Wednesday, 23 November 2016

Child Abuse Inquiry Report Delayed.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has published a (very) short statement (below) declaring that its final report will NOT be published until the first quarter of 2017. This is despite an agreement with the Chief Minister/States that the report will be published before the end of December this year after the Inquiry was given extra funding.

We find this very short statement a little concerning, in that it offers NO explanation(s) as to why there is a delay. Haven't Survivors/Victims been through enough? Why publish a Press Release offering NO answers? Why not wait a little longer and publish a statement explaining the delay? Publishing such a vague  Press Release could/will invite speculation and conspiracy theory as to why there is the delay and further uncertainty for the Victims/Survivors.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Will the Chief Minister publish a statement in response, if not, why not? As the COI will be taking up to three months longer than it was agreed in the States, are there any implications coming from this if so what are they?  Up toanother three months work might mean the COI will need more money to complete the report? It could just be down to other work commitments of the Panel (or something similar) causing the delay and won't need more money but a valid question nonetheless. Will the funds be available if needed?

Has the Law Offices Department, or Data Protection Office, leant on the Inquiry? Was the December deadline, set by the Chief Minister, an unrealistic target?

The delay could work in favour of Victims/Survivors and Anti Child Abuse Campaigners. It could mean the final report will be that much more comprehensive than originally anticipated. It (the report) won't/can't get buried as easily in January-March as it can over the Christmas period in December.

Press Release from COI:

"The Panel Independent Jersey Care Inquiry is progressing with the drafting of its report into the abuse of children in Jersey's care system over many years. It confirms that the report will be published during the first quarter of 2017 and not at the end of 2016 as previously published. Further information in respect of the publication will be provided in the New Year."(END)

We think it would be unfair to blame the COI for the delay without knowing the reasons for it and Team Voice have a certain amount of confidence in the panel and its final report. We do feel it is a little insensitive to Victims and Survivors to publish such a vague Press Release and hope the panel will (very soon) rectify this by explaining the reasons for the delay.


  1. I don't see a problem with this delay. We don't want to see it rushed because the Chief Minister gave a deadline.

    Do it once and get it right.


    1. If it was going to be done right then they would have got Syvret involved.

    2. If Syvret was interested in doing right he would have got involved.

    3. Syvret wanted them all to resign before he could give his 'evidence' with legal representative that he did not qualify for as he had a duty to give his 'evidence' as a former HSS Minister of the SOJ. So in other words he never has any intention of ever giving his 'evidence' at all when most people expecting him to leap at the chance.

    4. It has to be admitted that he never worried about the implications of telling it as he saw it when writing everything on his blog. So suddenly being worried about the implications of standing up in a protected environment like everyone else did doesn't really wash.

    5. Sigh! @10:23 & 10:46 Please get over your fixation with Ex. Health Minister and whistleblower Syvret.

      A real CoI would have subpoenaed him and the other 10+ critical witnesses. That is what subpoenas are for. Doh!

      In the light of various deep concerns raised by the Ex. Health Minister and many others

      To quote VFC and others:
      "Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry A Fake, Partial, Incompetent? "

      While being poor value for money the CoI HAS and will produce some benefits.

      We hope that the final report will be good and will actually deal with the real underlying issues causing the serious child protection failures in the past - and in untreated THE SERIOUS CHILD PROTECTION FAILURES IN THE FUTURE.

      We await the report but with the catalogue of (deliberate?) errors and omissions we fear that the report can only go so far, in which case today's and tomorrows children will pay a very high price.

      .......far higher than the eye-watering £27 million which has been shyster screwed from the jersey taxpayer.

    6. Going around in circles again.

      Put it like this.

      Stuart Syvret as a Former Senator of the States of Jersey for 20 years. A former HSS Minister and a Blogger who has written and claimed so so much over many years, should have given evidence to cement all his claims without any excuse and more so as a duty to all who voted for and believed in him.

      He never delivered and that is that.


    7. @12:05
      but "Going around in circles" is good for you. you may stumble over concerns which are blinkin obvious to others not so sadly fixated on Ex. Health Minister Syvret.

      A real CoI would have subpoenaed Syvret and the other 10+ critical witnesses. That is what subpoenas are for. Doh!

      It is the CoI has "not delivered" and that is that.

      Clicking on the "HERE" link will take you to:

      # £27 Million Fake

      This endless whinging over the HSS Minister making difficult but justifiable decisions is dull but it does give me and others, opportunity for posting stonking links. I have another 173 at my fingertips without even searching, so keep the trite nonsense coming :-)

  2. So long as the delay is down to a commitment to throughness in wishing to reveal the true depth of corruption within the Jersey Establishment, be it the judiciary and/or senior political figures over the decades, and not due to being leant on be these gangsters then the delay is fine. Bit unfair on the victims as your post states if they have not been afforded any explanation. Better a great job than a botch.

  3. This is all very unfair. Just how much longer do people like ex Bailiff/Attorney General Sir Philip Bailhache, Jurat John Le Breton and Deputy Andrew Lewis have to wait to learn if they are getting away with their horrendous failures?

    1. Very true. And we must not forget poor Billy Ogley either!

  4. It will be interesting to see if this eventually comes out in two formats.

    A full report which only the victims and those who have fought so long for then read.

    A summary version which is what Jersey's joke of an 'accredited' media will use to quote (badly) from.

    Then a special version for about 45 of our States members. This will be a summary of the crap written by the State Media.

  5. I hope now having the benefit of this extra three months the COI add a chapter on all of the previously unheard claims invented by LOD (sponsored?) witnesses in these ludiccrous second witness statements mentioned in your previous post.

  6. If the COI Report is as damning as it should be an interesting question was put to me by my grandson at the weekend.

    Will any senior politicians, judicial figures, or civil service gurus coming out of this very badly then be suspended as a 'nuetral act' while their failings are looked at by their friends before deciding to do nothing?

  7. Just a reminder that it is par for the course for the Inquiry to fail to give any explanations for its actions now matter how strange they may be.

    There was never any explanation for why documentation disappeared off their site and was subsequently "restored".

    We never got an explanation for the weekend they were off the air.

    And all we got regarding the appalling security breach from Lenny Harper's explosive testimony being transmitted via ordinary post was a "trust us and shut up" response.

    I would not have expected an explanation from this crowd.

    I note the possible reasons for the delay advanced here.

    It is quite possible the report has slipped down their priority list if they have other lucrative engagements. I wonder is all the funding already drawn down. Perhaps the Executive could inform the States about this?

    It is also possible that there is pressure being applied in the background. Did the Bailiff (or his agent) not have a strange individual meeting with the Panel way back?

    Pressure being applied might actually be a good sign, particularly if it is resisted. It might mean the Report actually finds someone accountable for something which did not look to be the direction it was heading in.

  8. Looking at this blog on my tea break at work like a lot of the commentators I expect. My view is that the report was probably never going to be out in December given the amount of material. Tough on the victims like you say but for people who have waited decades for justice three more months isn't the end of the world.

  9. The hearings ended sometime in the summer. Not a chance that the report would be delivered by Santa and his Elves in time for Christmas.
    Deputy Andrew Lewis will have to wait to see if his pathetic attempt at kissing the establishment hoop will pay off. Check his voting. He wants back in.

    A long journey granted but just a little further is all that's required.

    stay strong


      Let us hope so. How can an individual who even managed to effectively claim to the Inquiry Panel in one gulp of air that he both had and had not told the States he had seen a 'damning' report that was really a letter from the geezer who wanted Chief Power's job ever be allowed to hold a position of trust? Possibly once he is ousted from the States in 2018 he could get Sir Philip 'the Head of Education who claims I told him I didn't want an abuser prosecuted is confusing me with a different Attorney General' Bayleaf could have a word with the Jurats? Must be an opening for another one like Le Breton who the police said was 'a pathetic' individual 'lacking any integrity'? Go for it Andy I say! Me I'm off down Honest Nev's to see what odds I can get on you using 'Integrity' on your election posters in 2018.

    2. Did Lewis really use the term Integrity on posters? Should have been done under the Trades Descriptions Act. I don't suppose any reader has a photo record of one of these posters, have they? Be great to use on anyone standing against Lewis election leaflets. Stick a photo up on here too for that matter!

    3. "Not a chance that the report would be delivered by Santa and his Elves in time for Christmas."

      If that's how you see it then why bother commenting?
      Many Survivors are serious about this Report and its light shining of the past failures of the States and Care System.
      So can we cut the stupid comments on here please.

  10. Rico is right. Lewis is showing the same grovelling attitude now as he was back in 2008.

  11. Both things are true: A thorough and carefully considered report is worth the wait. And the Inquiry could have spared a brief word of explanation for those who would be most affected by this announcement -- the survivors. Perhaps some reason will be afforded in the next update. Agree that one was warranted now, however, even if just as a nod to what increasingly seem to be the unfashionable gods of accountability and compassion.

  12. I know there are many who 'will not' buy the JEP but if you get the chance read the editorial in tonights copy....priceless!!!! It would seem that they (the JEP) would seem to be critical of the CoI for the delay. Hmmmm excuse me but when in this papers over one hundred year history did this 'organ of the people' shed ANY light into what (even I as a child knew) was going around? Are we lead to believe that the Jersey Evening Post knew NOTHING about what has been exposed to the CoI? As a Jersey born and bred person I find it sickening to my soul that there are these sub humans in our very midst who are capable of inflicting themselves on helpless children. If had my way!!!...well least said.

    1. I suspect that Beverly Lacey and Co. (lawyers to the States of Jersey) and possibly Oliver Lindop of Carey Olsen (lawyer to Lewis) could be a reason for the delay. The abuse inquiry would be unlikely to say so at this stage if this was the case. It is better to deal quietly and substantively with such annoying attempts at interference before using such attempts as further criticism of the individual(s) and organizations concerned in the final report. Be patient.

    2. I agree and I also knew what was going on when I was a child.

    3. Maybe extra time is needed for those criticised in the report to respond before joe public gets to see it ????

  13. I agree with the comments which suggest that publication near the spring might have a better impact than over the festive break. Unlike some others I am not so much concerned about a "whitewash" but rather a "glossover." That is, the possibility that some of the necessary hard messages might be so diplomatically worded that the impact will be lost. I also hope that the Inquiry will not commit the gross error of trusting the Jersey authorities to implement the required changes unsupervised. If they do they will rightly be met with widespread laughter and derision. This is a rare chance to achieve some form of closure and to make the changes which are necessary to ensure a proper accountable system of governance. Lets hope they get it right.

  14. Nothing can be white washed or glossed over because 99% of the evidence given by witnesses is in the Public domain.
    So we already know what's in the pot.

    1. @08:48 I hope you are right, but await the report with considerable trepidation
      I doubt that you are right about the 99% of evidence

      Due to failing to subpoena a dozen or more central  witnesses it is doubtful whether the CoI is even considering 70% of the evidence it should (and that's even before they play the not-in-our-terms-of-reference game)

      Another issue not to be missed is that they abdicated their "investigation" of the multiple non-prosecutions of suspects a pet barrister to put this keystone failure into secret and outside of a "PUBLIC" inquiry.

      We await the report with hope but we must be realistic given the above and the other multiple failings.
      "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ………."

      Can we expect it to lay a golden egg or a lead balloon?
      I expect something in between, erring to latter -externally heavy but internally vacuous!
      I hope that you are right and I am wrong.

    2. People who failed to give evidence only have themselves to blame if this report doesn't go the way they want it to.

      Several posters on here and elsewhere tried frantically to persuade Stuart Syvret to give evidence before the end of the Col but he did not want to know. He even went as low as calling us Trolls for asking so I am passed caring about his self exclusion.

    3. @09:32 You may be "passed caring" about whatever you wish.

      However if the rest of us are paying for a £27 million CoI we expect it to go to the trouble of interviewing all relevant witnesses (Syvret AND others), and subpoena them if necessary.

      What is your comment on the link and interview, given above, by Trevor Pitman about his experience of the CoI when he DID GIVE EVIDENCE?
      (or at least tried to)

    4. I would imagine that if Deputy Pitman had ever remotely thought his highly detailed evidence would be treated as it was when appearing to give public evidence he just would not have bothered like Stuart Syvret.

      Consider it this way.

      Like him or loath him Pitman was a major player among the few who fought for the victims. Unusually he and his wife, like only Stuart Syvret and Graham Power and Lenny Harper could also point to how, as a consequence, they experienced the weight of the corrupt Jersey judiciary being brought against them.

      And yet even knowing all of this the COI allowed itself to be bullied into not even questioning him on the vast majority of this. Who can say Syvret would not have simply been asked about his years as a cabinet maker in the same fashion?

  15. I agree with the earlier comment that the report would be better released in the new year. A release just before the Christmas break would make it easier to "gloss over, downplay etc." The states would not be sitting and Christmas would be a distraction in the news. The COI website has the transcripts of hearings, the statements and the supporting documentation. Most if not all the key reports are now in the public domain, they make powerful reading. WE can therefore read them and make our own minds up. Hearings were also held in public and for those of us who attended (VFC I believe attended all of them) we were also able to form an opinion of those who gave testimony. For example the straightforward evidence of Power against the toe curlingly awful performance of Lewis.
    My money is on the COI having to deal with interference from legal and data protection sources, but we shall have to see. The big issue is how the government react when it comes out and what happens as a result, will we get the same old same old.

  16. Does anyone know whether those critiqued in the report have read the report and been given a chance to respond

    1. What? "Mr. K" who was let not only off the hook by the Attorney General, but given a character reference by the now Bayleaf!

    2. Re: "Does anyone know whether those critiqued in the report have read the report and been given a chance to respond"

      This was asked in the previous Blog Posting answered as follows:

      "Hope this will clarify, taken from the COI website:

      "Mrs Oldham responded to a suggestion from a number of parties that there would be benefit in engaging again with the Panel before the report is finalised and in particular that there should be "early dialogue" with the Panel to ensure "realistic and achievable" recommendations.
      “The Panel recognise that those parties are motivated by a desire to assist the Inquiry. However, all parties have in fact had the opportunity to engage with the Panel and make recommendations when giving evidence, taking part in public consultations and when making closing submissions. Public sessions have been held with key stake-holders, members of the public, managers and senior politicians.

      “The Panel has decided therefore, that any further engagement would be inappropriate prior to publication of the report. We will therefore adhere to what we set out in our protocols at the outset of the Inquiry with regard to the arrangements for the publication of the report.”

      She said the Panel also considered that a "Maxwellisation" process in which parties are given notice of potential criticisms before publication and invited to respond was unnecessary. Criticisms had been put to the parties and they had had the opportunity to address those criticisms during the course of the hearings." HERE.

      This is an example of the COI doing some great work and not bowing to establishment pressure.

    3. VFC, you say this: -

      "This is an example of the COI doing some great work and not bowing to establishment pressure."

      No - it is not.

      The position adopted by this CoI, Coleman, & Eversheds is - in fact - further evidence of the gross incompetence they've displayed throughout.

      Maxwellisation is pretty much a given, expected, ECHR compliance burden - an expected immutable component - of any statutory public inquiry conducted in the British legal setting.

      Imagining they could avoid this requirement - which any competent public-inquiry will have built in to its time-tables from the get-go - is staggering incompetence.

      I'll wager it almost a certainty that the delay in publication is because of threatened legal challenges by the Jersey / Whitehall oligarchy and their pet, shielded child-abusers, rapists and other criminals - to the legally baseless refusal to allow Maxwellisation.

      Stuart Syvret

    4. Just to correct a typo in my above comment left at 19:30 - in that comment I referred to the "CoI, Coleman, & Eversheds" - when it should have read the, "CoI, Oldham, & Eversheds".

      Stuart Syvret

  17. A poster made reference to an interview this blog did with Trevor Pitman about giving evidence to the panel. Could you put an easy link to this please? Maybe put it up in your featured post section?

    1. Here is the LINK. And will post it as featured post soon.

    2. Good to note that Leah McGrath-Goodman is evidently still on the Jersey case. I say good because her interest means that at least we have one professional journalist monitoring the Jersey Way.

      Hopefully Leah will return to these shores sometime. And if she isn't arrested for having the wrong colour shoes possibly you can persuade her to give you an interview?

  18. Being an optimist we can just hope that this delay really means the COI team are determined to produce a very thorough piece of work. Not the lightweight piffle of 'lessons have been lernttime to just move on' the COM will be wanting.

  19. As I said earlier what we must do is ensure proper professional journalists are kept aware of what is going on. This is just too big and important to be trusted to the likes of the lightweight pretend reporting of Sibcy and his Jersey Evening Propaganda, let alone the disgraced Jersey version of the ITV and BBC.

  20. Leah McGrath Goodman ‏@truth_eater Nov 22
    Thank you -- what happened to the children of Jersey island was torture and death. Anyone with a heart should care about the reasons why.

  21. What tortured and murdered children?

    1. Lenny Harper's witness statement to the care inquiry confirms that a builder had told him that the builders were told if they came any bones during the 2003 renovations of HDLG, to get rid of them and 'let bygones be bygones.'

  22. The report will be longer than War and Peace, no-one will read it, the JEP will gloss over anything embarrassing, the truth will be buried as usual. You'll be able to point to evidence in the report, but no-one will believe you, and people will still not bother to go and look for themselves. The Troll will carry on trolling; same old same old. Why would Stuart subscribe to all that?

  23. Said yesterday that all the Statements and submissions are online so people can make their own reports up if need be. Unless they are going to write a Report on matters that are not common knowledge or have been subject to in-camera interviews then what new things are we to expect?

  24. Jersey's Lieutenant Governor leaves the Island next week not to be replaced for up to three months. No Queen's representative to Jersey for the next three months?
    The COI's report is delayed for up to three months?
    Just a thought.

  25. Memo item:

    Mick Gradwell was due to interview person 737 under caution as a suspect.

    I have not seen the result of this interview. Did it take place? It's in Gradwell's "to do sheet" for what turned out to be the week following Power's suspension.

    The Inquiry were aware of this as it's in the evidence submitted by Gradwell but nobody seems to have followed it up.

    I would have thought this important as Stuart seemed to think it relevant to Power's dismissal. You'd imagine that the Inquiry would have at least inquired.

    We'll see.

  26. Is person 737 the notorious 'Pinball Wizard', the recently retired former civil servant?

    1. Or is person 737 the multi identity witness "Mr. K" who was let not only off the hook by the Attorney General, but given a character reference by the now Bayleaf!

      "Mr. K" was accused of multiple rapes on young children and also of TORTURING others with lighted cigarettes

      From the above transcript:


      I just want to take up with you [Mr.K] please, if I may, something you say at paragraph 108 {WS000544/22} and this is in relation to the burns:

      "[This witness] also alleged that I had (Witness Mr. K”) burnt him 20  [200+ actually]times or more with a cigarette and branded him. This allegation was disproved as he had been examined by a doctor who had been unable to find any marks or branding on his body." I just want to explore with you the issue of it being "disproved", you use that expression again. Can we have up on screen please {WD003510}. What we're going to look at, Mr K, is a medical report dated June 2014 which was commissioned for the Redress Scheme and which this witness exhibited to their evidence and it is evidence that has been before the Inquiry, and it is a medical report prepared by a Jason Payne-James. If we could go to page 2 please {WD003510/2}.We can see the credentials there of the doctor.  If we go to page 3 please {WD003510/3} and we see that he is a registered medical practitioner, he is a specialist in forensic and legal medicine and he says this at paragraph 4:

      "For More than 20 years I have assessed several hundred assailants and/or victims (adult and child) in varying cases of assault or injury each year including sexual offence examination, torture and asylum cases ..."

      He goes on to say at paragraph 5 "I am editor of the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine" and he goes on to set out the extent of his experience.

      Could we go please to page 15 {WD003510/15} and a large block of black there, but paragraph 200:

      "On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size.  They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape. They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars. Causes could include cigarette burns," [or other causes -although other lesions were not noted elsewhere ...}


      Bailhache ignores inconvenient evidence, just like his bent Jurat.

    2. ^Anonymous @ 08:50

      Ok, so Mr K is obviously Mr A from William Bailhache's June 3 2009 press statement.

      W. Bailhache has hung himself.

    3. At 03:04 on the 26th November, a reader asks above: -

      "Is person 737 the notorious 'Pinball Wizard', the recently retired former civil servant?"


      Person 737 is not "The notorious Pinball Wizard".

      Nor is person 737 the even more notorious "Mr K" - as protected and shielded by this CoI.

      Mr K, The Pinball Wizard, and person 737 are three different - but all culpable - individuals.

      Stuart Syvret.

  27. "was the millionaire boss of Celtic Boys Club and a pillar of the Establishment."
    That word establishment again this is a quote in UK press regarding footballers abuse.
    The outpouring of sympathy whilst agree with is FAR less for the abused from children's homes that tend to be still not believed but the high profile footballers are immediately believed.

    1. "That word establishment again.."

      The establishment run the police force and the courts.

      They think they can get away with anything.
      In places like Jersey they can because the courts and the police are owned.

      An ex professional footballer says how hard it is for a child to tell, or to realise that they are not the only one

  28. Re: identity of Person 737

    Perhaps the Inquiry's sloppy redaction will allow you draw your own conclusions.


    1. Thanks Póló, (How competent is this CoI?)

      So not Mr.K and not the former head of Education but a central establishment figure who apparently can sexually assault adults with impunity!

      The island is infested!
      No one is safe until we have the rule of law
      I bet the £27m CoI manages NOT to mention that in its report. 

    2. So is it correct to say that person 737 never held the office of head of education?

    3. @22:52 -Did you not read the link which Polo published?

      How many newspapers does the island have?
      The JEPaedo and what else ....?

      I believe that 737 never worked in education, and is alleged to be an abuser of (young?) adult women and is NOT known to be a paedophile or abuser of children.

    4. Sorry, was at cross-purposes there. I was assuming 737 and Witness K are same person but their pattern of alleged offending is different.

    5. @22:13 Both are important suspects but they *are* different suspects.
      An ex head of education is different again.
      Jersey is not short of suspects ......only prosecutions

  29. Exclusive and in-depth interview with constitutional expert and Jersey Advocate Philip Sinel (TRAILER.) Stay tuned......

    1. Look forward to the full broadcast VFC

      Readers may wish to review your two Advocate Philip Sinel interviews from 2014

    2. also from 2014

    3. Looking forward to watching this interview VFC. Any news on when you plan to publish? Thanks.

  30. Jon.

    Reference your latest, in a long line of tell-tale comments which you know don't get published. Do you think THIS (with much more to come) will be ignored?

  31. Neil! (Please imagine a high-pitched voice) We all very much look forward to listening to your recording with Jersey lawyer and Human Rights expert Advocate Sinel. And any other recordings....................

  32. Extract from questioning of Witness K...some rather odd redactions if you ask wonders if funny handshakes are involved....

    Q. Paragraph 99 {WS000544/20}, if we may deal with this
    23 briefly, do you in fact know William Bailhache?
    24 A. Yes, I do in the sense that I know who he is and I've
    25 said we're on nodding acquaintance. I said we're
    1 members of the same [REDACTED], but I've never
    2 [REDACTED] with him.

  33. VFC, if I may I'm just going to leave two links here, one is from the inquiry's website, the second (related) link is from the BBC reporting on allegations made by a witness to the inquiry of a paedophile ring operating in Jersey in the 1970s:

  34. Mm mm interesting

  35. Witness K was named in the Daily Mirror at the time of his 2008 arrest.

  36. (1) Counsel for the inquiry Ms Jerram stated, in her opening remarks on Day 31 (25 Nov 2014) inter alia, as follows:

    " A notable feature of the evidence in this period is
    that allegations are made against no fewer than 31
    alleged abusers, 19 of whom were or had been employed at
    Haut de la Garenne and to remind you, Members of the
    Panel, that in accordance with the Inquiry's protocols
    on identifying those accused of abuse, I would remind
    you as follows: firstly, that those convicted of abuse
    will be named in the oral hearings; secondly, those who
    are accused of abuse and in respect of whom allegations
    of abuse are in the public domain will also be named, as
    determined by you, Members of the Panel, on Day 28 of
    the Inquiry; and, thirdly, those who are accused of
    abuse and reasonably believed by the Inquiry to be
    deceased will also be named. Therefore the only
    category of alleged abuser who will not be named are
    those who are still alive and in respect of whom
    allegations of abuse are not in the public domain.


    (2) Witness K was named in the Daily Mirror at the time of his arrest in 2008 (and possibly also in other MSM UK media, I'm not sure).

    (3) The Jersey Evening Post (to its credit, and I know that not many here are fans of it) applied to the Inquiry to try to name Witness K at the time of his testimony to the inquiry in 2015 - request denied!

    (4) Ergo - was the new legislation introduced just this year essentially an attempt to retro-actively legislate for a new meaning of 'media' in Jersey, i.e., 'media' means only officially accredited Jersey media?? The Jersey media are the controllers of what is or isn't in the public domain in Jersey?

    1. Yes it is incredible how these shysters operate -apparently in the interests of abusers rather than the public good (& the safety of children!)

      The legislation is bizarre and insular. It is a crass attempt to lock Jersey inside it's own little bubble, a bubble where they can control the courts and even the information.

      It is also worth noting that VFC is not able to publish many relevant comments due to this other new piece of legislation

      There is no doubt that it will be (ab)used tactically and strategically like the bizarrely applied data protection laws.

      Why was Dirty Emma not called in front of the CoI?
      # £27 Million Fake

    2. The trend towards authoritarianism and attempts to increase state controls on freedom of expression is by no means limited to Jersey.

      For example, last year elements within the Irish Labour party tried to push a bill which would have had the effect of greatly limiting if not outlawing criticisms of politicians on social media (*) . Fortunately, sensible, adult voices prevailed and the proposed legislation never got anywhere.

      The difference is Ireland is a more-or-less functioning (albeit imperfect) democracy with checks and balances, Jersey unfortunately just doesn't look like a normal democracy. It lacks basic and fundamental checks and balance on the executive.


  37. 72 listed perverts in Jersey look -

  38. Cheeky piece on Lt. Governor in JEP.

    Could someone post the full interview?

    We might just find out what he has been doing for the last five years.

  39. Polo well advertised re the cheeky piece link.The comments are a scream.

    If correct the Gov and his missus cost Jersey over £7 million to cover his five year term. The Bailiff, again unelected cost over five years £1.6 million and the Dean also unelected living free in a funded large house gets paid £125,000, bringing the total cost for Jerseys unelected to, hold on were's me calculator more than £8,725,000.
    The COM keep taking more money off the low and middle income workers saying that there is a deficit. Bloody obvious why ?

  40. Regarding story on the internet about Stevie Ocean's election expenses. I think it very important that we be told if body armour and security was offered to all candidates equally?