Sunday, 3 April 2016

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry Transcripts. (Andrew Lewis Part Three)

former Chief Police Officer
Graham Power QPM.

In November 2008 the then Home Affairs Minister, and current Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, Deputy Andrew Lewis, controversially (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police while his force was investigating  (Operation Rectangle) decades of concealed Child Abuse in State run institutions and elsewhere in Jersey.

As part of our "transcript Blogs" we are currently looking at the transcripts of Deputy Andrew Lewis. These are the transcripts of those who have given evidence to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI).

In this, part three, publication we continue attempting to determine how credible Deputy Lewis' testimony to the Inquiry is......or isn't.

For those who have been following this story you will be aware that the law required Deputy Lewis bring a statement to the parliament after suspending the Chief Police Officer. He suspended the Chief Officer on the 12th November 2008. He brought the statement to the parliament on the 2nd December 2008 so plenty of time to get his story straight one would expect?
Clearly this wasn't the case and has been well documented since so no need to repeat it in this posting.

Today we look at why Deputy Andrew Lewis believes (or tried to convince the COI) thirty of our politicians voted against releasing the Hansard of the in-camera (secret) States Debate when delivering his statement regarding his suspension of Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. 

Deputy Mike Higgins.

Deputy Mike Higgins, on 23rd May 2012, lodged a proposition asking the parliament to make public the Hansard of the 2nd of December 2008. The proposition was debated on 26th June 2012 and can be read HERE. Both the December 2nd 2008 debate and Deputy Higgins' proposition were held in-camera (secret)

Deputy Andrew Lewis looks to be attempting to convince the COI, and public, that the reason thirty politicians voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition to have the December 2008 Hansard released was because those thirty politicians weren't confused over what he meant when discussing a preliminary/interim report. Deputy Lewis, in the transcript below, seems to be of the impression that those thirty politicians knew he was talking about "The Warcup Letter" (that he never mentioned during the December 2nd 2008 debate) and not the Metropolitan Police preliminary/Interim report. (which he did mention on a number of occasions)

We produce this part of the transcript here.

Counsel to Inquiry Cathryn McGahey QC questioning Deputy Andrew Lewis:

Can I stop you there. Where in this States debate (2nd Dec 2008) had you already said that this was information from Mr Warcup?

That's the issue, ma'am, and you're correct, I have not mentioned Mr Warcup, but then why have members later on said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard.

How do you think that they deduced that you were talking about Mr Warcup, bearing in mind you did not refer to him once?

Well, you have to ask them, ma'am. 30 of them felt that. That was the vote after that debate (26 June 2012), so you would have to ask all of them..............

The full transcript of that Public Hearing can be read HERE. The excerpts published by VFC can be read HERE.

So Deputy Lewis has (under oath) told the Public Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry:

"but then why have members later on  said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard."

We searched the Hansard of 26th June 2012 debate using the quote used by Deputy Lewis; "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter" That term DOES NOT exist in the Hansard search we did.

What we did do, also, is to read the Hansard of those who voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition to discover if (as Deputy Andrew Lewis seems to think) those who chose NOT to release the December 2008 Hansard voted against the proposition because there was no confusion and that those thirty politicians knew he (Deputy Andrew Lewis) was referring to "The Warcup Letter" that was NEVER mentioned in the November 2008 debate...........Yeah, I know!

Out of the thirty who voted to keep the December 2008 Hansard a secret, we counted only ten of them spoke.

We reproduce extracts of that Hansard below in order to demonstrate our point that if any of the thirty politicians thought "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter" They did not say those words, and even if there were those that believed (despite Deputy Andrew Lewis never mentioning any "Warcup letter" in the December 2nd 2008 debate) the Deputy was referring to it then this was NOT the sole reason as to why they voted to keep that Hansard a secret.

Selected excerpts from Hansard from June 26th 2012 debate:

Bold emphasis added by VFC.

(Then)Deputy James Reed said:

“……….I do not know, necessarily, what the former Minister for Home Affairs at the time exactly what he was referring to but it is quite likely that the report that he was referring to was, indeed, the summary that Mr. Brian Napier acknowledges was contained in a letter sent by Mr. Warcup to Mr. Ogley on 10th November. So if that is the case, we are going to have extreme difficulty in determining whether the report that is referred to which, indeed, was a summary, presumably reflected the main points of the interim report and it was that which was relied upon, rightly or wrongly, by those at the time to determine the actions that they took.”

Didn't know what he (Andrew Lewis) was referring to. VFC.

Deputy Steve Luce said:

“I do not feel that I am going to be able to support this proposition. The proposer has given us a reasonable sized document to read and to new Members here who have not had the benefit of sitting in the last House, this is all new. We are trying to listen to the debate, read the document at the same time and then pass judgment that has been well made. I do not think I can do this justice in the period of time we are going to be here.”

Didn't have enough time to make a decision. VFC.

(then) connetable Phil Rondel said:

“No matter what is being said here by my colleagues today, I am having difficulty in saying that I could support this because I have not had all the evidence.”

Lack of evidence. VFC

                                      Deputy Rod Bryans said:

 "I feel that I understand what Deputy Higgins has brought to this Assembly. But I am very concerned and I support what the Deputy of St. Lawrence and the Deputy of St. John has said, it seems now that there are 2 germane documents that seem to be missing and that is the summary provided by Mr. Warcup and the actual interim report itself. Because if these 2 things marry-up and look very similar and the content is germane to the whole situation, then there is not, as the Connétable of St. John says, that to me seems, as he said, in the middle of all of that situation with it in full flow you would have to make your decisions as you go along and although I totally understand where Deputy Higgins is coming from, I think those 2 documents would now have to be discovered by certainly the new Members who have not been party to all of this and so I could not support this motion.”

Missing documents. VFC.

Senator Philip Ozouf said:

"I do understand the frustration of Members but I think that we are not in a position to be able to release information that was collected and expected to remain in camera, I think as a matter of principle. The Deputy believes that the former Minister has said something incorrect. I do not know. I am in the same position. I was in the debate. I simply do not know. The difficulty is that I do not think that we can publish a transcript because it reveals also other Members’ questions which they had a legitimate expectation that would remain secret."

It, for Senator Ozouf, was a matter of principle that secret debates should stay secret and he simply "didn't know" if Deputy Andrew Lewis said something "incorrect." (misled the parliament). VFC.

Deputy Richard Rondel said:

“What I am hoping is that people that were there do speak and advise us exactly that happened because it is very difficult to look at all this information in a short space of time and make a judgment.”

Hasn't had time to look at all the information. VFC.

Connetable Juliette Gallichan said:

“But if you simply read the transcript and understand the way that the Deputy of St. John expressed himself habitually and how you knew how his mannerisms, et cetera, were, he says: “I saw a preliminary report” as if I was given some information at the beginning. It is not, necessarily, I would put it to you “the interim report” and if we are hinging the entire possibility of changing the way we look at in camera debates and the release of transcripts on the interpretation of a couple of words, I think the Assembly does itself no justice at all and I really was expecting a more cataclysmic revelation from Deputy Higgins than what he has given, and from that point of view I really am at a loss as to how we justify the trade-off between our tradition and something that Members have come to rely on as being very important even though it is to be used extremely sparingly, i.e. the in camera debate. We have no way of knowing unless we talk to the former Deputy of St. John exactly what he meant by that ……..”

No way of knowing what Deputy Lewis "meant by that" and wanted to uphold the Jersey tradition of secrecy. VFC.

One must also keep in mind that Connetable Juliette Gallichan is the former Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) who has questions to answer herself HERE and HERE. Why she was not called as a witness to the Child Abuse Inquiry is still a mystery.

(Then) Senator Ian Le Marquand said:

"The second approach is that where there is any debate of a matter that individuals who contribute to the debate must have the right to expect that what they have said in camera will remain in camera and remain confidential and that is a very important principle that should not be overturned, and the effect of this proposition is to do that. I have found this extremely difficult because I understand both those principles. I think the first principle is right. That is a reason why the statute requires these matters to be in camera and I think the second principle is probably right as well; Members should be able to trust that what was in camera remains in camera."

Although in the full Hansard Ian Le Marquand believes Deputy Lewis, it is not the sole reason for upholding the secret Jersey Way as he explains above.............It's about secrecy as well.

Ian Le Marquand has a number of questions to answer also. Not least from HERE.

(Then) Deputy Sean Power (or what ever his real name is) said:

It is not specific in this text as to what he is referring to and he refers on the bottom of that page, which is the fourth page that we have, he refers to it again. He says: “I believe if this preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.” So, again, he is referring to a report, which is a synopsis or some sort of briefing situation because I am quite sure………”

He goes on further to say:

“Again, we have this vagueness as to what he is actually referring to in using the words “preliminary report” and Senator Le Gresley has referred to that. Then on the bottom of page 4 he refers to the fact that: “I am purely acting on information contained this time in a report.” He does not even use the words “preliminary report” and we do not know what the source of that report is, we do not know where it came from, and we are not sure who prepared it.”

Self explanatory.VFC.

Senator Philip Bailhache.

“……and now we are asked to agree that the transcripts of an in camera debate be released so that the reputation of a former Member can be dragged in the dust. We are asked to do this on the flimsiest of evidence and without hearing what the former Member has to say about it. I agree with the Senators Le Gresley and Le Marquand and I am not at all persuaded that there was an attempt or an innocent misleading of the Assembly. Deputy Pitman says that the integrity of the Assembly is in question and he is right. Even if the former Police Chief was treated unfairly, and I simply do not know whether or not that was the case, I do not think that that is a justification for treating the former Deputy of St. John with unfairness. The short answer for me is that the former debate, or the debate held on 2nd December 2008, was held in camera in accordance with the mandates of the law and it should take a very, very strong reason, in my view, for that to be overturned. There may be reasons why such a transcript should be released but at the moment I cannot think of such reasons. Of course a Member should speak the truth, whether they are speaking in camera or in public; that goes without saying. Some Members have said that the transcripts clarify matters and therefore they should be put into the public domain. I must say that as a new Member I do not share that view at all. If you are a new Member you need a great deal more information than we have heard this afternoon in order to understand what is going on.”

Well as much as Senator Bailhache tried to pass himself off as a "new member." He neglected to mention that he actually chaired the December 2nd 2008 secret debate that is being discussed/voted on here.

Regular readers will know that when Deputy Andrew Lewis said in that debate;

"As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."

The then Bailiff and now Senator Bailhache said:

The Bailiff: (Philip Bailhache)

"Minister, do not go down this road please." HERE. 

So Senator Bailhache seems to know a bit more than he is letting on? Clearly one of his reasons for voting against Deputy Higgins' proposition was to maintain secrecy.

Twenty of those who voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition didn’t speak so we, the Committee of Inquiry, (or Andrew Lewis) have no way of knowing what they thought. So IF Andrew Lewis is saying (under oath) they believed he wasn’t misleading the House, or that they knew he was referring to the “Warcup letter” then how does he, or we, know this?

People who are economical with the truth in one topic are usually as economical in others. People who attempt to cover up one thing are usually prepared to cover up another.

The fact is that the evidence doesn't look to back up Andrew Lewis' testimony to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. This should be of considerable concern to the island's government and to the general public.

Andrew Lewis is a serving politicians and Chairman of Public Accounts Committee who's honesty, and integrity, should be beyond reproach.

Part one of this series can be viewed HERE.

Part two of this series can be viewed  HERE.


  1. Good old Sir Philip Bailhache!

    I quote:

    'Deputy Pitman says the integrity of the Assembly is at stake and he is right...'

    Deputy Pitman was right. Bang on the money.

    Senator Bailhache acknowledges he was right.

    Then votes against Deputy Higgins' proposition!

    There you have both the whole Jersey Way and the problem of this toothless COI in one.

    1. Incredible how our elected representatives behave really.

      The other former Deputy Pitman, Shona, used to be one of my Deputies in St Helier 2 and very helpful to me she was too. But the above reminds me of another similar incident she told me about once.

      This involved a debate on a proposition by former Deputy Daniel Wimberley whom I also thought was another excellent politician.

      Anyway according to Shona Daniel Wimberley's speech had gone on for over an hour and it's supporters were confident it would be won.

      In the States coffee room however Shona told me how two Constables demonstrated how the States really work in chatting to them about the debate.

      'Yes, Wimberley is right' one who if I remember correctly was the former Constable of Grouville said, 'but we're not going to vote for him because he has spoken for too long!'

      Good, rational thought just like in the above debate on Mike Higgins proposition! You really have to admit they certainly make us proud.

  2. With hindsight it is something of a mystery why Lewis bothered to get himself involved at all With Graham Power’s illegal suspension. Both he and Frank Walker were within days of leaving office and leaving politics. Yet they chose to get themselves involved in the most contentious suspension in the Island's history. Elections were taking place and a new government was due to be appointed. Why not just prepare a file on the issue and pass it on to the next Minister? Could it be because they had resolved that Mr. Power was to be suspended come what may and that they did not trust anyone else to comply with their wishes? The only way that they could be sure that it would happen was to do it themselves irrespective of the lack of evidence or the legal advice to the contrary.

    1. The timing of Power's suspension just before the election of a new Assembly has always baffled me. A case of let's do it now and nobody can touch us?

  3. I believe Lewis is lying because it’s published in black and white in the committee of enquiry transcripts and Hansard. Questions I have are why is he lying? Who put him up to it and who or what is he afraid of? Or is he simply deluded? Has he convinced himself of his own version of events to a point where he actually believes himself? Is there something going on here around his mental processes and if so what are the implications should he progress to a further position of power in the political establishment? Just what will the COI make of his evidence? Will he survive politically after publication of the enquiry’s report? ..............We will find that out soon enough.

  4. Very well drafted. The noose pulled tight.

  5. Reference the Philip Bailhache use of Trevor Pitman's highlighting of the term integrity which opened these comments. How interesting it is that over the years which have followed this whole concept of integrity has become central to everything the good guys have been fighting for. It really does all come down to this. Integrity in doing one's job. Integrity in standing up against corruption. Where is Mr Lewis' integrity? Fine to plaster the word on election material to con those who do not know the truth. But what about in the real world? Does Lewis really believe he was showing this in obediantly becoming Walker, Warcup and Ogley's poodle patsy? Does he really believe when he reads through the contradictory, unconvincing gobbledegook spelt out in these transcripts that he has any credibility let alone integrity left? Is he really that deluded? These are important questions. Because while in a recent post several readers were getting very heated about political reform and parties the issue of whether Lewis manages to get re-elected in two years time goes right to the heart of any hope for honest and accountable government. Put in a nutshell I would suggest that if the island's mainstream media don't all come out and bluntly tell people not to vote for Lewis, just like they used to do with Norman Le Brocq I genuinely believe it will show Jersey is not only impossible to save. It isn't worth saving. But thanking you for so diligently setting all if this out. Deluded madmen in office? Why not - America has had several of them as Presidents.

  6. If this was Trevor Pitman or Mike Higgins or Lenny Harper or Graham Power who had been caught out like Lewis has the Jersey MSM would be running with the story every day for a month. They are not running with this story on Lewis so I think you have your answer there when it comes to who the MSM will report the truth on. Lewis is still protected for services given to the Bailhache clan.

    1. Probably be calls for disciplinary action too. But not for their 'boy' Andy!

  7. A reader mentions above the timing of the politicised and illegal suspension of the Jersey Police Chief, which occurred a matter of days before Jersey's Deputorial elections in November 2008.

    Yes, very obviously one of the motives of the criminal conspiracy was to influence public opinion and voters choices. Prior to the criminal seizure of the island's policing function by Jersey's cartel of criminal syndicates, the public had gained a real and dark and accurate insight into the structural breakdown in safe governance in the island, as evidenced in the decades of exposed child-protection failure and concealed child-abuse. That recognition was influencing voters against the traditional cosa nostra, who had to do something desperate to suddenly con the public into thinking the child-abuse controversies had all been a load of nonsense, somehow "invented" by the police, and that the establishment hadn't failed, and in fact "everything-in-the-sunny-and-wonderful-garden-of-of-Jersey-was-rosy" after all; and that the "villans" were the police.

    That that was the thinking and intention of the Jersey oligarchy has been de facto admitted - in the bananas testimony of former Senator Frank Walker, who repeatedly and strenuously - without one atom of evidence - accused the then Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief of being motivated to "overthrow Jersey's government".

    Yes, it's crackers. But never underestimate the ability of the Jersey establishment to hypnotise itself into believing its own propaganda, no matter how nutty. We see the result of this curious phenomenon time and again.

    But there was another reason (amongst the many) why the Jersey establishment had to create a big diversionary controversy at that time; a reason no-one should forget about.

    The Police Chief was illegally suspended the actual DAY before the Howard League for Penal Reform published their independent review into the conduct, failures and abuse by the island's authorities towards decades of children in secure "care".

    That report is damning - and it endorsed every single point which had been made by whistle-blowers such as Simon Bellwood and myself. And conversely, showed the Jersey establishment and many of its key figures to have spent the previous eighteen months repeatedly lying.

    So that was another reason why the lunatic action of illegally suspending a Police Chief seemed like the "perfect solution" to the Jersey mafia's woes. The strategy is called "flip-the-script", perhaps more commonly understood as 'the best form of defence is attack', essentially, the only conduct the Jersey oligarchy are capable of, in their decadence.

    There was no shame, no sense of reflection, no mature and wise recognition we had failed generations of vulnerable children in the island, and that facing those failures and working together to put them right was the responsible way forward. Only a maddened and fear-filled rage driving these inadequets onto even lower depths of administrative depravity.

    Stuart Syvret

  8. Yes, Stuart @ 20:19

    And we still don't know if Gradwell interviewed 737 under caution just days after Power's suspension and if so what the results were. Clearly there were no charges and as far as I know 737 has not appeared before or been called by the Inquiry.

    1. Yes, the conduct of Mick Gradwell in this whole act of state-criminality hasn't even begun to be properly examined.

      Some people may have forgotten the fact that most of Gradwell's time and work in Jersey was devoted to - not the child-abuse crimes - but, instead, covertly "investigating" Lenny Harper and me. He had two full-time - purported - "police-officers" on the task - Mark Kane and Julia Jackson.

      Funnily enough - the same two "cops" who were purporting to victims of 737 that they were investigating the crimes of 737 - but "so sadly" - after a few months - gradually "brought down" the expectations of not only those victims, but other key witnesses too.

      None of this is going away.

      Stuart Syvret

    2. I don't know who '737' is, but I wonder if that person must 'have something' over the powers-that-be which will have motivated those in power in Jersey and London to take such seemingly insane risks in order to shield him? There's no explanation otherwise. The actions of these people have not only destroyed the standing and credibility of the authorities in Jersey, but to anyone who has followed and thinks about the events in Jersey, it raises the same question about those authorities in London who have in turn propped up those in authority in Jersey.

    3. Yes, this is certainly one of the very few obvious explanations for the events in Jersey of the last 8 years, events which are frankly unprecedented in modern British governance in their corruption -

      'I wonder if that person must 'have something' over the powers-that-be which will have motivated those in power in Jersey and London to take such seemingly insane risks in order to shield him?'

      But there's also an obvious, but by no means mutually exclusive explanation for the protection given to '737'. Namely, that he's 'useful' to certain people, authorities and organisations.

      Think of him as a long-term 'investment' which a number of very significant business entities have made.

      I suspect he is seen as a high-risk investment. Very usefull, for as long as it works out. But capable of wrecking the 'company', if the investment goes bad.

  9. I think that in one word in his or her post, the commentor on 3 April 2016 at 20:03 expressed it well, the word being: "gobbledegook." What I mean is that Lewis's explanations for his actions are basically, gobbledegook, pure and simple - or to put it less politely, arrant bullshit.

  10. "I suspect he is seen as a high-risk investment. Very useful, for as long as it works out. But capable of wrecking the 'company', if the investment goes bad."

    And that 'company' possibly/probably being operated from a property in Stopford Road?

  11. So what will the COI make of this gobbledygook?

    It should say that Andrew Lewis and his testimony is a joke. It should also state that he was a willing and able patsy and continues to be. It should also state that the suspension and subsequent removal of a crown appointee - the police chief - was to help shut down operation rectangle and show the world that it was all one big cock up and mistake.

    Lewis, for what he did, and went along with is no better than an abuser.

    1. Just like the then Attorney General Bailhache who the Head of Education nailed - 'I don't recall'. Just like Jurat Le Breton who even the Police officer Cornelissen nailed as covering up abuse. Our Jersey Establishment judicial and political are crooks. If the COI can't see their gobbledegook needs external intervention then the 26 million really has been a waste of money.

  12. The "biggest leak in history" with a massive Jersey connection:

    Years ago I remember a comment on one of the blogs about Bailhache hiding his /family? financial interests behind a Panamanian front

    I did not have the means to check the truth of the allegation which was made in the wake of the Jersey Register of Member's Interests which was rendered utterly ineffectual by Bailhache removing the "BENEFICIAL" from the draft of the legislation!

    Wouldn't it be interesting if he or the family used the "MF Group" (Mossack Fonseca) .......especially si if it were illegal.

    Can someone with the know how and a little time do a search on the detailed data when it is released.

  13. It is slightly off topic, but the Panama Papers is big news.

    I wonder if that's where we'll find the ill-gotten gains of the planning/land corruption scandal?

    While the ICIJ concentrates on the main crooks for now, I wouldn't bet against our local Politically Exposed Persons making an appearance at some point.

    1. I wouldn't get my hopes too high unless the whole database is put in the public domain.

      Craig Murray makes an interesting point on this.


    2. He makes some good points and well worth the read.



    Company Number
    Incorporation Date
    8 February 1985 (about 31 years ago)
    Company Type
    Registered Address
    Agent Name
    Directors / Officers
    EL PRESIDENTE, representante
    FARAH ANA BALLANDS, director
    LUIS ALBERTO DAVILA, suscriptor
    Registry Page

    1. Cannot find anything illegal about WILLSUN INVESTMENT COMPANY.

  15. BAILHACHE LABESSE SECRETARIES LIMITED acted as Company Secretary for multiple firms and a Secretary does not have control, so what is so suspicious about WILLSUN INVESTMENT COMPANY?

  16. sharock holmes5 April 2016 at 07:04

    22:31 -22:08

    Not sure anyone did.

  17. Ho, ho, ho, my, the comment at 22:08 did make me chuckle,

    "BAILHACHE LABESSE SECRETARIES LIMITED acted as Company Secretary for multiple firms and a Secretary does not have control, so what is so suspicious about WILLSUN INVESTMENT COMPANY?"

    As another reader observed, no-one here did say the activity of WILLSUN and Bailhache LaBesse was illegal. But as we're seeing from the global coverage of the Panama Leaks and, indeed, the responses of governments, including our own in the UK, it isn't necessarily actual "illegality" which global civil society is objecting to.

    And as for Jersey "Secretaries" not having "control" of the "companies" they administer, listen, son, you really don't won't to go down this path, unless you want a microscopic examination of the theory, contrasted with the reality, of how Jersey (and other tax-haven entities) practice.

    Law-firm or bank 1, will provide the secretaries - who will "administer" the "companies" - which have been set up on behalf of clients by law-firm or bank 2, who will be providing the directors (usually non-executive, hell, very possibly non-executive directors such as your Lieutenant Governors) who will exercise the Potemkin village "control" of the company.

    And as secretaries provided by law-firm/bank 1 are probably friends, and fellow Lodge-members of the directors provided by law-firm/bank 2, and those who recruited both sets of agents, at their next dinner party they'll agree whose turn it is to be secretaries and directors for the next set of clients. And they'll have a chat and a chuckle over how cosmetic the regulatory regime is. Which it is. I mean, just imagine if Jersey's syndicate of law-firms basically "owned" a very senior figure in the tax-haven's finance industry regulatory system? Something which could, hypothetical, very easily come to pass in the absence of a "fit & proper person" test.

    Indeed, just imagine if, in addition to such "capture" of the regulatory authority, a similar degree of "capture" was to happen in respect of judges and your "Jurats" in particular?

    Against such a possible background, questions of "legality" as opposed to "illegality" become moot. We would be looking at a system in which the "law" was reality-optional.

    But even on it's own terms, the "reality" of Jersey finance industry vehicles don't withstand close scrutiny. For example we might want to make a start by examining Jersey's "bare trusts", trust-law, which these days has been so amended as to virtually render redundant Jersey "foundations".

    Let's make no mistake. The Panama Leaks are another hammer-blow to the Potemkin village "reality" of Jersey's governance system.

    Pip pip!

    1. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the use of BAILHACHE LABESSE SECRETARIES LIMITED as a secretary of a panamanian company would have been fairly standard back in the eighties - most trust companies would have their corporate secretary who acted as corporate secretary for all of their client companies - running to thousands. So, for example, Willsun Investment Company would have been ultimately owned by a third party, Mr A from Germany, or Mr C from South Africa etc, but it would have had the same corporate secretary as scores of other panamanian companies formed on behalf of BAILHACHE LABESSE clients.

      Jersey individuals looking to hide their assets would more likely to have used Trusts - and there is no public information available for the settlors or beneficiaries of Trusts.

    2. I do not understand why a person keeps on coming on here and referring to a Potemkin village whilst writing a load of scatterbrained claims. A Company Secretary has no control over the decisions of a Company period.

    3. It's interesting that the 2 comments (11.41 & 11.59) which purport to take issue with the comment made by 'Pip Pip' at 08.31, don't in fact offer any material dispute to what 'Pip Pip' actually wrote.

      Much like the earlier 'straw man' trolling which falsely accused those commenting on the implications of the Panama Leaks of claiming 'illegality' had been shown, the 2 comments attribute 'claims' to 'Pip Pip' which weren't made.

      The noticeable point being, there's no inconsistency of fact between 08.31, and the attempted 'rebuttals' in the 2 subsequent comments.

      This tends to confirm to us the essential accuracy of 'Pip Pip's' observations.

    4. There is nothing trolling about saying a Company Secretary has no control over the decisions of a Company because that is a text book fact.
      If anything, you are trolling by on purposely arguing with people over such matters.

    5. Oh VFC, we're not starting to wind the clock back to 2009 are we? If I have to read any more comments from THAT fool @13:34 I'll find better things to do with my time. The blogs learnt the hard way about the need for absolutely zero-tolerance of obvious trolling. Have you lost sight of those lessons? Are you letting your moderation standards slip?

      The comment at 13:41 IS classic trolling. Think about it? The comments at 11:41, 11:49 & now 13:41 all consist of a 'gold-standard' of trolling, namely the 'straw-man' argument - or rather, non-argument. No-body said earlier that 'Company Secretaries control the decisions of companies'. Perhaps 1 false suggestion that someone had made that claim might be permittable. But 3? How many more times are you going to let the same false claim be published? 5, 10, 20? Do you expect your sensible and constructive readers to spend their precious time responding to that nonsense, over and over again? Well count me out if you do. I thought the comment left under the last posting, which criticised a perceived falling standard of moderation and quality of comments here was a little harsh. I'm beginning to wonder now. If ever I feel a need to waste my time reading the diversionary nonsense of irrelevant idiots I can look at the JEP site thanks. I come here expecting to find higher standards.

  18. Seems like someone already getting very twitchy about the Panama leaks. Cook and Shenton making themselves look like a couple of performing seals on the BBC with the same desperate propaganda that all is well in our 'well regulated' off-shore industry. Just wait for when adequate sifting of the 11 million documents has taken place. Then you will start to hear about 'the Jersey documents' and the Establishment PR chortling may take on a rather different, more desperate tone. Jersey law/finance interests have been making use of MF for more than a generation anyone who says they know all of this was above board haven't got a clue. The times they are a-changing however slowly. All the more reason to pull the plug on the dead dodo of a new financial district and start looking at genuine diversification to fill the inevitable gaps as much as we can for our children. No we won't fill the breach by a long way but only an idiot would just stick their bonce in the ground and pretend we don't need to try.

    1. Jersey Finance response to above comment'

      La la la we can't you. Our fingers are in our ears. La la la

    2. Think you missed out the word 'hear' but undoubtedly right in sentiment. Our Finance big wigs are simply in denial when it comes to any criticism.

  19. Cook's Skiddy Pants5 April 2016 at 17:35

    Anonymous @14.04 looks like you are being proved right already with the Binks-Mat revelation (even today's Rag news reporting it), and this is pretty dated stuff. Coming weeks should be intriguing!

  20. Local BBC State Radio has hit some real LOWS in the past and today it displayed once more the depths it will go to in order to discredit/smear anybody who challenges Jersey or its finance industry.

    Readers should listen back to today's "Talking Topic" between 12:00 and 13:00 where two guests were allowed to talk absolute rubbish, including Jersey has no corruption, Jersey has an independent Judiciary. The two guests were almost egged on by the Disc Jockey to ridicule Richard Murphy concerning his opinion on the Panama Files.

    It was an hour of undisguised propaganda and another embarrassing episode for the island as a whole. The BBC really has no shame.

    1. That sounds like it would be an interesting listen to anyone curious about the 21st century lawless feudatory which the Jersey jurisdiction represents. Not so much because a couple of establishment mouthpieces would be desperately propagandising on behalf of the status quo in the face of seismic events like the Panama Papers. But more so because of what the nature of the broadcast shows about the BBC as an entity, and how it's allowed its name, its reputation, it's authority and its standing to become, essentially, a franchise - a 'trade-mark' - a kind of 'front' - which it has sold and surrendered to a local mafia.

      The BBC stands in disastrous circumstances in, and because of, Jersey. What is remarkably evidenced is the conduct of the gone-native BBC franchise in the island. Conduct which is historically indelible given the Jimmy Savile atrocity, and the role the BBC played in Jersey in participating in the conspiracy to sabotage a child-abuse investigation which might, possibly, have gone on to have accumulated enough evidence to make Savile a major suspect when he was still living. Enough evidence to find him worthy of charging and prosecution.

      That is, if that process hadn't been illegally sabotaged by your authorities via the improper suspension of your Police Chief. A clearly ultra vires action against your rights to impartial policing, an unlawful action which was endorsed and enthusiastically supported by the BBC.

      It is quite remarkable given the evidenced events of the last 8 years, that even now there still appears to be no-one of sufficient competence in the London leadership of the BBC, to recognise that taking back control the BBC franchise in Jersey from the local syndicate of white-collar gangsters who have captured it over the last 20 or so years could be vital to the very survival of the BBC as a credible, public institution.

      Could you post a link to the broadcast? I'm sure I'm not the only reader observing the island from afar who'd be interested in hearing this latest conduct of the BBC on Jersey, especially in light of the Panama Papers and the indelible stain of Savile.


    2. The propaganda/smear broadcast is 3 hours - 10 minutes in LINK.

    3. Thank you so much for the "lows" link. I had never read, seen or heard the Deputy Shona Pitman episode on the BBC Jersey and I have to say I was disgusted by her treatment. We pay to keep this organisation in business and we have a right to expect better than an Establishment mouthpiece like the BBC is exposed as being. Fortunately I think they may find it s little harder to silence 11 million documents than insult and misrepresent one honest and hard working Deputy.

  21. If I may say so, the way you've been using photographs to illustrate the blog in the last few posting has been very well judged. It's added to the flow, as it were, of comprehension, not only in the obvious ways, but in a subliminal sense, and triggers all kinds of clear and demanding questions in any thinking reader.

    For example, of those pictured, wouldn't it be remarkable (given the circumstances) if any of them were NOT Freemasons? (A simpler question than asking if any of them were.) And as a UK parliamentary select committee pointed out when investigating the threat Masonry poses to objective, uncontaminated & safe governance in Britain, there are female Masons. The idea the self-serving cult is confined to males only has long been debunked.

    And another question; does it not speak volumes about the true nature and 'level' of your Jersey establishment, and of the rest of those pictured in particular, that there should be such an immediate and natural affinity between them and a stereotypical 'gombeen man' such as 'Sean Dooley Power' (or whatever his real name is, as you so wisely put it.)

    We can indeed gauge those Jersey establishment figures pictured by the company they're keeping. No-one would find it in the least surprising to see Dooly 'Gombeen' Power in their ranks.


    1. Glad he ain't a Bean (Sean that is)6 April 2016 at 11:38

      Power losing his seat was likely the one bright spot in the dire election of 2014. 'Vote Sean for Senator' his posters said trying to project him as everybody's friend. Deluded and as the email theft showed us dishonest. But he is desperate to get back. Monty must be on his toes in St. Brelade No 2 because this is where Mr Gombeen will stand: he hates being a 'Gone-Been'.

  22. The name and shame list -

    1. Perverts.
      All these sickos only go on the sex register for 5 years. Once a paedo always a paedo.

    2. The well connected sickos don't even get prosecuted if they have dirt on the establishment

    3. Read the one about that filthy pig Paul Whitehouse who was caught with 1,059 sick abuse videos, only got 3 years so will be out in 2 -

      People get longer sentences for bringing in cannabis.

    4. You couldn't make this shit up.

      The defendant had downloaded IIOC from as far back as 2005 right up until 2015.
      In total 12 exhibits were between them found to contain a total of 1,557 different IIOC. The majority of these indecent files were movies, many of which were of a significant length (over 45 minutes each).

      'Whitehouse maintained that he never fantasised about having sex with children'.

  23. "Mr Shapps has since resigned. And facts remain facts. Only now, of course, we know a few more because, in 2015, Channel 4 News reporters discovered that Ian Cameron did not just run a fund off-shore but held personal wealth off-shore – they found the grant of probate showing that he left assets worth more than £10,000 in Jersey (how much more we still don’t know)".

    Maybe this is "protection" from looking too closely at Jersey etc & how many others like David Cameron & families in UK power are using here as well?

  24. Any updates, like what happens next with Lewis?

    1. What happens next to Andrew Lewis is a matter for our elected representatives. Who will stick their head above the parapet and lodge a vote of no confidence? Maybe they are happy to have among them somebody with so many question marks hanging over his honesty and integrity?

      As has been mentioned previously it is impossible to see that he could survive the Inquiry's final report and should be looking for his exit from political/public life.

    2. Should put him in the stocks in the Royal Square and let the victims throw rotten tomatoes at him.

  25. "Who will stick their head above the parapet and lodge a vote of no confidence?" Good question. Come to think of it only Deputy Higgins comes to mind, but why should he bother when he knows that the majority would go against him. Others maybe thinking about it could be Deputies Tadier, Mezec, and even Vallois. Any more thoughts or ideas from anyone?

  26. Dear Senator Bailhache,

    Your answer was short comprehensive and heartfelt when you replied to the question asking ……. do politicians lie ?

    While it is fully accepted that you are not in favour of the child care investigation you are, as your answer quoted below records, a man of principle and integrity.

    St John hustings Jersey election Oct 2011

    Sir Philip Bailhache.

    " In every important aspect of life, truthfulness is fundamental, without truthfulness you cannot have trust. I have spent all my working life in an environment where truthfulness is fundamental and if people are not truth full they suffer the consequences’………………….

    If a minister lied to another minister, so far as I am concerned, that would be pretty well almost certainly be the end of a ministerial career ".

    Any politician lying to the assembly, given the responsibility and trust placed in that person by the electorate and fellow politicians is a disgrace. Furthermore if the lie ( or lies ) are believed, then clearly this will impact and install corruption on good governance by a possible wrong decision being arrived at by the house due to the false or incorrect information being campaigned by the guilty politician.

    You were sitting as Bailiff at the time so may well remember some of the debate.

    Deputy Andrew Lewis when questioned by Counsel at the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, was asked,

    "When you say to the States":

    "I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police", that can be interpreted only to mean you have seen the report from the Metropolitan Police, can't it?

    Andrew Lewis after a few evasive answers answer’s :

    The Metropolitan report was, as I said before, clearly an operational report. The report that I used was Mr Warcup's. I have made no suggestion anywhere else otherwise

    The questioning council - was quoting from Hansard.

    It may be helpful for you to see the disturbing actual question and answer section in precise please click on the links below for confirmation please view the CoI website.

    Part one of the Andrew Lewis Interview.

    Part two.

    Part three.

    In the recorded video you tell Jersey and the world ( with over 1,400 views ) that you have spent all your working life in an environment where truthfulness is fundamental.

    It is hard to argue looking at the evidence, that Andrew Lewis made a genuine mistake. He mentioned the Metro. Report by name several times and was given several chances by states members to explain the source of his information ?

    Napier also stated that the Metro. Report would not have been seen other than by the police being an operational document.

    Therefore Sir, having the evidence that is now on record do you not have a duty to bring to the States a proposition asking Deputy Lewis to explain formally why he mislead the states, probably followed by a proposition offering a vote of no confidence in Deputy Lewis ? He has been given every opportunity to put the record straight, as a judge would you have put up with this sort of behaviour in court. If not why now as a leader of the people sitting in government ?

    Yours Sincerely,

    Tim South.

    Cc. All interested parties through VFC internet

    1. That seems reasonable Tim @22:31 .....but what "Sir" Philip objects to far more than dishonesty is impoliteness and people not knowing their place.

      You appear to be suggesting that Andrew Lewis suspended the legitimate Police Chief on the basis of a train timetable "the Metro. Report"

      It is the height of rudeness to suggest that a train timetable would be more reliable than the poison letter penned by Deputy Police Chief Warcup.

      Rude in the extreme! ....but quite amusing ....and probably true

    2. The reference to Napier has reminded me - do you think should ask Brian for a refund? Since his much heralded report has now been shown to be a load of cobblers, and his conclusions arrant nonsense, I think we are due our money back. How much did he cost?

    3. If memory serves correct I believe the Napier Report cost the taxpayer around £60,000?

      It isn't worth the paper it is written on as so much evidence was withheld from Napier including the e-mail submitted to the Child Abuse Inquiry by the Law Offices' Department. The e-mail is from William Bailhache to Frank Walker, and Bill Ogley, advising against (illegally?) suspending Graham Power unless they were in procession of the full Met Report. (Which wasn't supposed to be used for disciplinary purposes)

      Thanks to Jon Richardson's magical ability one of the Terms of Reference for Napier "disappeared" so Graham Power's affidavit wasn't considered by Napier. Napier never got to see the in-camera debate Hansard where Lewis misled elected Members by claiming he had seen the Met Report either.

      So its seems fair to say that Napier was devoid of substantial evidence.............Not worth the paper it's written on.

      Which begs another question; why did the Law Office Department think it was necessary to submit the William Bailhache e-mail to the Child Abuse Inquiry yet not think it would be relevant to the Napier Inquiry?

  27. A reader asks hopefully 'who will lodge a vote of no confidence in Andrew Lewis?'

    We even get a few suggestions. But like your reader I would put money on the only possibility being Deputy Mike Higgins.

    The debate then moves on to former Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache another man wholly deserving of such a vote.

    But though it is regularly overlooked by commentators history shows us the only States Member who EVER had the balls to bring a no confidence vote in an Establishment icon like our former Bailiff and face the abuse for doing so was not a man.

    And thus was not onr of the usual couple of high progile figures regularly mentioned on this blog.

    It was one of the stronger sex -a WOMAN - ex-Deputy Shona Pitman. And respect will always be due her for doing it over the Roger Holland affair and Bailhache's disgusting Liberation Day speech.

    So come on boys, we are only talking Andrew Lewis here. Let's see one of you go for it. And just for a change don't leave it all up to Mike Higgins.

    1. Little-Willy Bailhache7 April 2016 at 11:50

      Bringing together Tim South's hustings video "truthfulness is fundamental"

      ....and GirlPower's observations (RE Testicular fortitude), the smart money is on Philip Bailhache bringing the vote of no confidence in Andrew Lewis.

      Buoyed up with this success, Bailhache would then bring a vote of no confidence in himself.
      After all it is the only honourable thing to do.

    2. Now that I would love to see! But we know Sir Nigel, sorry, Sir Philip would then claim he was the people's hero.


  28. Philip Bailhache and people's hero? Words that just don't go together for a man exposed in the old election speech Tim South draws our attention to.

    What Bailhache does need as every reader familiar with WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) will know is delivery of 'the People's Elbow'.

    If you smell what the Rock is cooking!

  29. The problem with a no-confidence motion in Andrew Lewis is that he is no longer a minister, but an ordinary member, so what exactly would the motion be? To remove him from the Chamber? It would be fundamentally undemocratic if members were allowed to remove elected representatives through a vote of no confidence (think how long the likes of Stuart Syvret or the Pitmans would have lasted if this were possible).

    There could, I suppose, be a vote of censure, but this amounts to nothing (I recall Stuart Syvret was subject to one such vote and rather magnificently voted in favour of the propostion in a splendid two-fingered salute to the establishment). The real vote of no confidence should, IMO, be against the PPC which has manifestly abrogated its responsibility to the island's electorate. There can be few clearer cases of a member having deliberately misled the House, and on a matter of singular gravity (suspending the chief of police), yet the PPC has wilfully ignored the matter.

    The entire committee should be forced to resign - and sad to say it includes two supposedly progressive members (Judy Martins and Sam Mezec).

    1. A vote of no confidence in Lewis to honestly oversee the public purse would be worthwhile. If only because we could get a good hours debate highlighting live on air what this spiv did. Without such a move it is already quite apparent the MSM will allow it to fade away.

    2. But wouldn't the same result (a debate about Lewis's behaviour, airtime) be achieved by bringing a vote of no confidence in the PPC? It wouldn't just be an empty gesture: the committee should be required by members to account for its failure to take any form of action against Lewis.

    3. A fair point. I just wonder which approach would garner the most support?

  30. It is all to easy to forget that true politics isn't all about those politicians with huge public profiles. Without those individuals who are also dedicated grass roots politicians helping hundreds of people with their problems day after day politics really would be a wastes of time.

    Much as I can respect the vote of no confidence issue mentioned by a poster it is in this daily work on behalf of people that I really have respect for the likes of Shona Pitman. I know we shouldn't generalise but I do think left leaning politicians regularly do seem so much better at this.

  31. Lewis may not be a minister any longer but he is not just an ordinary deputy. He is chair of the PAC, the most important watchdog for integrity in public spending.

    He shouldn't have been let within a mile of it and should be called on, via the States, to resign this position.

    No doubt he won't but it should be on the record, just like Shona's vote, for whenever the régime is called to account in the future.

    1. Couldn't agree more. Sometimes getting things on the record for historical purposes are all that can be done. Still wholly worthwhile no matter how frustrating.

      As to Big Trev's better half like many others in St. Helier amd beyond I wlll always love the lady for humiliating the charleton Le Main at the 2011 election. In thrashing Tel Boy also ending his three decades of mouthy ineptitude in the States.

      Really having been on the end of this bully's appalling handling of Housing if the opportunity arose I would happily donate to have a statue of the lady put up in the Royal Square just for this. Got to be better than the ugly fake gold one of Peter Pan there currently.

  32. Sharack Holmes7 April 2016 at 14:58

    What about the transcripts of Walker and Ogley my dear fellows. One hears down the fruit & veg store than they are succulent. Feast until you can feast no more.

    Must dash.

  33. I think Montfort should be approached about a no confidence vote if anyone knows him personally. Always putting things on to Mike Higgins gives the Establishment ammo to portray it as personal following the in camera debate transcript move.

  34. The current Education Minister, Deputy Rod Bryans, has some questions to answer. Please sign THIS PETITION to put pressure on him to turn up and answer them?

  35. Strangely enough, in spite of the low opinions the public mostly have regarding politicians (probably wisely so) it is actually pretty rare for politicians to be caught out simply lying. Yes, they'll often be evasive, use lawyers' phraseology, be vague, often fail to give answers which address the actual question they were asked - all of the foregoing; we see it week in and week out in the news.

    But straight-forward lies?

    That's a rare spectacle.

    Nearly all politicians are very careful about the obvious career-fatal risks of just telling barefaced lies. Once you're exposed - caught bang-to-rights - telling utter falsehoods - then nothing else you have ever said in public life - or may say again in the future - can be trusted or taken seriously.

    It is because being caught lying is so irrecoverably fatally damaging, that 99% of politicians have the sensible survival-instinct not to embark on that path in the first place.

    Just look at the crises now engulfing the British Prime Minister, who appears to have lied to the media over whether he had had any personal financial interest in such vehicles as off-shore trusts. He is now admitting that he and his wife did.

    I haven't followed the story concerning the PM closely enough to know whether he had made such claims to the Commons itself. But if he did, then he's finished as PM.

    Lying to a parliament, especially when you hold an executive / government Office, and so the parliament has a prime task of holding to account those in executive / government Office, is terminal. It amounts to nothing less than the out-and-out sabotage and undermining of the ability of the legislature to effectively hold the executive to account. It is an attack on the real and effective functioning of democracy.

    And the seriousness of lying to a legislature becomes amplified a hundred-fold if the executive Office holder - a Home Affairs Minister, for example - is lying to the legislature over a matter of such profundity it strikes right at the heart of the basic functioning of objective policing - questions of basic public safety and protection against high-level organised crime – as whether the suspension of a Police Chief might have been unlawful.

    Of all the subjects – and of all the question – which might be asked of any Minister by a legislature – it’s actually difficult to think of a more serious set of issues - than asking a Home Affairs Minister if objective policing has just been undermined and sabotaged by the politicised capture of the Police Force by a process involving conflicted parties.

    If your legislature cannot ask such questions – and receive full, frank and honest answers to such questions – then your entire jurisdiction does not enjoy the real rule of law.

    But that is what Deputy Andrew Lewis did.

    As then Home Affairs Minister he told straight-forward lies to your legislature, members of which were rightly attempting to do their public-interest job of scrutinising executive decisions and holding the Office of Home Affairs Minister to account.

    To those above who are speculating about the possibility of one of your back-benchers tabling some kind of vote of no-confidence, or motion of censure against Andrew Lewis, the clear and obvious advice must be that no back-bencher should do that.

    To take such an act would be to deliver some kind of ‘relief’ to the speaker of your legislature, and – especially – to your Privileges body, the Committee responsible for the conduct of the Jersey parliament and its members.

    It is there where the burden lays of formulating and taking the appropriate steps in response to the legislature-undermining conduct of Andrew Lewis.

    Those authorities must not be permitted to escape their unavoidable responsibilities by some well-intentioned but naive back-bench member taking the burden from them.

    1. I hadn't thought it through like that before, but thinking about it now, the comment at 21:45 is right. If a back-bencher takes on the task of salvaging the reputation and standing of the Jersey States legislature and to try and restore its ability to function, the grave seriousness of the situation would get trivialised. It would be ' just anther stunt by an anti-establishment member'. Well, at least that's how the media would portray it. No, the comment at 21;45 is right. This is too big, too serious to let the Establishment off the hook of meeting their responsibilities.

    2. Yes, good points by 21:45 .....but what to do?

      Will PPC censure Andrew Lewis of their own accord? [very unlikely on past form]

      Can PPC be encouraged/pressured into starting to sort out the rot at the heart of government by censuring Andrew Lewis? [unlikely]

      So give PPC a chance to do the right thing and censure Lewis. When they fail, put their failure on record with a proposition against PPC

  36. The JEP editor has written a belter of an article, page 10, today Thursday 7 April 2016. I reproduce it in full below. All credit to the JEP for publishing it.

    "Deputy Andrew Lewis and the Independent Care Inquiry

    On 18 February, the JEP published an editorial leader column under the headline ‘Lewis and the Truth’. The column was published the day after Deputy Andrew Lewis gave evidence to the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry.

    The Deputy told the inquiry that he had suspended former police chief Graham Power on 12 November 2008 after receiving a letter from Bill Ogley, the then chief executive of the States. Attached to the letter was what Mr Ogley described as a ‘report’ written by David Warcup, then the deputy police chief.

    This ‘report’, in effect a letter written by Mr Warcup, included the officer’s own views on the management of Operation Rectangle, the States force’s investigation into historical child abuse, as well as quotes and comments which Mr Warcup said were the preliminary findings of the Metropolitan Police’s review into the management of the investigation. Deputy Lewis told the Inquiry that he had never been allowed to see the actual Met report as it contained victims’ sensitive personal data.

    During an in-camera debate on 2 December 2008 about the suspension of Mr Power, Deputy Lewis said: ‘Members will be aware that an investigation has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police and I was presented with a preliminary report on the basis of that investigation.’ Towards the end of the debate, he added: ‘I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision [to suspend Mr Power] in the first place.’

    At no point during the debate did Deputy Lewis tell Members that the so-called ‘preliminary report’ was written by Mr Warcup and not the Metropolitan police. When asked by the Care Inquiry to explain why he had said that he had ‘read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police’ when he had not, he said that he had made a mistake under the pressure of questioning. He added that he was, in fact, referring to the document produced by Mr Warcup and that he had made that ‘perfectly clear’ during the in-camera debate. Deputy Lewis added that he did not believe his words were misleading and argued that no right-minded Member would have thought he was actually saying that he had read a report written by the Metropolitan police.

    The leader column highlighted the discrepancy. It also asked a number of questions about the actions of those involved in Mr Power’s suspension in 2008. It did not state that Deputy Lewis lied to the States. The inquiry will give its view on the evidence put before it in due course.

    The leader column stated that advice from the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, (that the full Met Report should be available before making any decision about suspending Mr Power was made) was ignored. The JEP is happy to clarify that the advice was given in writing in a letter sent to Bill Ogley and Frank Walker. Deputy Lewis says that the advice was not communicated to him before he suspended Mr Power even though he alone, as Home Affairs Minister, had the authority to suspend the police chief.

    The leader stated that ‘warnings’ from elected representatives about the need to follow correct procedures in the suspension of Mr Power ‘were resisted’. The JEP is also happy to clarify that these concerns were raised during the in-camera debate on 2 December 2008, nearly a month after Mr Power was suspended by Deputy Lewis. The comment referred to Mr Power’s ongoing suspension, which lasted until he retired in July 2010.

    The transcripts of Deputy Lewis’s evidence can be read in full at They are numbered 136 and 138."

    End of quoted article

    1. This will be the subject of Rico's Blog being published tonight.

    2. Interesting. Does anybody really believe that William Bailhache was not only fully aware of the plot to remove Graham Power, but an active participant? As much as Lewis needs to be held responsible for his reprehensible behaviour, it is inconceivable that he was he was acting alone. The roles of Warcup, Ogley, Walker, both Bailhache brothers, Tim Le Cocq and Ian Crich must not be overlooked.

      We already know that Ogley had previously asked for advice on how to remove Graham Power (not just discipline him) shortly before he was removed, and Walker has given testimony to the COI that Power would have been removed even without the so-called interim Met Report (directly contradicting claims by Lewis). We know that Bailhache major made a highly telling comment in the secret debate, basically telling Lewis to button it before he said too much. And now we are told that Bailhache junior wrote an email advising against the suspension - hmm, so how come Napier wasn't given a copy of such an important piece of evidence? Any chance this email could be forensically examined for its time and date?

      Since it's clear that the JEP editorial was little more than a cut-and-paste from material posted here, perhaps they would be kind enough after reading this to write another leader on the roles the rest of the inner circle played in the affair. Maybe break the habit of a lifetime and hold the crown officers up to public scrutiny?

      Perhaps they would also like to examine the behaviour of Ian Le Marquand and Terry Le Sueur after Lewis cut and run?

    3. Is it only Lewis who can't see that he is the fall guy being left totally exposed so that the real shysters can skulk off?

      Even the JEPeado is putting the boot in.

    4. For those readers who don't buy the JEP, Rico did reproduce the original editorial (about which somebody must have complained) on his blog on the 27 February 2016. I reproduce a link below, in case anyone has not read it. The editorial is the first 8 paragraphs:

      This is a really good thread. It raises some very important questions, chief amongst them:

      If the only person with the legal power to suspend the Chief Officer of Police Graham Power was the Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis then how come the legal advice provided by the government's most senior lawyer, Attorney General William Bailhache, did not find its way to Andrew Lewis? Lewis has repeatedly stated (at the inquiry, under oath) that he took advice from highly paid professionals. Why did the crucial advice not reach him?


      Why did it only go to Ogley and Walker?


      Perhaps Andrew Lewis should insist on William Bailhache's email being "carbon dated" as he did when he insisted that Wendy Kinnard's husband's notes should be "carbon dated" ? Perhaps he meant a forensic digital examination? Perhaps he got his words flustered under pressure of questioning again?

      Lewis is an easy target because his story is so contradictory.

      The real question is, why did the legal advice not reach him?

      Furthermore, who played what role in resisting Graham Power's application for Judicial Review of his suspension?

  37. Some interesting comments above, concerning the conduct of former Home Affairs Minister, Deputy Andrew Lewis.

    I was going to write that VFC is the only forum in Jersey public discourse where a high-quality and relevant debate will be held. But having read the unusual ‘legal statement’ issued by the Jersey Evening Post last night, (which was indeed, a ‘belter’) perhaps even there the seriousness of this issue has taken hold?

    It appears from the nature of the JEP comment that it was drawn-up by the editor in discussion with the papers lawyers, in response to ‘legal’ threats, or demands from Lewis that ‘retractions’ or ‘apologies’ be made by the paper for its reporting of, and comments it made upon, the wholly extraordinary conduct of former Home Affairs Minister revealed before the COI.

    Whoever is encouraging and advising Andrew Lewis by handing him a bigger spade, failed to achieve any outcome advantageous to him. Instead the paper delivered a focused and clear re-statement of its position. At first glance the stance of the JEP looks commendable.

    But before we team-up with the JEP and others in the understandable urge to see Andrew Lewis made accountable for his actions, let’s just give the matter a little thought, shall we?

    I find myself in full agreement with the comment at 21:45. I fact, I go further, and say it would serve only to help the Jersey establishment and enable them to more disguise the real issues at play here, if some kind of censure motion or vote of no confidence was brought against Lewis by a back-bench member of your legislature.

    Not least, because Andrew Lewis and his conduct aren’t the core issue.

    When all is said and done, Lewis is a mere patsy, a stereotypical exmaple of a ‘useful idiot’. That much is plain to everyone who’s paid any attention to the Jersey situation. He is, ultimately, of no relevance in the big scheme of things.

    When the chips are down, he’s ‘disposable’. He’s too thick to have ever seen that himself, but that’s obviously how it is. So readers of this blog need to think about this, and really ask themselves the following question: -

    “What real, meaningful public interest purpose would be served if a States vote took place which succeeded in making Lewis resign from Chairing the Scrutiny Panel, or even, more appropriately, ordered the LOD to take an application to the Royal Court to have Lewis stripped of Deputorial Office?”

    Firstly – and most obviously – there’s virtually no chance of any such kind of proposition being carried in the Assembly. Certainly zero chance if such a proposition was brought by a back-bencher, as opposed to being a formal proposition of PPC, or in the event of PPC continuing its policy of undermining the public interest by supporting the corrupt and dishonest action of Lewis, a proposition brought by your Chief Minister.

    But even if such a proposition were to be brought – and even more unlikely were it to succeed – what would be achieved?

    Andrew Lewis would be destroyed. But so what? He is ‘disposable’, remember. That’s why the rest of the conspirators manoeuvred him into the position he was in, and into taking the action he did. These people always have in their mind the need for an “insurance-policy” they can fall back upon “just in case” things go wrong. And patsys – fall-guys – are always a key part of such insurance-policies.

    Rather than letting ourselves be “gamed” by the Jersey establishment into accepting their sacrificial offering of the head of Andrew Lewis on a metaphorical spike, let’s keep our focus on the real problem. Which is the systemic and structural breakdown in public safety and good governance evinced on the part of your “system”.

    As the reader who commented at 12:42 so wisely reminded us, there are a lot of others involved in this; frankly, of greater significance than the useful idiot Andrew Lewis. Not least the then Attorney General - and now Bailiff - William Bailhache.


  38. "The leader column highlighted the discrepancy. It also asked a number of questions about the actions of those involved in Mr Power’s suspension in 2008. IT DID NOT STATE THAT DEPUTY LEWIS LIED TO THE STATES. The inquiry will give its view on the evidence put before it in due course."

    Oh yes it did!

  39. Rico's Blog Posting on this subject can be read HERE.

  40. Trying to go through some of the COI witness statements on line I was interested to read some of the damning revelations about judicial interference and corruption made by a former police officer Anton Cornelissen.

    He was one of the lead investigators into the Andrew Jervis-Dykes child abuse cover up at Victoria College where Bailiff Philip Bailhache was the Chair of the Board of Governors I believe, but certainly on the Board.

    What particularly struck me amongst so much shocking behaviour was to learn from Anton Cornelissen that the Bailiff/Attorney General would not allow the police to pressure or even properly interview Jurat John Le Breton about his attempts to interfere with Jervis- Dykes prosecution, but even worse the statement from one of the abused pupils that Jurat Le Breton (he had been Vice-Principle at Vic College) had attempted to bully the boy into silence.

    All horrorfying stuff I am sure your readers would agree, certainly the statements once again show the true commitment to justice and protecting our children that exists within our judiciary.

    What I would like to know however should any of your readers have the information is this.

    Anton Cornelissen makes clear his efforts to bring Jurat Le Breton to account for his behaviour were obstructed. He talks of Crown Officers to this regard, saying at one point he was 'reminded' that a Royal Court Jurat had 'never been charged' with anything.

    By pure chance I happen to know that the actual Chief of Police at the time all of this was going on was one Robert, or Bob Le Breton. My question is does anyone know if the Jurat Le Breton who Cornelissen wasn't allowed to pressure let alone charge was in any way related to the Le Breton Chief of Police?


    1. I can't believe my eyes reading the above. I would like to read this police officer's statement for myself I find it so disturbing. Could whoever posted the above kindly refer me to the appropriate statement date and number, or even a link if they have more technical ability than I do?

    2. According to my uncle who knew Bob Le Breton from his younger days (Le Breton passed away a few years ago) he is sure Bob and the Jurat John Le Breton were of the same clan. Apparently cousins.

    3. WTF!

      Can this be verified by anyone?

  41. Replies
    1. Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble. I must say I find it difficult to accept that something I would have dismissed as conspiracy rumour-mongering is in fact true.

    2. I have read the Statements from Cornelissen and wow, that is quite shocking. Having known that this happened it's quite something else when you hear it from the person that was actually involved. He was sounding like he was one of the good cops and getting a hard time for doing the right thing!
      Then he goes on slagging Mr Harper even bring up the Coco Nut sketch ! But wasn't there Calcium or something in this Coco nut? That is only found in bones?

      I'm sorry but buying parts for a gun when your a copper and not asking questions, I'm afraid you let yourself down and Mr Harper had your number!
      Thank you for putting the link up and letting us read this daming testimony.

    3. @TR "But wasn't there Calcium or something in this Coco nut? That is only found in bones?"

      The item tested positive for COLLAGEN
      Not calcium (which occurs naturally in soil & rock) but otherwise you remember right.

      Collagen is an animal protein abundantly found in cartilage, skin, BONES, blood vessels, and other fibrous tissues in animals INCLUDING humans. Collagen does NOT naturally exist in plants (or coconuts!)

      The States' retained forensic anthropologist Dr. Julie Roberts identified the item as a piece of child's skull before it left the island.

      Dr. Roberts said that when it was returned it had changed size, shape and weight!

      This may be as difficult to explain as how a piece of wood or coconut could contain collagen.

  42. I was reading Frank Walker’s evidence earlier (transcript, day 124, page 59) when I was reminded once again that Jersey’s £26 million child abuse inquiry consistently fails to obtain accurate answers to simple questions, in spite of having a £26 million budget.

    Here’s the issue. During Walker’s evidence, there is the following exchange on page 59. Note that ‘Cathy Keya’ is a typo. The correct spelling is ‘Cathy Keir’:

    Q: Do you know who Cathy Keya(?) is?
    A: Cathy Keya is the head of the communications unit.
    Q: She was the person who sent the first draft of the press release, of this press statement, to the Attorney. Does that indicate that she is likely to be the author of this document?
    A: Quite possible, yes, quite possible.

    What annoys me about this? The question “Does that indicate that she is likely to be the author of this document?”

    Let me tell you this for a stone cold fact. The States of Jersey IT department have the ability to find out who created what document and when, on which PC they created it, and how long they spent editing it. This is called document metadata, i.e. data about data. They will have copies of any revisions, as the document evolved. There will be multiple backup copies (full daily backups, intra-day backups more frequently). You, as a taxpayer, have contributed to the huge cost of the underlying document management systems over the years.

    Let me remind readers that Graham Power went to a States Complaints Board to obtain the metadata about his suspension letters (furiously resisted by the government) and that such metadata was produced when Graham Power won.

    The documents referred to in the Walker exchange (where it is suggested Cathy Keir is the author) date from the same period as Graham Power’s suspension documents.

    Same document management system. Same timeframe. Same personnel involved.

    It beggars belief that a £26 million child abuse inquiry can come out with the question “Does that indicate that she is likely to be the author of this document?”

    They can, if they want to, telephone or send an email to the exact same team that were tasked with obtaining Graham Power’s metadata. One call or email, job done.

    It is frankly insulting to me as a taxpayer to be fobbed off with all this “Does that indicate that she is likely to be the author of this document?” nonsense. Go and use the systems that we taxpayers have shelled out hundreds of thousands of pounds for and find out who wrote the documents and when they wrote them.

    The actual email appears in Ogley’s written evidence on Day 129. See the bottom of page 384 at the link below, where it list the names of the two attachments:

    "statement.doc" and "police investigation update strategy.rtf"

    It’s a simple question. Who created and edited those two documents? Go and find the metadata. Stop fobbing us off with this nonsense about who was ‘likely’ to have created the documents. Use the tools that we, the taxpayer, have paid for.

    This is just one example of weak questioning and evasive answers. Just one example. Yet we have the tools to get the job done and answer the question definitively. How many other examples like this have slipped through the net?

    VFC, for a number of reasons, I do not wish to get involved directly. May I ask please that you bring this to the inquiry’s attention; that your readers know that document metadata is available, but is just being ignored, at a cost of 26 million pounds.

  43. Excellent comment at 21:37, which raises an extremely important point. Does the COI actually do any fact-checking when provable / disprovable assertions like this are made, or are they simply content to leave them as "hearsay"?

    There is a huge difference. In a court of law, it could be the difference between a life sentence and walking away a free man or woman.

  44. Lousy, utterly complicit in decades of turning a blind and simultaneously attacking any politician of a progressive leftish tendency (Le Brocq, Syvret, Vibert, the Pitmans) who were seen to have the brains and guts to be a threat to the self-proclaimed elite, I still say fair play for the Filthy Rag in their editorial assassination of the patsy Lewis. Perhaps even they find his cowardice and willingness to destroy a good man's career on order of his bosses stomach-churning? Who knows when we see the Rag calling for the dismissal of the Bailhaches, Birt, Martin, Le Breton and a few others maybe we can stop telling our children the only time you should touch the JEP is when you are eating your chips out of it?

  45. When even the newspaper of Sausage Time Man is measuring the gap between your shoulders for a blade in the night you know our PR Patsy is going to be ousted at the next election. The Jersey Establishment, eh, don't you just love their loyalty?

  46. Sadly, over time, the Inquiry has looked more and more like a box ticking exercise and a minimum ticking of boxes at that.

    They have shown that they are incompetent (eg Harper's wildly confidential statement in ordinary post, and the example at 21:37 above).

    They have shown absolute pro-establishment bias in their questioning (grilled Harper, slid over Pitman etc.) and their destroying of Lewis may well have been at the bidding of the establishment who made him a patsy in the suspension and now a fall guy in the Inquiry.

    Their communications strategy (if they have one) has been appalling. Minimum formal notices going up on their site. No acknowledgement of citizens media which is the only media fully supportive of the inquiry. Making it very difficult to look up transcripts and documentation by having people's names on one web page and the documentation on another with the hearing date the only connection between them, despite a space for such a connection on the hearings page template. Dismissive apology on Twitter and Facebook (ephemeral) but not on their website (permanent) for a full long-weekend breakdown of the site. Documentation being taken down and then restored without any comment whatsoever and other documentation being replaced with later versions without any indication of why or whether there have been any changes.

    Not to mention the sickening Yes Ma'am, No Ma'am tone of the transcripts. And we don't know if the sessions are being recorded or if the public are to rely solely on written note-takers and possibly edited transcripts.

    Then there is the lack of proper and ongoing counselling support for witnesses, which much surely act as a deterrent to some extent at least. The lack of legal representation for witnesses despite the benchloads on the other side.

    And the above is just off the top of my head in an early morning fit of exasperation.

    1. Polo says COI 'slid over Pitman'.

      I would say rolled over for the LOD who didn't want his observations on the treatment of Stuart Syvret and the secret court case disgrace, the conivences of the Bailiffs in a court showing utter contempt for ECHR Article 6 which did for him and his wife and Syvret, the hounding of Leah Goodman etc.

      Not to forget the now infamous in camera debate transcript his statement also originally included. Without Deputy Mike Higgins still in the States they would have got away with this last one too. My word this COI needs a bloody good report just to save some reputations. We are talking £26.000.000 after all!

      Then again if Polo means 'slid over Pitman' as in the wriggling of a forked tongued snake I suppose he has a point.

    2. I was being temperate, seeing as how it's Sunday. By "slid over" I mean tried to ignore his magnificently substantial and accurate submission by concentrating on his earlier social work to the detriment of the explosive political content of the latter part of his statement and its accompanying documentation.

      They equally tried to make a fool of Bob Hill be stressing that he had not actually been abused himself and that his "hearsay" evidence barely gave him enough standing to be there at all. They also quizzed him on documentation he had barely seen, in what I figure was an attempt to confuse him and make him out to be a doddery old fart. And they are doing this to others, or at least going along with it, the last minute waiver of privilege over important documentation.

      As I said in my comment, it was an off the top of the head fit of exasperation.

      I intend doing a properly vicious blog post on the whole thing at some stage when I feel sufficiently composed.

      So 13:06, I think the answer to your final para is YES.

    3. I wasn't being rude Polo. Since finding this excellent blog I have noted you write consistently intelligent and considered comments.

      I would add that I do slightly disagree with you as far as calling the former Deputy's huge statement magnificent. It isn't. It is just no frills functional.

      Let me put it this way. To me the reason why I find it so compelling is simply his absolutely couldn't give a damn attitude to putting down all of what he did on paper, in public and screw the consequences.

      He could have made it shorter in my view, but it reads like sod it - this just needs to be told whatever happens. As to the bullet episode, shit this is meant to be little Jersey, isn't it?

    4. I am Hissing Sid in case you are confused. Sometimes anyway!

    5. @ Hissing Sid

      Not in the least put out. It was really the the scale of Trevor's statement that was magnificent - everything bar the kitchen sink and maybe even that and all up in lights.

      Trevor's style is to shoot from the hip and it's got him (and me) into trouble on occasion. But he is blunt, truthful and honest and has championed his constituents mightily. I have great time for Trevor and for Shona and what was done to them was nothing short of a crime, a big one.

      Yes he could have edited his submission but then it wouldn't quite be Trevor. This wasn't a Scrutiny Report, thank God, and, as you say he just let himself go and went in all guns blazing. And it's all up there to be quoted with impunity. Love it.

      I just loved the bullet. I had seen a note previously but the bullet beat the band. And because it was in his documentation they had to reproduce it. Must have broken their hearts (hopefully).

    6. And just in case anyone is wondering about the reference to Trevor getting himself (and me) into trouble. It dates from about 3 years ago, I think.


  47. LOL! You really are both very naughty boys!

    But at least you can laugh. Don't think old Andy Pandy Lewis will be.

    Who the hell persuaded him it would be a good idea to demand the JEP did a correction?

    As surely any regularly misrepresented Leftie could have told him - "corrections" when the Rag has got it wrong are normally worse than the original article.


  48. Lewis would resign now if he had even an ounce of class, or dare I use the word INTEGRITY.

  49. 6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –
    “Will H.M. Attorney General advise whether his department fully cooperated with the Napier review into the suspension of the former Chief of the States of Jersey Police and whether the then Attorney General’s letter of 11th November 2008 to the then Chief Minister advising that the former Chief of Police should not be suspended unless the full Metropolitan Police report was received was forwarded to Mr. Napier, and if not, why not?”

  50. The chances of Andrew Lewis, patsy to the Jersey Mafia, resigning are less than zero. He hasn't the balls never mind the integrity. If he did he would be forcing a by-election to prove his support.

    1. That's a thought-provoking scenario, and one which civil society activists in Jersey ought to give some lengthy and honest contemplation to. I think it most unlikely Andrew Lewis would resign to force and contest a by-election on a matter of principle. But that is what he should do, if he's so convinced, against all the real evidence, and all the credible testimony, that the Police Chief and the child-abuse investigation were terrible, and that his actions were right.

      I stand to be corrected about this, but as far as i'm aware only 1 sitting politician in the democratic history of Jersey has ever forced and contested a by-election in respect of his or her existing seat on a matter of principle, and that was Stuart Syvret, in opposing the child-abuse cover-ups and the concealments of other crimes? And the particular relevance of that fact is that your 'opposition' activists were so chaotic, incompetent, toxic and compromised, quite amazingly, they opposed him?

      There's a deep lesson for you there. Not least because it isnt beyond the realms of possibility that Andrew Lewis COULD be 'prevailed' upon to force a by-election for him to then contest. It would make great political sense from the perspective of your establishment and of Lewis' handlers. Consider the outcomes, then ask yourself, 'what have the Jersey establishment got to lose?'

      If Andrew Lewis were not successful and didn't get re-elected, well, that would be beneficial to your establishment, in that they could say, 'look, this guy Lewis was responsible for the scandalous act of illegally suspending the Police Chief, and now the public have spoken. Their democratic will and judgment has been heard. Lewis is gone. They have the head on a spike they wanted. And, happily, that's an end now to the whole controversy. The line is drawn under the matter. We can now all forget about the child-abuse cover-ups, and get on with Big-Money Off-Shore financial corruption as usual and put the child-abuse cover-ups behind us.'

      And if Andrew Lewis did get re-elected, then, well, just imagine it? What a grand triumph that would be for, and endorsement of, every corrupt and shameful thing your establishment have done?

      A political, a 'democratic', endorsement like that for the Jersey mafia's actions would be priceless, it's worth incalculable, and transcending a dozen £26 million child-abuse public inquiries.

      Your establishment are not so stupid they loose sight of the value of 'democratic' endorsement. That's why they did everything, everything, they possibly could to ensure Syvret failed, and that's why they'd do everything they possibly could to ensure Lewis succeeded (in the event of him resigning and re-standing). He would have the full backing of your mafia (even the JEP, when push comes to shove, they know what side they're on). And you can be very sure no credible pro-establishment candidate would be fielded against him. Not even the trainee lawyers / sock-puppets / place-men of Stephen Baker.

      Suppose Andrew Lewis did resign, and a by-election was forced? I'm far from sure even now having followed events in Jersey for 5 years, that the non-establishment side in Jersey are possessed of the political competence and the necessary maturity to put egeos & personal ambitions to one side so as to pool your voices behind a single, credible non-establishment candidate.

      I grant you, the by-election scenario is unlikely to happen. Lewis lacks the intelligence, ethics and calibre to do such a thing of his own volition. Some-one down the Lodge would have to order him to do it. But that's not an impossible outcome. After all, it's a win-win situation for your establishment.

      But even though unlikely, I think Jersey civil society needs to start having the discussion now. Those serious about opposing abuses of power in Jersey need to have plan for all eventualities.

  51. Your reader above can probably be forgiven for not fully understanding the Jersey situation. You don't need 5 years, more like 55.

    I came to the island with my parents, brother and sister more than 40 years ago now and what goes on here politically still leaves me baffled quite often.

    The first point to really make is that someone from the island's Conservative right would never stand down in such a scenario. They are neither that principled or daft.

    The Jersey Conservative right excel at one thing above all. This is bolting the stable door, even if the horse has already bolted, and then closing ranks till the problem is forgotten.

    The Jersey left or progressives as some like to be known have never successfully learnt the latter. Principles are the be all and end all for most.

    This is one of the reasons why though they regularly have better quality politicians, in my adult years here anyway, they never achieve power.

    The other main reason can be seen in the other by-election incident your readers refer to. It is called stupidity, or perhaps ego and stupidity?

    The Senator mentioned disappeared to London for 6 months evidently believing the international media who had once descended on the island in droves for the Haut de la Garenne scandal would be interested in him or his reasons. They were not.

    It was a truly daft move and unfortunately far from being seen as an act based on principle most people in the island saw only an individual sitting in London doing nothing while still drawing his very considerable salary.

    We must remember this lunatic act of political suicide took place with the island still facing the aftermath of the global economic meltdown. It was simply absurd and lost the Senator much support as the Conservative media milked it for all it was worth.

    Even though I would describe myself as being on the liberal side of politics, liberal with a small l, I find the Jersey situation today very sad. I wasn't born here but it is my home and has been for years.

    In order to ever get the change many people here probably do think is needed, as Jersey certainly is run for the benefit of the rich and well placed, somehow we need the evolvement of an opposition or alternative that can work together.

    Probably the most difficult thing for people outside the island to understand is that unlike opposition groups or parties in so many other places in Jersey principles actually get in the way of change.

    How that can ever be changed here I really don't know ever after all the years I have been here.

    1. @10:48 [Re. Syvret] "far from being seen as an act based on principle most people in the island saw only an individual sitting in London doing nothing while still drawing his very considerable salary."

      I rather doubt that Mr.Syvret ever does "nothing". I think even now you will find that he is rather busy researching and campaigning.
      Parts of your comment read like a testament to the effectiveness of the "Conservative (milking) media" which you lament !

      It is most unfortunate that Mr.Syvret came 2nd in the by-election he forced. It was a high risk strategy but he was totally outnumbered and probably felt he needed to up the stakes in order to try to achieve what he was so passionate about.

      Mr.Syvret not coming first in that by-election is also a testament to the gullibility of the Jersey electorate. The contents of Mr.Syvret's blog have been rather vindicated by the evidence presented to this £26 million CoI.

    2. I made the comment at 10.48 and would point out should there be any doubt that it was not intended as a general attack on Mr Syvret.

      We would have to disagree on how the London saga was seen by the majority of people here in the island.

      None of us can ever claim we speak for all although some do. Going on my own experiences of people I know I would have to stand by my comments. The strategy or stunt as some saw it was seen as foolish and hugely counter productive.

      Did it help the cause for which Mr Syvret and others regularly mentioned here fight? On the evidence of this abuse Inquiry you would have to say no not one bit.

      Though I have never met the man I certainly wish him well and am pleased you appear to know he is busy campaigning.

      Everyone makes mistakes. It would be good to see him back in the States.

    3. @16:02
      I made the comment at 13:59 and actually we AGREE about how "the London saga was seen by the majority of people here in the island"

      But that is one of the points I was making.

      If you own the media you own the election.
      How else do you think the opinions of "the majority of people" are formed?

      Determined and unchallenged PR works it seems -even in the face of appalling child abuse.
      Contrary to popular belief CAN polish a T*rd.

      Surely the re-election of Andrew Lewis is living proof of this.

      Mr.Syvret's period of "exile" in London can certainly be viewed as a mistake which has cost Jersey dear.
      But had he been re-elected on a clear child protection mandate it would have been a success
      You and I are speaking with the benefit of hindsight.

      Mr.Syvret is regularly criticised for 'doing thing the wrong way'
      but as VFC asks "what is the elusive right way?"

      Mr.Syvret did not fail the electorate. The gullible electorate failed him [imo]

  52. As someone else said Andrew Lewis hasn't got the integrity or bottle to resign to try and prove his point. You also have to say that given all the majority of our States Members want to achieve is being in the Assembly period, why would he risk losing it all? As some might remember he got his butt kicked a few years ago up in St. John where he is hated. Why risk the same in St. Helier where he only got in on spin and the locals knowing no better? But look on the bright side. If he is still around in 2018 Lewis and Higgins on the hustings will certainly be a don't miss, ticket seller of an event! Go Mike. Go!

  53. "Mr.Syvret came 2nd in the by-election he forced". He came second in the by-election he forced, because of one Deputy. His name is Southern!

    1. Geoff Southern was an egotistical plonker to stand, doing so it seems against all advice. He is largely a plonker per se. But to try and blame Stuart Syvret's self-induced implosion on this little twerp is as desperate as it is nonsense.

      You only have to look at the vote to see that even if all of Southern's votes had gone to Syvret he still would have been soundly beaten. People had just lost faith in Syvret.

      Some because of the propaganda of the Walker/Rankin media. Some because of his actions. On this score I would agree the six months in London escapade probably played a big part.

      Can we get back to the COI and Andrew Lewis now?

    2. Mr.Syvret came 2nd in the by-election he forced
      So surely only SOME "People had just lost faith in Syvret"

      This in the face of an intense media Anti-Syvretic propaganda campaign

    3. Yes definitely some people and by no means all. Though an awful lot.

      As can be witnessed by the staggering collapse of his vote from his support of just five years before.

      I also agree the anti propaganda 'opposition' figures in Jersey politics face is almost unprecedented.

  54. 8.30 p.m. BBC 1.
    'Jimmy Savile documentary reveals the true horror of his appalling crimes'

  55. Oh dear. *sigh*. Reading the comment at 10:48, I could say ‘I rest my case’.

    I made the comment at 06:08, in which I raised the question ‘has the left/non-establishment side in Jersey yet developed the competence and maturity to plan for, and co-operate on, the possibility of the Lewis seat becoming vacant?’

    The subsequent responses answer my basic question clearly.

    10:48 heralded another round of personally obsessional bitter trolling against Stuart Syvret. And I wish I could say the comment was by the usual troll, but looking at it, it’s 99% certain it was written by one of your “lefties”, and in spite of the later attempted denials/diversions at 16:02, 17:22 & 20:30, I think we could all have a pretty good guess at which “lefty”, too.

    Look at the words those comments have used, and what they reveal: ‘stupidity, or perhaps ego and stupidity?’, (venomous personal hatred) ‘disappeared to London for 6 months’ (parroted establishment propaganda which ignores the politically oppressive judicial corruption which drove him away, him being forbidden from running a defence-case by your corrupt judiciary) ‘It was a truly daft move’ (no, it remains a constitutional time-bomb for your mafia) ‘this lunatic act of political suicide’ (again, that’s establishment propaganda, personal abuse of Syvret, and ignoring the reality Syvret was already ‘politically dead’ by then, not through ‘suicide’, but because of the police-state and judicial corruption conducted against him) ‘it was simply absurd’ (how can taking a matter of principle to the voting public, when the rest of the system has shown itself to be corrupt, and democracy is the last resort, be ‘absurd’? Not in any democratic book). The ‘stunt as some saw it’ (more of the establishment propaganda, echoing the trivialisation of what was a matter of central importance to the fair& safe functioning of democracy in Jersey), the ‘six months in London escapade’(again, Jersey establishment propaganda designed to trivialise what was a need to attempt to escape Jersey’s judicial corruption) etc, etc.

    As I said above, I really wish I could comfort my wounded hopes for progressive politics in Jersey by thinking these latest tirades of undisguisable personal hatred directed against Stuart Syvret could be attributed to he who is known as a the ‘death threat troll’. Sadly, I think I’d be conning myself.

    I’m surprised you let the 10:48 comment through, VFC. Not only are its motives pretty transparent, but it was only ever going to lead to another ‘ding-dong’ here of tribal warfare, bringing down the quality of debate on your site, diverting commenters from the important issues, and putting off the average reader.

    It’s easy to spot the comments which are motivated by a venomous personal hatred of Stuart Syvret, in that they always attempt to blame and criticise HIM for what went on, rather than criticising THE REAL causes of the problem, which was the corruption, police-state political oppressions, and child-abuse cover-ups being carried out by the establishment. It’s perfectly possible to say that Syvret might have made some mistakes. Which human being could guarantee to get everything right, especially under such bizarre, unprecedented & intolerable pressures as those he was placed under? Not me, that’s for sure. But there’s no denying that Syvret was on the right side, and he was trying to do his best under immensely difficult circumstances. Ultimately he, however imperfectly, was trying to do what was right, and he was at war against the Jersey establishment. But your organised political left on Jersey decided to enter that battle, on the side of your establishment. The tragedy for the community, as the above destructive and pointless thread has shown, your progressives are not one step more advanced down the path of political competence and maturity than they were then.

    1. Why does this person try to twist any disagreement with his views on Stuart Syvret let alone any criticism of his version of history and fact as 'bitter trolling against Syvret'? Face facts like a grown up. Not everyone agrees with you.

  56. this is well worth a read:

    as is the answering comment:

    The answer predicts that the CoI has been stage managed to criticise Patsy Lewis but not condemn his actions strongly enough to force any real consequences because consequences for Lewis would cause wider consequences.

    Very plausibly written.

  57. 21:26 & 10:48 appear to me to have shifted the debate in a very constructive direction, if the challenge is taken up.

    The establishment appear to have everything sown up and could well weather the storm in the absence of a concerted opposition.

    The lack of party politics in Jersey certainly seems to allow the opposition to be taken out one by one (eg Syvret, Hill, Pitmans) with at least one near miss still being worked on (Higgins).

    I don't know if some loose opposition alliance could be cobbled together or whether a more disciplined and cohesive force like a political party would be required and the history there is not encouraging.

    It is very hard, in such a small community, to see personalities being put aside in a common effort and, even if they were, to envisage a movement with sufficient momentum developing to dislodge the establishment.

    Stuart has, in the past, seemed to rely on going the London/Europe route in order to tackle the crown officer problem and break out of the local vicious circle, but this has effectively been turned back on him by the Privy Council referring all complaints back to the Jersey authorities and making it difficult, if not impossible, to access Europe.

    I really don't know the answer. I was trying to envisage a best case scenario but it defeated me. Perhaps those with a more intimate knowledge of the island could come up with a blueprint.

    1. Sorry I meant 21:26 and 06:08

    2. Wanting any comments that disagree with your own blocked as the poster at 21.26 does is not constructive in any way. As has been flagged up before these personality politics lead us nowhere.

  58. I just read Rico Sorda's latest blog. Good to see him back in the blogging saddle as his regular blogging of yore has been very much missed. Agreed with his assessment of the Lewis situation too. But if I can make one observation about both Rico's and this blog I hope it will not be taken the wrong way.

    Everyone seems to think (me included) that we know much of what is wrong and needs to be changed. But neither of these great blogs and the vast number of posters ever seem up to debate what we need to do locally to put things right.

    All that a few posters talk of is somehow taking Jersey's corruption issues and the people responsible for them to court in London. To me it should seem obvious that expecting institutions that have whistled while the cakes burned for years aren't going to change their tune now. Because they are obviously in on the game.

    It seems to me that the only way this could ever change is if a local government demanded they intervene along with the Crown. If you accept this, and I anticipate one or two regular posters won't, it leads to one conclusion.

    This is that somehow, and regardless of facile rows about who is 'Left' and who is 'Right' we have to focus on getting for the very first time enough good, honest people into the States because this is the only way to kick-start the process.

    Yet none of the blogs or readers seem willing to explore this. Instead we go over and over the facts of the COI, who among the undoubtedly good few politicians we have had in the past was right or wrong. Why?

    Call me naive call me what you will but the only alternative to what I suggest to 'kickstart' the process is to get thousands of people to take to the streets. The problem with this is that me, you and the gate post all know that in Jersey that isn't going to happen,

    We should start discussing ways to get candidates who are honest, whatever their different leanings to work together. Going over and over the past is really just doing the same thing again and again and to me hoping you will get any change out of such a process is madness.

  59. Hooray for the two comments @09.41 & 10.19.

    This is the way to go.

    Enough of the personality politics, anti-political parties and left/right circle dance.

    The only way to bring change is to get people and most importantly election candidates working together.

    The London courts for now at least are a non-starter.

    Surely this standing together can be achieved if only on a platform of a few key points?

    Justice. The economy. Government Reform. Immigration. Tourism.

    There you go. Still lots of room for individual specialisms be they education, health or free knitted hats for old people.

    Now all we need is a nice big appeal on a blog or in the lovely JEP if anyone has any money to float the idea.

    What about a nice big slogan "Are you content with this never-ending ruination of our island?"

    Then please contact the number/blog and let's see what we can come up with together.

  60. Blogging is about to die, listened to the states earlier and ozouf wants it all censored.

    1. Well they didn't succeed in censoring Syvret!

    2. This is all new Póló.
      Ozouf said that blogs were not regulated and they were not journalists so these new telecommunication laws will hold them to account if they upset people.
      Murray threw a wobble about blogs and argued that we had no state run media. Interesting today.

  61. Brown nose Murray strikes again!!
    What is a journalist some one that does a joke degree in "media" is it the same as his accountancy "degree" explain please Mr Ozouf

  62. Are any of these proposals ECHR compliant? And what if an offending blog is, for example, the Guido Fawks blog in England, not something run by an individual based in Jersey?

    1. ^ I think that Guido's blog is not based in England but based in the Republic of Ireland and operates out of US based hosting servers?

      But you're correct on your questions. Any proposals by Ozouf, or anyone else, to ban Jersey citizens' media blogs are very obviously ludicrous, and should be simply ignored. Otherwise you might as well give up on the whole democracy idea altogether and affiliate with the likes of North Korea.

  63. Love to know exactly what Deputy Murray Norton will claim to have done to justify his re-election in 2018?

    Same can be said for Peter Maclinton, Scot Wickenden, Zoe Cameron, Terry MacDonald, Russell Labey, ANDREW LEWIS, Paul Routier, Kevin Lewis,Judy Martin, Roger Truscott, Susi Pinel, Simon Bree, Andrew Green, Philip Ozouf, Philip Bailhache, Steve Luce, Alan MacLean, EVERY CONSTABLE, Carolyn Labey, Tracey Vallois, Jeremy Macon, Geoff Southern, Ian Gorst, Edmund Noel, Kristina Moore, Lyndon Farnham AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!

    1. Forgot to mention the clown at ESC Deputy Rod Bryans surely? Almost as big a waste of space as a black hole.

  64. Is there a link somewhere to all this Ozouf/Murray stuff? I don't see anything in the online version of the paper at the heart of the Island.

    1. It will be on Hansard in a weeks time.

  65. Is it any surprise to anyone with intelligence that the dumb and dumber states members who have been " shown up" by the freedom of the internet blogs now want them trimmed and tuned to their North Korean type agenda.

    It is due to the appallingly weak Jersey accredited media not doing their research, not holding to account the alledged corruption, child abuse issues, the miss management of public finances ( building office blocks in competition with the private sector ) that have attracted local searching minds to set up factual informative bloggs that forensically search and report facts, then allow the public to comment as I am doing.

    All very upsetting for what has become nothing short of a bananna government who disposed of the " Troy " rule allowing the executive a power grab that allows 22 ministers and uncontested elections for constables allowing for a mathematically biased States assembly overseen by an unelected speaker, and Lieutenant-Governor.

    Is it any surprise that again Philip Ozouf calls foul, this is the man that flys off to be with his partner each and every week paid for by the taxpayer. It is islanders that should be calling foul on this expensive globetrotting, mouthy politician who again and again has been caught out ( by bloggs ) saying one thing then doing another.

    Keep up the excellent work VFC, Rico, Polo, Freespeech offshore, and all the other bloggs that try to bring out the truth.

  66. Lewis was apparently on the lunchtime phone in.
    Did anybody listen?

  67. A reader said (10th April, 2:00pm), "Given that Andrew Lewis' ego is a clouding issue making him the David Icke of Jersey politics....a McKinsey type operation, with lots of money to be got by making connections. Even so it is hard to see how he could really be successfully lined up for higher office next time……Could it be that he is some form of Trojan Horse/ stalking horse plant ….Who would be standing in 2018 that would want to gain second round votes for Chief Minister from him?....”

    Just recently there have been a few comments in the island's free media which have raised the issue of the next general election in the island, and which establishment figures would be the oligarchy front-men candidates, and whether there'd be any vaguely effective, let alone organised, democratic opposition to them.

    But if Jersey activists and civil society at large are thinking in such terms 2 years out from the next elections, don't you think we have the time, and the need, frankly, to address more basic issues of democracy, issues to which Jersey is a stranger???

    For example, for any election process in Jersey to be valid, to be lawful, to be democratic, potential candidates in that election need to be free of fear, free of intimidation, free of the threat of "consequences", before they could even come forward as a real candidate; before they could freely and democratically table the issues of corruption and concealed crime to the voting public, to give that voting pubic a real, informed choice.

    At present in Jersey, and this is an evidenced fact, serious candidates who address the real issues of corruption, breakdowns in good governance, and abuses of public safety in the island, then face being arrested, prosecuted, jailed. Jailed by directly conflicted "judges", via rare (for Britain) "secret trials", in which the public can't, therefore, scrutinise the trial. In such banana-republic “courts”, it’s an axiomatic consequence of the secrecy that it’s impossible for the former election candidate now on trial, to ever be able to run a functioning, Article 6 compliant, defence.

    Under the present regime of "The Jersey Way", there will be serious potential candidates, people who would, absolutely, have spoken freely, representing the concerns and interests of the average reader of this blog, but who won't even get to the starting-line of being actual candidates, because of the fear, intimidation and oppression your oligarchy have, very clearly, established over such people.

    So before you start thinking of "which candidates" might reflect our concerns, and "which possible candidates might oppose X or Y Jersey establishment party candidates", is it not the case that more basic questions need to asked, before then?

    Namely, “do we even have a free and fair choice of candidates to PARTICIPATE in the election? Are we even able to enjoy the basic human rights and freedoms of having good, effective, candidates, candidates who would represent our concerns, even getting to the starting-line of our Jersey “election” process? In reality, is it not the case that we, concerned voting members of civil society in Jersey, don’t have a free choice of who we elect to the legislature?”

    It was an abuse of my human rights as supposedly guaranteed under the ECHR that my Deputy, my democratic choice as agreed by a lawful majority of fellow voters, Trevor Pitman, was removed from the legislature seat to which I and others elected him. And removed by a corrupt and conflicted court process at that. But not only was my democratic choice abused by corrupt judges, my right to a free and fair choice of candidates is STILL being abused because Trevor Pitman couldn’t be a candidate in the next elections, because of the actions of that unlawful court.

    We need to be given our rights to real elections before we start planning campaigns.

    1. What a thought provoking observation. I really hadn't considered it from quite this angle I must admit. I voted for Trevor Pitman in 2011. I would have liked to have voted for him in 2014, but as the poster highlights couldn't - a situation which would be illegal in the European parliament (MEPs).

      I did vote in the Deputy election of 2014 but wish I hadn't bothered. Wouldn't vote for Martin so tried the other two and feel wholly betrayed all over again. Great isn't it. Couldn't vote for my preferred candidate as your poster highlights, then the two I entrust do sweet FA. No wonder we have electoral apathy.

      I also voted for Stuart Syvret in 2005. I would like to vote for him as well in the 2018 election? But will I get the opportunity? If he also has the threat of bankruptcy proceedings hanging over him probably not. I would like to vote for Trevor Pitman. I also know people who would like to vote for Shona Pitman. How can any of this be fair?

      Then the courts rub our noses in it further when one of the candidates I foolishly took a chance on (Wickenden) was allowed to keep his seat even when exposed as not having bothered to secure the legally required ten proposers! Would this have been allowed to stand if it had still been Trevor Pitman's seat, Stuart Syvret's seat, or even that foot-in-mouth merchant Nick Le Cornu? No.No.No I promise you.

      Same thing would have happened with Bob Hill, Mike Higgins, all the way back to Norman Le Brocq. As your poster touches on our unlawful, corrupt courts are straying into areas in which they have no business if we are a democracy.

    2. I just came here to copy over the really important comment left under Rico's blog about about how our elections are not free and fair in Jersey. But I'm glad to see others as well have recognised its importance, and beat me to it. See the comment above at 00:02.

      I hope there'll be some extensive discussion of the points raised. Because let's face it, the subject raised here, which is "Jersey's climate of fear", is not only a grave obstruction to really, free democracy in Jersey, but it effects everything. For example, when people who would want to do the right thing, and opposes crimes, and whistle-blow on crimes like child-abuse, see the current situation in Jersey, which is that the actual Chief of Police can bee illegally oppressed by the establishment, and the leading opposition politician, the senior Senator, can be falsely arrested and jailed by conflicted judges, then how can vulnerable children ever be safe in the future in Jersey.

      Children can never be safe, all vulnerable people will never be safe, in Jersey until the climate of fear is reversed.

  68. “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
    ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

  69. The reader who posted a few days ago about how we can get candidates who would offer an alternative of fairness, accountability and standing up against corruption of the sort we in the judiciary, ministerial government and elements of the finance industry really has the right idea. These latest comments develop that further. I would never stand for election. Don't have the balls. But if a group of candidates could be brought together I probably would help with leg work.

  70. BBC Radio Jersey should/could only get better after the removal of Jon Gripton....

  71. Jon Gripton. FORMER Managing Editor, BBC Radio Jersey & BBC Channel Islands TV (2010-2015)

  72. Some very interesting comments above, concerning the "climate-of-fear" by which Jersey is run by its cartel of organised crime syndicates.

    And yes, the comments succeed in addressing the fundamental issue civil society in Jersey faces.

    The climate of fear is used to control everything in Jersey. Used by the powerful - and their thains, vassals and serfs - to keep "The Jersey Way" uninterrupted and in their control.

    The "climate of fear" is a very useful phrase - because it captures so economically and neatly the fundamental problem civil society faces in the island. I would advise people to use it more often, not least because there's no major issue we face in Jersey, in which you won't find the "climate of fear" to be a major factor.

    Elections in Jersey are de facto rigged before the election processes begin, precisely because any serious, high-calibre person - of ability and ethics - thus interested in cleaning-up Jersey and improving our standards of governance, know for a stone-fact - before they've even let it be known to anyone they were thinking of being a candidate - their life will be made hell.

    That's always been the case in Jersey. We only have to look at the experiences Norman Le Brocq had.

    But the climate of fear isn't used only to control elections; it’s used everywhere in Jersey. One of the most memorable - in a stark and shocking way - factors I had to deal with when covertly investigating Jersey's history of child-abuse cover-ups from late in 2006 and on through 2007, was the fear - absolute terror - felt, not only by abuse survivors, but also whistle-blowers and other witnesses - in speaking to anyone about what they knew.

    Dozens and dozens of people - maybe hundreds all told - were terrified of "The Establishment" finding out that they had told someone in authority - let alone me in particular - what they had suffered, experienced or knew of.

    To this day there are witnesses - survivors and whistle-blowers - who have still not told anyone of what they know, because of Jersey's "Climate-of-Fear". I know a number of people in that category - so God knows how many more there are. Tragically, the numbers are probably huge.

    For example, I'm aware of a number of people, some of who would have been key whistle-blowers to the Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry". They were frightened - worried for their careers - in particular worried about the careers of their family members - and in particular, the future career-prospects of their children. But in spite of that, they were thinking about speaking to the CoI. I was trying to persuade them to do so.

    All possibility of them so much as even making their identities known to the CoI ended the instant they read in the media of the Queen agreeing to appoint the fatally conflicted William Bailhache, an individual directly personally entangled in the Jersey child-abuse cover-up controversy, as Bailiff.

    As I wrote at the time, that decision by the Monarch - to make an evidenced and expressly conflicted individual involved in the child-abuse cover-ups - head of the "judiciary" in Jersey was as clear a deliberate "Climate-of-Fear" "message" as putting a horse's head in someone's bed.

    Making William Bailhache chief judge - rather than suspending him (and his fellow Crown Officers) for the duration of the "public inquiry" - was not only a means of unambiguously communicating the "message" "this-inquiry-is-going-to-be-a-whitewash-so-don't-bother" - it also "communicated" the "message" "and-if-you-do-rock-the-boat-this-man-and-this-system-will-carry-out-the-reprisals-against-you-in-due-course."

    People in Jersey will never be protected from crimes such as child-abuse, and protected from the corrupt concealment of such crimes, until and unless the “Climate-of-Fear” is overcome.

    Stuart Syvret

  73. Scrap the licence fee!15 April 2016 at 21:22

    The same geezer who vanished off Twitter for months after being caught out displaying the Beeb's political impatiality by praising a hate site attacking the same former Deputy Shona Pitman mentioned above unless I am very much mistaken? Also likes balloons, doesn't he?

  74. Co-Co the Clown16 April 2016 at 10:28

    Ha!Ha!Ha! Great stuff. Says it all. Generations of impartiality. Not.

  75. I don't know whether you would count this as a part of the climate of fear. But back when Pitman was in the States I am quite sure it was he who highlighted something about our elections which has always worried me. This is going into the polling station to mark my X and then finding I was being asked to do it with a PENCIL! Being a person with what you would likely call progressive tendencies and living in a country parish if not causing me to be in fear it certainly always made me worried about whether my vote might be altered. Perhaps other readers have experienced this?

    1. Ahhh YES the 'PENCIL' so a simple word of advice. When you use 'THE PENCIL' first put a bit of saliva (spit) on the end of your finger (more than once if needs be) dip the end of 'THE PENCIL' in said spit BEFORE you place your X this moisture + pencil will soak into voting paper and make it quite impossible to alter :) as the old saying goes "more than one way to skin a cat"

  76. VFC, do you know if the COI are taking into their proceedings evidence which is in the public domain such as press reports, including the blogs? It's an important question for so many items of evidence we the public have been informed of over the years (by the UK and world media, and our local blogs). I'm thinking of all the articles and comments (which included stuff from me) on Stuart's blog. I agree with him not speaking to the COI whilst they refused him legal representation. It was an insult to him and to us given everything he's tried to do and gone through. But whilst it would have been much better for our side if he hadn't been bullied into silence, nevertheless so much vital postings and the comment threads too were put there on the historic record in stuart's blog, the COI must have taken all that stuff into account? If you don't know, can you ask them VFC? It would be nice if we can take these things as givens as any normal public inquiry would take public available evidence into account as a matter of course. So the COI should be taking all evidence into account if it's published in the media.

  77. I would suspect that the CoI have read the blogs, but what I can say with certainty is that the JCLA provided the Inquiry with hundreds of press cuttings on all related matters and some were actually used at the hearings. They have scanned and retained them as well. Hope this answers your question.

    1. @J.G.
      And printouts of all the relevant blogs AND comments ?

      Was the full content of the submissions recorded?

      CoI counsel has occasionally quoted from the Ex. Health Minister's blog, but not to the extent that you would expect from a team supposedly charged with finding the truth. Selective, partisan and incompetent from the get go!

      Re. "AND comments" blog owners and their readers have also put significant testimony in the blog comment sections. It is of particular note that the "Website Elves" have been too busy to so far upload/replace perhaps 70% of the comments that were deleted when the establishment won their show trial (can a show trial be secret? LOL) against Health Minister Syvret and tricked Google into removing his blog before it was relocated to

      Oh, look what I just found on the parent site:

      History in the making, recorded beyond the reach of the mafia connections.

      What a criminal waste of £26m!
      This ain't going away until it is fixed.

    2. Everyone should read the Trevor Pitman statement before Jersey blogging goes the way of North Korea.

  78. Anyone who doubts the selective nature of Jersey's corrupt and politicised court system need look no furtherIMHO than the posh accountant who punched and threw a glass at a stranger in a night club yet somehow avoids prison. Same type of thing as the peasant kids who get hammered (deservedly) for punching other kids while the Vic College scumbags who moved their mate and dumped him to die are already appealing nothing sentences and will walk away almost Scot free. Wasn't it Sarah Ferguson who claimed 'class' wasn't an issue in Jersey? What a load of over subsidized kak!

    1. The thing about 'class' is that those who live by it and the importance of the 'old school tie' invariably don't have any class.

      Just look at Victoria College.

      A school that covers up abuse with the help of Old Boys in the judiciary. Has former Vice-Principle who bullied abuse victims in to silence appointed as court Jurats.

      And pupils who import Class A drugs, have kiddie porn and pervert the course of justice. Plus don't forget one of the darling's Old Vic old man who saw a kid lying unconscious on his garage floor but did nothing!

      Ah but they turn out our betters and leaders so well at Vic College! Just lucky they never get to be Bailiff - Oh shit!

  79. Jamaica here I come, no Queen & legalised weed wonderful!!

    1. Don't you suspect the entire Council of Ministers all smoke weed before making their decisions? The only rational conclusion to me given some of the madness they come up with.

  80. Shouldn't one of our politicians demand an inquiry on these stories that £5.000.000 has been spent on flights in just 4 years? If we are talking about corruption I reckon this is well worth a closer look.

    1. 14:53

      Who can argue with that given what was spent in the past investigating the purchase of a prawn cocktail with public monies.

    2. Not much chance. The police investigating the prawn cocktail spent more when they were in Jersey at the Radisson. But when this was raised ILM said it was all justified.

  81. A Nice Bit Of Turbot From Tazmania17 April 2016 at 18:21

    When can we expect a new post on this the finest of Europe's political blogs?

    1. Hope to have a new Blog Posting published tomorrow.

    2. A Nice Bit Of Turbot From Tazmania17 April 2016 at 18:38

      Excellent news. I can now go out for my evening run happy that tomorrow I have something to look forward to.

  82. The Running Man20 April 2016 at 10:28

    When is the new post imminent? Guess you must be having a late lie in this morning?

    1. Apologies for the delay. Will hopefully be up tomorrow now.