kind against a wide range of people- that is surprising. He's repeatedly referred to 'cover up'."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spin @CTV actually misquote David Brown, chief news correspondent for The Times
      David Brown actually said ".....wholesale POLITICAL corruption, corruption in the police force, ......"

      www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-01-14/change-in-former-health-minister-before-he-exposed-abuse-allegations/

      Frank Walker has claimed former Health Minister Stuart Syvret returned to work, after a short health-related illness in 2007, a "negative and adversarial man "He had been on top of his brief. He became very negative and very adversarial and it was a marked change. I was saddened by it."

      Now Frank: why would Stuart Syvret become negative and adversarial on discovering widespread child abuse, cover up and wholesale POLITICAL corruption ????

      Can somebody help Frank out on this one?

      Or perhaps CTV could pluck up courage to ask Frank LOL

      Delete
  49. 109's damming and excellent documents have been removed from the COIs site. They were there, because thankfully some of us have downloaded them. Take note that 109 is the only witness with verbal evidence only on COI's site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All more material for publication on future blogs (off island if necessary)

      Delete
    2. Is this the ex Deputy Pitman's witness statement yet again? If so what the hell is going on?

      Delete
    3. Yes it is. It is taken down for a second time by the Inquiry. It contained the transcript of the in camera session of the States and also extracts from Lenny Harper's written statement.

      Hard to know who's objecting to what but the Inquiry are making fools of themselves with this dithering.

      Out of their depth.

      It will be very interesting to get the full story when this is resolved.

      Delete
  50. Lenny, you looked under stones and found bad things you dealt with them fearlessly. Thank goodness for your courage and tenacity. Remember not everyone on this island is as stupid and gullible and driven by self interest as the powers that be would have us think. All the best to you and your family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lenny Harper closed his two days of evidence, given via video link from Edinburgh, by saying:
      "I would like to pay my heartfelt tribute and give my thanks to all of the victims of abuse in Jersey who suffered so greatly and also to thank them for the trust they placed in myself and my team in trying to get justice for them and I sincerely hope that all of those victims, some of whom tragically are no longer with us, but that those who are, that they get what they need from your inquiry. That is all I want to say."

      Delete
  51. Oh deary deary me poor little Fwankie did those three naughty boys gang up against you ? Shame.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I've been catching up on the media reports today of Frank Walker's evidence at the care inquiry. I think his evidence is best explained here https://youtu.be/kvs4bOMv5Xw

    ReplyDelete
  53. Trevor Pitman's witness statement has been taken down again. This must be three or four times now? What more evidence do we need? Stuart is right this committee of inquiry is a cover up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There could be legitimate reason(s) for removing Trevor's evidence from the website (Legal challenges from Law Office/Data Protection and the likes).

      If this is the case then the "public" Inquiry is doing itself NO favours by not explaining to the "public" why this document keeps disappearing. There are those who are suspicious enough of this Inquiry, and its motives, to begin with. Removing documents without explaining why they are being removed does not fill one with confidence.

      Delete
    2. The COI should be acting in accordance with their terms of reference, and the spirit of their task, and be acting with the 'complete transparency' the Chair often lays claim to. If they've either had 'pressure' to take down, or delay the publication of witnesses statements, they should, really, say so in up-to-date press-statements.

      The only logical and reasonable ground for the absence of such statements by the COI, by which they should be adhering to their avowed principle of transparency and independence, is that they are subject to 'secret court proceedings'.

      And we all know of the inglorious and overtly criminal history of child abuse concealing 'secret court proceedings' in Jersey. Either way, it does not look good. The COI is either being dramatically spineless and failing to meet its legislative purpose, or the public inquiry we were all supposed to accept as the big cleanse, is actually being constrained and rigged by Jersey's child-abuse concealing, corruptly conflicted courts. Bent courts at the heart of the problem.

      It's one or the other.

      The COI must publicly account for its bizarre actions in the publication & then non-publication of witness statements - or we must assume, just as was done against Stuart Syvret, there's some kind of secret court case by Jersey's political judiciary against the work of the COI.

      If the latter, the COI must either defy it, or resign.

      Carrying on under restrictions from a directly conflicted judicial system is not an option.

      I think everyone knows, secrecy can never be embraced and acquiesced to in matters such as this - trying to oppose and expose child-abuse - by any person or body on the side of vulnerable children.

      Delete
    3. It looks like someone has copped the fact that one of the most useful aspects of this inquiry is that it enables witnesses to publish all sorts of material under privilege, and good use has been made of this facility so far.

      If the inquiry are only copping on to this at this late stage it doesn't say much for their oombined intelligence.

      Their current dithering over publication suggests someone on the establishment side is waking up to it but doesn't say much for their legal advice in the first place.

      The idea of a super-gag on the inquiry by the Jersey court hadn't occurred to me, but if this is the case, it certainly puts it up to them once again.

      However, the milk and water and evasive questioning of witnesses suggests that they would not be up to dealing with such an eventuality and their behaviour, if this is the case, should be added to the current indictment.

      Incidentally, how did I come on a copy of parts of Lenny Harper's statement even before his appearance at the inquiry, never mind the usual delayed publication?

      Just in case people might think it fell into my lap out of a frayed envelope in the ordinary post, I have to admit I got it in Trevor Pitman's documentation which has now been taken down.

      I have tweeted a most interesting final paragraph here.

      Delete
    4. This quote in the Tweet is weird. Where did it come from again and how?

      Delete
    5. It's the final paragraph in Lenny Harper's written statement to the Inquiry.

      I don't find anything weird about it. If I were him I'd be saying the same thing.

      Delete
  54. Sorry voice. Losing patience. There is no excuse for the "Care" Inquiry chair and her colleagues.

    We already saw a key witness in Trevor Pitman treated with phenomenal disrespect in his public appearance Absolutely wasted one of the most comprehensive and professionally set out statements we have had.

    Now we get this piss take. I wanted Trevor Pitman back in the States so badly but you know what? He is better off living his life wherever he is

    We have let him down by not making a big fuss of this. He fought for the Inquiry for the victims just like Stuart, Lenny and Graham.

    All we have is a Whitewash. This Inquiry stinks as bad as our goverent and justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  55. How much deeper hole (for himself and others), will Walker dig himself today?!

    ReplyDelete
  56. so FW thinks that Power,Harper and Syvret were conspiring against the government. No Mr Walker but they did have a common purpose which was to bring child abusers to justice. And what about all the other people who supported them and the cause, are they all anarchists out to bring down the government. Governments rise and fall as history shows and some need to be brought down if you don't like it don't go into politics. In his evidence yesterday he gave the impression that the States of Jersey at that time was a bunch of happy little bunnies all pulling together, has this ever been the case? or should it surely that is democracy.

    ReplyDelete

  57. Frank Walker Dig holes Never, how about integrity, trust honesty, leadership possible corruption ?

    Let shine the light back to when he wanted the states to take on Harcourt the developer to build the IFC. in Jerseys biggest ever development costing a reported £350 million. Harcourt were the prefered and only developer there was no competition.

    This is what Senator Walker told States Members:

    ‘The ruler has been run over Harcourt thoroughly and they have come up A1 every time.’

    ‘We cannot have done a more thorough review. There is no basis whatsoever that justifies a reference back. I have no hesitation in recommending Harcourt.’

    ‘There is no legal dispute in Las Vegas.’

    He added that the company had issues with a former partner who had not invested any money in the project. ‘To suggest that there is a legal dispute is very misleading. No legal motion has been filed to Harcourt in Las Vegas.’

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2008/06/06/harcourt-plans-what-was-said-in-the-states/

    It is worse - far worse.

    A secret report by PWC the auditors, for the staff and board of WEB which included the Treasury Minister ( other ministers maybe under collective responsibility ? ) commissioned by CEO Steven Izatt or finance director Lee Henry ( yes him ) looked into the financial strength of Harcourt to carry out the £350 million pound development. They scored a sad 1 out of 5. This was classed as a fail and was discovered when leaked report was obtained by Deputy G. Southern after Frank Walker had disappeared more of that later.

    So all the checks sold to the States by Frank Walker as being excellent were flawed, there were no court cases when staff at WEB and the whole world that checked the internet new there was and this as a lie.

    What does this make Frank Walker ?

    Let us be graceful and tolerant. Let us assume that WEB fed corrupt information to Frank Walker which made a fool of this sharp and wealthy businessman. This resulted in him miss leading the Government and its people by recommending Harcourt.

    What to do as Chief MInister head of the Jersey Government ?

    Go on holiday until the anger in the States subsides. Sack the CEO of WEB and the finance director who both must of known about the PWC auditors report - they ordered it. Order a police investigation into corruption reading all of WEB’s email traffic and investigating WEB’s financial dealings and senior staff bank accounts as requested by states members.

    Frank Walker immediately went on holiday to Bermuda and was not available to answer questions in an seething States at the next scheduled sitting.
    The CEO Steven Izzat made a pathetic public Statement, “ Harcourt should have told us “

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2008/06/13/web-we-have-nothing-to-hide/

    There was no police corruption investigation, Mr Izatt paid was more than £250,000 a year and resigned three and a half years later with a golden hand shake. Mr Henry the finance director in charge of due diligence at the time ,was promoted to CEO of WEB now SoJDC.

    This was all done on Chief Minister Frank Walkers watch and is on record.

    ReplyDelete

  58. Reading the links above from the JEP article Frank Walker was aware of the PwC report and he was economical with the truth to put it mildly.

    Frank Walker quoted:

    " The PwC finance capacity audit had confirmed that they are very well-placed since the sub-prime mortgage crisis and were of ‘low gearing’, he said.

    If that is not lying what is ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One just knows that Frank is a lair. But it is nice to have it laid out so clearly like that.

      A functioning media would ask him for an explanation.

      Frank's weasel words before the CoI-on-a-leash put in context.

      Thank you. Good work!

      Delete
    2. If I were Leah, I'd hold my book for now. This flow of evidence will make for great reading and it's all published under privilege. A writer's dream.

      Delete
  59. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman15 January 2016 at 15:39

    Having been contacted by several people asking me about my regularly disappearing witness statement could I give your readers a brief update.

    With this indeed disappearing yet again, and once again without even the simple courtesy of an explanation (it has in truth hardly been up in the almost eight weeks since I gave my evidence) I phoned the Care Inquiry today. This was my fifth verbal request and two written ones.

    All.I can glean is that there is another mysterious request (perhaps that should be order?) that something else be redacted. What I cannot get an answer on.

    Given that, as so many others have stated the handling of my public evidence was a complete, unprofessional shambles, with this further continuing farce I have again (third time I believe) requested that my public evidence also be removed until this is rectified once and for all.

    To leave this up without the 208 page witness statement alongside to show what I really should have been questioned on his to totally mislead the public, and misrepresents me.

    How difficult is it to put up on line a few sentences explaining to the public what is going on? People have put forward the view to me that the driver behind all of this is to let so much time pass that the public get fed up of searching for the statement and give up looking. It is difficult not to agree.

    The 'Jersey Way' it seems is alive and we'll.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. alive and well
      ....and calling the shots

      Delete
    2. There is a column on this page of the Inquiry site entitled "Link to documents". It has been used sporadically up to 5 March 2015 and not since.

      This means that one first has to look up the timetable on this page to see who was on when, and then go to the transcripts page to get the documents.

      It would seem to me that the Inquiry is making life as difficult as possible for those who are attempting to follow it at close quarters.

      Regarding Trevor's jumping jack document, perhaps we should have a competition to see if anyone can correctly guess what will be further missing/redacted when it eventually reappears.

      The latest posted version can be found here.

      Delete
    3. Polo.

      Thanks for the link. The page takes a little time to load but worth the short wait.

      The way the COI is handling this situation is disgraceful. I'll not elaborate too much for now because I believe the subject deserves a posting of its own.

      Delete
    4. For those who just want to read Trevor's actual written statement without the backup documentation, there is a copy here. It should load in about a third of the time.

      Delete
    5. A big thanks to Polo. He displays a professionalism that puts the disgraceful treatment of the excellent former Deputy of St Helier Trevor Pitman by Mrs Oldham QC and her team to shame. When you consider that former Chief Minister Walker is given two full days on the witness stand but can only come up with unsubstantiated garbage such as Power, Harper and Syvret all being in cahoots to "bring down the government" articulate hard evidence like Mr Pitman's being rewarded with a two hour pantomime of going through the motions we really ought to be collectively demanding that Oldham recall the former Deputy and do the job properly. If she doesn't then maybe we really just as well join Philip Bailhace's campaign to wind this debacle up. With stunts like this the credibility of the Inquiry and those who run it is all but shot.

      Delete
  60. I hope the Times take note of this joke. With a bit of luck they will also focus on our need for a separation of powers and the out of control judiciary our Bailiff oversees.

    For Trevor and Shona's sake I hope the Times pick up on how paedophile protecting Vic College old boys get to be court Jurats, and how our first secret court case took place a full year before the one in the UK.

    Welcome to the Fourth Reich!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Reading a number of the comments above (& similar) comments under previous postings) I've been doing a little thinking, trying to puzzle out what all the prevarication is about. Ages seem to pass before some witnesses’ statements are published after their live testimony. Some redactions seem to make no sense. The 'Mr-Three-Identities' methodology of depicting witnesses is mystifying. The publication-then-taking-down-then-publication-then-taking-down treatment of a witness statement, with the attendant removal of that witness's supporting documentation, could be interpreted as attempts (albeit idiotic) to fiddle with the record. All of these actions of the COI are at first blush inexplicable.

    Then when we think about what must be going on, we can reasonably come up with a couple of explanations. One of which might be that what we're seeing is the result of anarchic incompetence? Possible. No process of this kind functions perfectly, a few natural examples of human error will be apparent. But to this degree??? No. There is clearly something else going on here.

    Some people claim the COI is biased. That all it intends to do is produce a whitewash. Others give the COI the benefit of the doubt, and argue that it’s working hard and fighting some kind of battle behind the scenes. In fact some are now (perhaps astutely) suggesting that the COI is being hamstrung, and is suffering intimidation and interference in the form of suppressive secret legal actions. (It is after all a matter of known public record, even reported, after-the-fact, by your MSM and spoken of in your parliament, that there’s a secret-trial, super-injunction against Stuart Syvret which was impossible for him to defend himself against, and your political court imprisoned him.)

    So we see a great deal of surface confusion and inexplicable behaviour by the COI, and we have a few possible explanations for what’s causing it. We don’t yet know the actual cause of the chaos. But what we can do is use that chaos as a tool by which we may assess The Big Question which really matters, namely, ‘which side are the COI crew on?’ And when I say which ‘side’, we all know what that means. ‘The good guys’, or ‘the bad guys’.

    I’m afraid the apparent answer isn’t good. In both senses of the word. I heard Stuart Syvret’s interview on radio Jersey in which he spoke about the refusal of the COI to give him the legal representation that core witnesses to public inquiries usually get. He explained how they’d refused to give him legal representation unless he signed away his rights first. And in that, sadly, we have our answer. If the COI was well intentioned, why do that? Why depart from normal, uncontroversial standards that apply to public inquiries, and instead adopt a really strange policy, against normal accepted practice? Why make a weird decision to mess around with the legal rights and protections of the most significant whistle-blower, when it’s known he’s already suffered legal oppression so is a vulnerable witness? Why would a neutral COI, if it was genuinely motivated to get to the truth, add to the fear felt by an already intimidated witness? Why would a fair and decent public inquiry demand that a victim of oppression sign some complex and heavy legal agreement before that victim could get legal advice on that agreement?

    Those are not the actions of an honourably motivated COI machinery. And for me the clincher is in the safe assumption that one way or another the people of the COI will have had lengthy legal negotiations and arguments with the corrupt Jersey Crown officer machinery, which the COI appear to still be in confusion about. So how can they expect one ordinary, intimidated man to be sure of his legal ground without him being able to employ a lawyer?

    ReplyDelete
  62. "So how can they expect one ordinary, intimidated man to be sure of his legal ground without him being able to employ a lawyer?".
    That intimidated man is not employing the COI's Lawyer. Because he does know his legal ground.
    Surely?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anyone who believes Frank Walker when he says there was no conspiracy to get rid of Stuart Syvret is living on another planet, they wanted him gone he knew too much and wasn't afraid to say so. Frank's hatred of Stuart is evident when one watches the TV clips of the time and listens to radio interviews. If not for the almost pathological hatred of Stuart the child abuse revelations might have been handled better by the government.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Is the magical disappearing Pitman statement back up today? Oh no the date has an even number so it must be down again. The management of this Inquiry is Kafkaesque. Or at least Monty Python.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Where is Frank Walkers evidence that some people were trying to bring the government down?.I can't find it anywhere!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nowhere. It does not exist.

      Delete
  66. Trevor's statement can also be found here: http://freespeechoffshore.nl/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice on Stuart. Good on you. We must not let the oppression of witness statements and evidence.

      Delete
  67. Short trailer of up-coming interview with former top cop LENNY HARPER.

    ReplyDelete
  68. http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/01/17/police-chief-was-suspended-for-lack-of-control-in-abuse-probe/

    "Mr Walker told the inquiry that following a letter from the then deputy police chief, David Warcup, outlining why he felt Mr Power had failed during Operation Rectangle, Deputy Lewis was left with little alternative but to suspend the police chief."

    Frankie boy, please, if you really believed this to be true then you were hopelessly out of your depth and completely incompetent. No one who has been following this with even passing interest in the real sources of information, the blogs, can be in any doubt that Warcup's reasoning was suspect to say the least. Also his motivations at that time must have had a huge question mark against them. His letter was in no way sufficient grounds to even consider this course of action without significant further investigation which you failed to do.

    What an idiot you are making yourself look. If their is any justice in this world the COI will hang you out to dry in their final report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @09:43
      Earlier on this thread was a particularly succinct and damning piece of evidence regarding Frank Walkers honesty and competence.

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/01/jersey-lieutenant-governor-and-crown.html?showComment=1452849437294#c155373239602824691

      That his statements to the public of Jersey and to the CoI do not match established fact should come as no surprise.

      "Reading the links above from the JEP article Frank Walker was aware of the PwC report and he was economical with the truth to put it mildly.

      Frank Walker quoted:" The PwC finance capacity audit had confirmed that they are very well-placed since the sub-prime mortgage crisis and were of ‘low gearing’, he said.

      If that is not lying what is ?"

      Delete
    2. Sory, don't know what's wrong with the comment link

      If it is still not working you can page up to "Unknown" 15 January 2016 at 09:17

      "Frank Walker Dig holes Never, how about integrity, trust honesty, leadership possible corruption...."

      ".........It is worse - far worse.

      A secret report by PWC the auditors ......"

      "Frank Walker immediately went on holiday to Bermuda and was not available to answer questions..."

      "There was no police corruption investigation....."

      Delete
  69. Its good to see that Trevor's statement is back up. But more importantly what is not back up is Trevor's Exhibits TP1 to TP24 & Exhibits AB1 to AB 19. It stands to reason that it much more important for these Jersey Establishment Figures, that these Exhibits are kept down from public and worlds view!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't international grass-roots activism great? All of that embarrassing & disgraceful collusion by the COI with Jersey's political Judiciary & Law Officers to suppress Trevor Pitman's statement, civil society say, 'enough of the messing around, we're publishing it on the world wide web.' And, bingo! Suddenly, just like that, the COI puts the statement back up.

      I think this new approach by the controllers & operators of http://freespeechoffshore.nl is brilliant, and I like to ask through you VFC, if they will please publish more evidence too?

      I'd like to suggest that as an immediate follow up to the publishing of Trevor Pitman's statement, they do same this afternoon with the supporting documentation which the COI are still suppressing.

      Mr. Pitman himself has said in a comment above that his statement on its own, without the supporting documentation, is of less value & use. So I hope http://freespeechoffshore.nl will help him and the public interest by posting those documents.

      Thanks to http://freespeechoffshore.nl whoever they are. They're doing a great job!

      Delete
    2. "the COI puts the statement back up"
      ...What? really? on a Sunday?

      Beyond the call of duty. [almost LOL]

      Delete
  70. Doesn't it show how nothing whatsoever has changed in our island when having forced Stuart Syvret off the intranet the same international, and so beyond Emma Martin's reach company have to put up Trevor Pitman's witness statement to the child abuse/care Inquiry to ensure it is accessible to the public?

    ReplyDelete
  71. A question has been left Ex Health Minister Syvret's blog.
    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/dannie-jarman-in-memory-tribute/
    Can anyone help with this little piece of history?....

    "Stuart,

    Would you – or anyone reading this – happen to know if there is available online an audio copy of your 2007 Christmas Speech? It seems to have been removed from the BBC website, despite the link still being in place;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2007/12/05/syvret_speech_2007_feature.shtml

    I’m interested to hear who exactly said what during the shouting down at the end. The few transcripts I’ve found aren’t specific in that respect.

    Thanks."

    ReplyDelete
  72. Heading out the door. Back later. Just a reminder. The full statement and documentation (as it went up for the second time) is available here [PDF 86MB].

    ReplyDelete
  73. PS: It's not back up on the Inquiry site. What's there is only the transcript of the oral session and that's been there all along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I left the comment at 14:11 and said it was great that http://freespeechoffshore.nl had published Trevor's statement, and I took the comment at 10:38 at face value and assumed from that Mr Pitman's statement had been publish again by the COI. But no, it appears from Polo's comment that it hasn't been.

      Well that just makes my point about http://freespeechoffshore.nl posting the statement, and how they should now post the supporting evidence too, all the more valid. Public interest evidence covered up by the powers that be must be published by global activists. Let's hope we saw the supporting document's posted there soon.

      Delete
  74. Comment at 10:38 meant to say Trevor's statement was back up on freespeechoffshore but minus the most important Exhibits TP1 to TP24 & Exhibits AB1 to AB 19.
    These Exhibits are what the key "Establishment Jersey Way Figures", are desperate to keep out of view and they are at present succeeding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just how blatant does the abuse of power by government and judiciary have to get before:A- we all get of our lazy arses to go march down to government house with pitch forks and blazing torches? B - before our Lieutenant Governor gets off his arse and does his job? This Trevor Pitman treatment surely takes the biscuit.

      Delete
    2. Just to be clear.

      At the beginning the Inquiry put up the transcript of Trevor's oral session along with the written statement and supporting documentation.

      Then the Inquiry took down the document which contained the written statement and supporting documentation but left the transcript of the oral session in place. That all happened within an hour of the stuff being posted.

      Then the document with the written statement and documentation reappeared. I, and I am sure many others, downloaded it for "safe keeping" and, lo and behold, it vanished again.

      At that point I put two things up on my own website (i) the full document that had been taken down (PDF 86MB) and a shorter version which contained only the written statement (PDF 29MB). I did the second one purely for people's convenience if they didn't want to download the whole thing.

      The current position is that the transcript of the oral session is up on the Inquiry site. That has been there all along.

      There is still no sign of the document with the written statement and supporting documentation re-appearing on the Inquiry site.

      We don't know what is going on or what is being objected to in the document that has been taken down. It did contain a version of the transcript of the in camera States debate on Graham Power's suspension. In the course of that debate then Minister for Home Affairs, Andrew Lewis, made a complete fool of himself and at one stage Speaker Bailhache had to tell him to shut up. The question of the States officially releasing that transcript to the Inquiry is to be debated there on 19 January 2016.

      Currently available documentation is as follows:

      Transcript of Trevor's oral session [PDF 11MB].
      Here

      Full supporting document (written statement and supporting documentation) [PDF 86MB].
      Here


      Trevor's written statement on its own [PDF 29MB].
      Here

      This last can also be accessed via
      Here

      And that's the story so far.

      Delete
  75. Trevor Pitman's evidence (TP1 to TP24 & Exhibit's AB1 to AB19) exposes the real hidden hand of a 'government within a government', which ex-Senator Stuart Syvret calls the "sock puppet"!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be interesting to see if the government's of similar "Crown Dependencies" and other ex-British empire tax-havens are run using the same "sock puppet" model of governance... i.e., the other Channel Island's, Isle of Man, as well as the British Virgin Islands, Caymans, Bermuda etc., etc..

      Delete
    2. Its all about the money, just follow the money:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRihg6fNrk

      http://offshoreleaks.icij.org/

      Delete
  76. Really this witness statement tragi-comedy should be a wake up call for all of us. For Pete's sake just ask yourself what kind of genuine professional investigation acts this way?

    The statement is up. It is down. It is up. It is down. It is apparently being challenged by the Bergerac Brat. But hang on. They can't tell the person who made the statement why.

    Really we should have seen this coming with what you reported on Trevor Pitman's lack of proper public questions. Learning that all of Pitman's support documents have now gone AWOL is almost not even a surprise.

    It is happening because we appear powerless to do anything about it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dta Protection (Jersey) Law 2005

    61 General provisions relating to offences

    (1) Proceedings for an offence under this Law shall be not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prosecutions Under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law and the Conflicted Office of Jersey Attorney General & Conflicted Post-Holders such as William Bailhache.

      Part 1

      That's an interesting and most disturbing comment at 19:56.

      As a lawyer I'm puzzling out as to how that suggested arrangement can be so? I believe my understanding of events to be a matter of known, public fact? If I have the following events wrong, I will happily be corrected. Namely, that the then Senator Stuart Syvret was exposing crimes, associated failures in different departments, and cover-ups of those crimes by Jersey's public authorities. One of those crimes, which had many associated failings and cover-ups was the regime of child abuse conducted by the couple who were tracked down and exposed by BBC Panorama after Syvret alerted the BBC, the Maguires. It was exposed by Syvret that the victims of the Maguires were, at a crucial stage (I think late 1990s?) impecunious & vulnerable legal aid clients of the then law firm Bailhache LaBesse (which was later amalgamated with Appleby Global). The victims were failed to a very significant extent, in that in spite of substantial evidence, and indeed further lines of investigation which should have been followed in respect of the criminal offences against them, and even in the event of the criminal standard of proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, not being met, the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, being clearly established beyond any credible dispute against the Jersey authorities for the horrifying abuse they suffered, the victims' lawyers Bailhache LaBesse failed to secure them any justice. At that time, the senior Partner of Bailhache LaBesse (Appleby Global) was Advocate William Bailhache. A year or so after that failure, William Bailhache was appointed, on the recommendation of his brother, then Bailiff Philip Bailhache, to the post of Jersey Attorney General. Then, some years later, after he exposed a number of crimes, including the recurring cover-up of the true scale and nature of the abuse by the Maguires, Stuart Syvret was then arrested and charged for supposedly breaking the Data Protection Law (a pivotal part of which law is cited above).

      I think that's an accurate and evidenced chronology?

      I raise this observation, in the hope that someone may be able to explain a paradox which is deeply concerning to me.

      At the time of the arrest, charging and prosecution against Syvret, the Attorney General who so decided to have him arrested, charged and prosecuted was the then Attorney General William Bailhache. But William Bailhache and the legal practices Bailhache LaBesse and Appleby Global were unlawfully conflicted from taking any involvement in any matter to do with Syvret and the crimes and failings he was exposing, because central amongst those crimes and failings were the abuses against the victims of the Maguires and failure to secure for those victims any justice. Failure by their then lawyers, Bailhache LaBesse, of which William Bailhache was, at the relevant time, the Senior Partner.

      …..continued below…

      Delete
    2. Prosecutions Under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law and the Conflicted Office of Jersey Attorney General & Conflicted Post-Holders such as William Bailhache.

      Part 2

      There are at least two matters arising out of the prosecution of Syvret which will be of the most serious concern to any person with any genuine regard for justice. The first is obvious, namely that it was an unlawful miscarriage of justice, an abuse of process, for any investigative, charging, prosecution or judicial decision to be taken which in any way bore upon Syvret, by any public authority which involved personally interested parties such as William Bailhache.

      Secondly, and perhaps not so obviously, are the implications of that part of the Data Protection Law (or any other laws in Jersey?) which restrict prosecution decisions to, solely, the Attorney General. Given the smallness of Jersey, and the many conflicted, overlapping roles of that Office in the island, and the multifarious political and executive roles of the Jersey Attorney General (quite aside from the obvious potential for direct personal conflicts of interest, as shown in this case) the scope for potential prosecution decisions in which the Attorney General is structurally and personally conflicted would appear to be literally boundless.

      If that is so, then, quite simply, there is no reliable, safe, nor lawful prosecution function in the Crown Dependency of Jersey, which means your society is not protected by the objective enforcement of the law.

      If my understanding is wrong, I wait to be corrected. I assume I must have something wrong, because if I was correct, the UK government and Crown would have long since intervened, as would be the plain, urgent and unavoidable legal obligation upon those public authorities.

      If I’m correct, then the fact of non-intervention by those legally & constitutionally obligated UK authorities must stands as jeopardy to the reputation of the British state.

      Delete
    3. The situation is beyond belief.

      RE.
      "Proceedings for an offence under this [Data Protection] Law shall be not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General."

      Can you tell us if the AG providing "consent" for above "Data Protection Proceedings" could be classed as a sort of 'passive act' in order to duck/avoid the obvious and catastrophic conflict?

      Thank you again for your input.

      Delete
    4. In Reply to the Two-Part Comment left at 22:05 & 22:12

      …Part One –

      I write in response to the two-part comment above, left at 22:05 & 22:12 which describes my work in the lawful representation of my constituents - the victims of the Maguires / the States of Jersey - and the efforts I was making as their democratic representative in attempts to secure their rights, justice, and proper care for them.

      The chronology described in the two comments - that chain of events - and the starkly unlawful, conflicted entanglement and involvement of parties such as Bailhache LaBesse, Appleby Global and William Bailhache - is correct and accurate.

      Also correct and accurate are the legal issues the writer poses and describes. The situation - which is on-going - and will remain on-going until the rule-of-law is imposed on to the Jersey mafia - is exactly as described. Even - and the facts sit in plain sight - to the ultimate point made by the author when they say the following: -

      "If I’m correct, then the fact of non-intervention by those legally & constitutionally obligated UK authorities must stands as jeopardy to the reputation of the British state."

      However - for a number of profound reasons - the situation is, in fact, even more starkly illegal - even more serious - than the commenter suggests. They could have added into that description of events the fact that the brother of William Bailhache - the then Bailiff on who's recommendation William Bailhache was appointed to the post of Attorney General by the Monarch via Her personal "Letters Patent", Philip Bailhache, was himself a previous Jersey Attorney General.

      In fact, Philip Bailhache was the Attorney General in 1990 who was the legal adviser to the then Education Committee - the public authority responsible for the crimes and atrocities of the Maguires against the vulnerable children in their "care". As Attorney General, Philip Bailhache was also the sole prosecutory authority in the British Crown Dependency of Jersey.

      In 1990 - even though the Jersey children's service and Education Committee were aware of the crimes of the Maguires, Philip Bailhache failed to inform the Police - and failed to have the abusers charged and prosecuted.

      Only by accident - eight years later - did the Police become aware of the crimes of the Maguires. However, the 1998 prosecution against them was corruptly abandoned by the then Attorney General Michael Birt.

      Through my own efforts, in the course of 2007 I discovered and uncovered the true nature of the abuse by the Maguires in the Blanche Pierre children's home, and the series of illegal cover-ups. The Blanche Pierre cover-up was but one of amongst many deeply serious crimes and conspiracies of cover-up I had discovered and was investigating.

      There were so many crimes and cover-ups, that it was very obvious - undisputable on the known facts - that Jersey's prosecution and judicial system was structurally, hopelessly and fatally conflicted in dealing with the Jersey Child-Abuse Disaster. The facts were so clear and evidenced, that in March 2008 I wrote a very detailed report to the relevant and responsible UK authority, the then Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw MP.

      That detailed report - which I think may well be very interesting to the author of the two-part comment above – can be read in full below the following posting: -

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/jack-straw-and-the-illegal-jersey-child-abuse-cover-up/

      It can be seen in that report that I had identified, and brought to the formal attention of the relevant authority, a multitude of fatal personal, cases-specific, and structural conflicts of interest on the part of what passes for a “prosecution” system, and a “judiciary” in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

      …Continued…..

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    5. In Reply to the Two-Part Comment left at 22:05 & 22:12

      …Part Two -

      Events after I wrote that report in March 2008 prove me to have been 100% correct.

      A few months after that report to Jack Straw, in the course of 2008, the then head of Jersey’s “judiciary”, then Bailiff, the directly and hopelessly conflicted Philip Bailhache, recruited one of his brother Attorney General William Bailhache’s prosecution lawyers – one Bridget Shaw – a friend of both of them – to become a “magistrate”.

      On the public occasion of Philip Bailhache swearing-in to office his and his brother’s friend and colleague, prosecution lawyer Bridget Shaw as “magistrate”, Philip Bailhache actually used this meeting of Jersey’s Royal Court to launch an undisguised, direct, politicised, personal attack against me for – in my capacity as a Senator, seeking to secure functioning, lawful justice for my constituents by writing to the UK Justice Secretary and criticising Jersey’s failed Crown “prosecution” & “judicial” system. Criticism which directly involved Philip Bailhache, his Deputy Michael Birt, and Philip Bailhache’s brother, William Bailhache.

      A matter of months later, the good Jersey Police Chief Graham Power had been illegally suspended. I was then subject to an illegal massed police raid, arrested, supposedly for ‘breaking the data protection law’, locked-up in a windowless police cell all day, whilst the house was turned over from top to bottom without a search-warrant. I was then charged and prosecuted on the decisions and orders of Attorney General William Bailhache.

      I was prosecuted in Jersey’s “magistrates’ court. And the case was heard by the person who was a friend of Philip & William Bailhache – who had until a few months earlier been one of William Bailhache’s prosecution lawyers – and who had been recruited as “magistrate” by Philip Bailhache – Bridget Shaw.

      And on the occasion of Shaw being sworn-in to office, Philip Bailhache had used that public occasion in Jersey’s Royal Court to mount a direct, personal and political attack against me, an attack addressed to Bridget Shaw on her becoming one of Philip Bailhache’s “magistrates”.

      The conduct of Bridget Shaw was simply jaw-dropping. For exmaple, being aware, obviously, of a significant number of the associations, personal friendships and working relationships she had with a number of the directly interested parties to the case – for exmaple her previous boss Attorney General William Bailhache, and the man who recruited her and swore her into office with a direct personal and political attack against me, Bailiff Philip Bailhache – I asked her at the outset to declare all possible conflicts of interest, actual or apparent, and all associations she had with anyone who might reasonably be seen to be an interested party to matters concerning me and the cover-ups I was exposing. She repeatedly simply refused to acknowledge or declare any of her many serious and utterly contaminating conflicts of interest and associations with interested parties.

      It gets worse. Unbeknown to me at that time, she – Bridget Shaw herself – was a directly and profoundly conflicted interested party herself. She – as one of William Bailhache’s police station based ‘legal-advisers’ and prosecutors - had frequently been directly, professionally involved in the systemic culture of failure to properly and fully investigate and charge in a number of different child-abuse cases. She was a direct part of the failed apparatus I was investigating and seeking to expose for a generalised failure to investigate charge and prosecute child-abusers.

      That is the - still on-going – situation in Jersey. And as the author correctly says, “the fact of non-intervention by those legally & constitutionally obligated UK authorities must stands as jeopardy to the reputation of the British state."

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    6. Is the Data protection (jersey) Law

      Is the Law passed by the States and confirmed by Her Majesty in Council and any provision of any regulations, Order, rules, bye-laws, scheme or other instrument passed or made in Jersey under the authority of any Order in Council or under any such Law.

      Could this be confirmed that in fact the Attorney General article of the law is the actual Law confirmed by Her Majesty in council.

      a Law shall not be deemed to have been passed until it has been confirmed by Her Majesty in Council and registered by the Royal Court
      Do we know if the Data protection Law had been amended as one confirmed by her Majesty in Council?

      Delete
  78. This Public Inquiry is being paid for by us. We therefore expect to see every thing said and forwarded to this inquiry....
    Warts and all!?

    ReplyDelete
  79. A comment has been submitted accusing a person of Child Abuse concealment. Sorry I think that is just a little too close to the wire and if the commenter would like to re-submit the comment without the Child Abuse concealment allegation it should be published.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Well, there's a suggestion which, if true, out & out terminates what tiny fragment of credibility Eversheds LLP and their three-socks might have had. They are entertaining, so it's said, 'challenges by the Bergerac Brat'.

    Jersey's Data Protection Commissioner, amongst all of the island's contemporary public authorities, has played the most gross role in concealing serious criminal allegations through the abuse of official power so as to silence victims of crime, whistle-blowers, and those who have fought on their behalf.

    Yes. Even more so than the likes of the corruptly conflicted Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, and William Bailhache.

    That much is an openly evidenced and knowable fact, in the eyes of anyone who's paid the faintest attention to 'The Jersey Situation'.

    If this COI panel and their handlers in Evershed LLP are even entertaining threats, delays, restrictions etc from the office of Jersey Data Protection Commissioner, as opposed to subpoenaing her, her Deputy, her entire staff, and subpoenaing duces tecum every shred of documentation relating to her suppression of victims of crime through the abuse of that data protection ‘law’, then Eversheds LLP and their Three Socks are exposed.

    That's it.

    Game over.

    This COI is no more a lawfully objective public authority than Philip & William Bailhache, their bent prosecutors, and their crime-concealing Jurats.

    I mean, come on. If this COI is being restricted in meeting its purported 'purpose' by a public authority whose head is amongst the top 5 culpable cover-up witnesses, then what more needs to be said?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reading all of these quite valid criticisms you can't but help think the Oldham Inquiry must rue the day someone on the team, presumably an Eversheds lawyer, said "you know what we really ought to get some evidence from that outspoken geezer with the shaved bonce. Yeah, that will make it look like we're doing a thorough job. I mean Sir Philip and William hate him!" If only they had known.

      Delete
  81. Have to laugh at this one Póló, isn't the window on the £10 note supposed to have a watermark of a Jersey Cow?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYO0z1nW8AEPGBF.jpg:large

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No idea. Don't remember ever handling one. Probably more than a week's wages when I worked there.

      Link

      Delete
  82. PUBLISHED: January 17, 2016 9:00 am Jersey Evening Post.

    Police chief ‘was suspended for lack of control in abuse probe’

    So says Frank Walker about Police Chief Graham Power. Utter garbage.

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/01/17/police-chief-was-suspended-for-lack-of-control-in-abuse-probe/


    The two Jersey senior police officers were being attacked on several fronts by the AG’s office and by senior politicians trying to give orders to the police during the HdlaG investigation and by the senior civil service executives including Bill Ogley, after the meeting whereby Graham Power left, and refued to be drawn in to the conspiracy to remove a politician, Stuart Syvret.

    Trying to stay independent from political influence and political instruction is what honest policeman do. This undue political attempted interference, explains why the Jersey Government had a corporate child abuse problem which spans decades.

    The Guardian.

    As Power sees it, his suspension was a punishment for daring to challenge Jersey's "secrecy culture" by investigating serious allegations made against some of the island's power players. Worse,

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

    The suspension of Mr Power by the then Home Affairs Minister, Deputy Andrew Lewis, proved controversial amid claims that it was not properly carried out.

    An independent report by Brian Napier QC in 2010 found that the suspension was ‘unfair’ and had been carried out without any evidence of Mr Power’s alleged incompetence.

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/01/17/police-chief-was-suspended-for-lack-of-control-in-abuse-probe/

    September 2008: Jersey's Attorney General, William Bailhache, defends the island's legal system, following allegations of a "cover-up".

    My note.

    Lenny Harper was appalled at how many suspects had –not been - prosecuted by the AG when he felt there was strong evidence to support prosecution. The UK as a Crown Prosecution is a committee. The island’s has one man, the Attorney General.

    November 2008: Chief of Police Graham Power is suspended over his handling of Operation Rectangle. His performance becomes subject to a separate £1m investigation by Wiltshire Police. Mr Power accuses ministers of "a state-sponsored, taxpayer-funded personal vendetta". He says politicians "interfered" with police investigations and "closed ranks" with civil servants.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-28423082

    A judicial review before the royal court took place. Mr Powers affidavit is submitted link below. As you know, untruths found in an affidavit result in imprisonment by the court. The Royal court would not say if Mr Power should be re-instated. The Royal court confirmed that another politician the home affairs minister had the right to keep him suspended away from police work.

    Which of course is exactly what the Minister Ian Le Marquand did.

    As a thought - could all these powerful politicians and law officers really let the police chief resume his job. Had he been reinstated, what other areas and people in high places would he have decided to investigate with the backing of the police force?
    Jerseys political and Judicial membership have a lot to answer for. To try and lay the blame on Power and Harper for their own failings is ridiculous. They even named the child abuse enquiry the child care enquiry. What does that tell us.

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/copy-of-affidavit-of-chief-police.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A judicial review before the royal court took place. Mr Powers affidavit is submitted link below. As you know, untruths found in an affidavit result in imprisonment by the court. The Royal court would not say if Mr Power should be re-instated. The Royal court confirmed that another politician the home affairs minister had the right to keep him suspended away from police work."

      Would I be correct in remembering that the infamous Vic College abuse Jurat Le Breton was chosen to sit on that rather important case?

      Delete
    2. You can only mean John Le Breton Pete? The very man the police in the Jervis-Dykes case said they were prevented from questioning properly about his actions. Which they stated included bullying pupils who complained to John Le Breton about being abused into silence. The police concluded in their own words that John Le Breton never should have been allowed to become a Jurat due to "his lack of integrity". Again in their words the police stated they were "appalled" that this had been allowed. I guess Graham Power's hope of a fair hearing were buggered right from the start?

      Delete
    3. It is surely apt given the above two horrifying comments that in a post that started off based on raising questions about Jersey's Lieutenant Governor.

      And essenyoslly abput hos not doing his job this Crown appointee is put on the spot as to what he had, or now intends to do, about this?

      The answer no doubt will be nothing at all. But this cannot distract from the seriousness of such dereliction of duty.

      Delete
    4. Sorry about my spelling. Teach me not to read your blog when I know the boss is in his next door office! I'm such a rebel daredevil. Not!

      Delete
  83. Is there any COI witnesses being heard this week? Like Wendy Kinard?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No public hearings this week. They resume next Tuesday 2th January.

      Delete
    2. Next hearing
      Tuesday 26th January
      No further information at this stage.

      Delete
  84. Who 'leaked' the in camera debate transcript anyway? Do we know the answer to this question? Thinking about it I concluded the person or persons who did so would have to have some serious balls. Accept this and you find you suddenly have a very small list of suspects. We have an Assembly populated almost exclusively with chickens, sheep and the living dead. Stuart Syvret was long gone by then. Which must make the bookies favourite for the leak Mr TF his good self? Not just a 'leak of the week' as in his much missed BTRs. But the leak of the decade? Or do you think there are other plausible contenders? I personally don't think Mike Higgins would have done it. As it appeared on Rico Sorda's blog I think he should fill us in.



    ReplyDelete
  85. So, what's the betting on the proposition of Deputy Mike Higgins to officially release the 'in-camera' debate transcript to the COI? And what's betting on the various amendments? This is due to be debated any day now by Jersey's legislature.

    The transcript covers the occasion when the Jersey parliament, the States of Jersey, heard a version of events from the then Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis, as to how that Minister had suspended the Police Chief Graham Power. Lewis was heavily questioned, not least by then Senator Stuart Syvret. On that occasion Lewis made certain assertions to the parliament which were later revealed to be wholly at odds with the facts.

    Not all readers may know that the debate transcript in question has already been obtained & published by one of Jersey's independent journalists, Rico Sorda. (Perhaps you could provide a link VFC?)

    For reasons which are, let me put this charitably, not wholly persuasive, the COI has refused to accept into its proceedings the transcript which has long since been published by Jersey's independent journalists. Even though there's no dispute over the accuracy of the published document, the COI won't accept this publicly available evidence, unless an "official version" is given to them by Jersey's make-believe parliament of cabbage-stick munching yokels.

    The stance of the COI is so lacking in credibility, one has to speculate as to what outcome in the imminent debate they're hoping for?

    I wonder if readers of VFC have a view on that intriguing thought?

    Pip pip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wurzel Gummidge de Gastlois18 January 2016 at 19:26

      'Cabbage stick munching yokels'? I take it you are not from these fair shores? Remember that though few in number some of the 'yokels' have gone out on a limb to get the victims justice. You only have to read this thread to see that.

      Delete
  86. Replies
    1. I paraphrase:

      "LA LA LA LA LA evidence does not exist unless it is OFFICIAL evidence LA LA LA LA LA LA"

      This behaviour just makes us yet more of an international laughing stock!

      Delete
  87. The minutes record: “Moreover, he was of the opinion that the use of the States Chamber in this way by external parties could, potentially, diminish the standing of the Chamber.”.
    This was the statement by William Bailhache used to ban the Youth Assembly from the States Building.
    For those unaware, each year a group of interested sixth form students were allowed to sit in the States Assembly and debate topics in a formal way , directly parallel to the 'real thing'. This was a superb engagement with the democratic process and confidence builder.
    William Bailhache has successfully destroyed this and suggested that the use of a Parish Hall would be more appropriate for these 'unwashed oiks' (my term but the sentiment appears to be there).
    One has to ask why ? and what future is there in Jersey for democracy if the controller of the system is denying meaningful access to future participants?
    Unless of course the phrases 'eternal life' an 'Messianic' are shouting in someones head.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "diminish the standing of the Chamber" ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder why the BBC studio version of Queens 'We will Rock you' and this spoken line came to mind?
      The Buddha rejected Brahmism and mocked at it's rituals. As for Brachma, the Buddha didn't deny his existence, but regarded him as a deluded spirit, who imagined he had created the universe

      Delete
    2. Of course it would 'diminish' the Chamber! We have a very high standard of paedophile protecting Bailiffs and Attorney Generals who we all look up to.

      Delete
  89. Regarding comments in this thread about the school master who a police officer says bullied abused children at Vic College in to silence, one John Le Breton subsequently promoted to be a Jurat, does anyone know if he was related to the police chief who proceeded Graham Power? This was a man also called Le Breton. Bob Le Breton. He was police chief throughout the Jervis-Dykes child abuse scandal. Interesting because investigating officers state there was obstruction in their attempting to grill John Le Breton about his behaviour and what was, as has been described above, viewed as his 'lack of integrity'. Just wonder who was involved in the stated obstruction?

    'Cabbage stick munching yokels'??

    ReplyDelete
  90. Is the missing statement back up yet? If so I can't see it. And so the COI circus rolls on.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Still no sign of Trevor's written documentation on the Inquiry site.

    VFC, can you update on today's debate in the States? Any outcome?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The proposition was comfortably adopted. Nice to have something positive come out of that chamber!

      Delete
    2. Great news. Is there a link for the votes pour/contre?

      Remains now to be seen if there are any further problems with Trevor's documentation.

      Delete
    3. There is a link that I will try and get later unless a reader can provide it sooner?

      The COI is not covering itself in glory by ignoring Trevor's letters to them and offering no explanation as to why they are taking down his documents and tampering with them.

      Delete
    4. Andrew's Right Hand19 January 2016 at 20:58

      Perhaps if the COI can't help you could approach the Home Affairs Minister for advice? Or maybe former Senator Terry Le Main if he is still an advisor to inexperienced Home Affairs Ministers?

      Delete
  92. Answering my own question.
    Link

    Committee on Privileges amendment is for States itself to make transcript public at the same time it is released to the Inquiry.

    Virtually unanimous on all counts.

    Andrew Lewis abstained on Deputy Higgins proposition (a & b)(ie to release the transcripts to the Inquiry and for members to give evidence in respect of the proceedings if called to do so)

    He voted for the amendment (to make the transcript public at the same time it is released to the Inquiry) and then abstained on the proposition as amended.

    I suppose that's consistent in a sort of convoluted way. He doesn't want it out but if it's going to the Inquiry, who will no doubt release it, then the States itself might as well make it public.

    Looks like he's being hung out to dry.





    , including the turkey, Andrew Lewis, voting for Christmas. Priceless.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Oops. Ignore the last line of my previous comment. Looked first at the amendment and thought Lewis had voted for release. Meant to delete that line. Too much excitement for one day.

    ReplyDelete
  94. READERS PLEASE NOTE .......19 January 2016 at 21:32

    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

    Once 200 comments have been reached replies to these first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that "Load more..." link is clicked

    ReplyDelete
  95. Just make sure you prove a conspiracy / illegal suspension / cover-up to the COI now and they agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. How distasteful that we hear a mad and rabid rant that the brave politician - be he past or current - who leaked the essential evidence of the in camera debate should be dragged in to the Royal Square and hung

    Do such people as the Constable of the Rotten Borough of St John learn nothing from the horrific abuse so many victims have suffered?

    Disgraceful.

    ReplyDelete
  97. http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/should-long-running-investigations-close-1-7674269
    Is Mick Gradwell a media pundit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps Mick's time would be better spent telling us the results of his interviewing Person 737 under caution shortly after the suspension of the Police Chief.

      Delete
  98. Bring on the Bailhache brothers.

    Philip is up on 26th and William on 28th & 29th.
    Link

    Still no sign of Trevor's documentation.

    ReplyDelete
  99. READERS PLEASE further NOTE20 January 2016 at 10:49

    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 click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread

    Once 200 comments have been reached replies to these first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that "Load more..." link is clicked

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

    The above blogspot glitch causes particular problems when replying to comments. If replying to any comments BEFORE THIS POINT it is best to do so (or repeat) on the main thread or the reply will remain hidden by default.

    Blogspot is not optimised for such successful blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Dynamite
    ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/former-home-affairs-minister-deput.html

    Hoisted by their own petard.

    The rats are scurrying for the lifeboats.

    ReplyDelete

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