Thursday, 9 March 2017

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Report Delayed..........Again.

Readers will know that the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry was to due publish its report at the end of December 2016. Readers will also know that the publication was delayed until the first quarter of this year (2017) as we reported  HERE.

We reported that the first delay, or the Press Release, seemed  insensitive to Victims/Survivors and lacking in any information as to why it was delayed. Unfortunately this latest delay/Press Release fairs little better.

9 March 2017

"The Panel of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry on Thursday (9 March) released the following statement:

"The Panel has received new information as part of Phase 3 of its work, in respect of recommendations for the future of Jersey's childcare system.

"The Panel has advised the States of Jersey that there will be a delay to the publication of the report pending examination of the new information as to whether it affects the recommendations we intend to make.

"We do not anticipate extensive delays. We will announce the date of the report's publication in due course and advise on the arrangements that will be in place for its launch."

From HERE.

Very short post but what can one say?

Has anybody got any idea what the Press Release says/means? It seems very ambiguous to me.


  1. Is Someone Taking the Mick ???????????9 March 2017 at 19:24

    I think the information they have been directed to may be the letter (published on the Health Minister's blog) by the respected chief officer (Mick Pinel?) who wrote to all staff pointing out that he had fully investigated all of the Senator's complaints and found them to be groundless.
    Utterly groundless and merely an attempt to undermine staff morale!

    He further warned each and every member of staff that he would therefore take a vey dim view of any more malicious leaks of information to Mr.Syvret etc.

    Perhaps finally having access to this letter will provide further evidence that everything is and always was well within health and children's services
    considerable reassurance to the diligent and able CoI panel members and enable them to remove a the majority of the unnecessary recommendations they were about to make.

    Nonsense about :
    -the separation of powers
    -a functioning and independent police force
    -a functioning legal system that protects children not perpetrators and shysters
    -a political system in which political opponents are not constructively imprisoned and bankrupted.

    I think maybe this evidence may have been discovered just in time!
    It could have been so embarrassing to include this unnecessary nonsense in their report.

    VFC do you have a link to that letter/blog posting?
    It is a very impressive latter and your readers too need to be reassured by reading it.

    1. Sorry don't have a link. Not sure where the posting is.

    2. Was this some of the information removed in the fraudulent data protection raid?

    3. London Calling9 March 2017 at 20:00

      The Health Minister's entire blog was removed but it was largely reinstated

    4. I don't believe this letter even exists!

      just like any real evidence on the inquiry website

      The notion that these things just evaporate into thin air is ridiculous.

      I think this proves that everything was fine all along and this whole "abuse" thing has been overblown.

    5. Further down the thread Stuart Syvret has kindly furnished readers with the evidence

      Mike Pollard's letter:

      The Health Minister's response (which he was prevented from sending by being locked out of the email system):

      A real CoI charged with finding the truth would have absorbed this information already.

      Great Blog VFC btw  ;-)

  2. Do we really think a delay is needed for new information on future ides for improving the childrens service? The panel should be able to come up with this from what they have already heard. This stinks I'm afraid.

    1. It would be very easy for unscrupulous people who are not even lawyers or PR gurus to spin this clear, complete, unambiguous and largely unreported announcement of a further delay in the Final Care Report.

      You say "This stinks" but offer no evidence

      100s of people (some of whom actually gave evidence) can't smell anything bad yet.

      If there was a second delay or a final report that was not absolutely dripping in sympathy (and *useful* things like that) then you might have a point.
      Or say, if vital evidence had gone missing off the CoI website. Until then you are on your own and you should stop trying to undermine the CoI because it is all you are going to get.

  3. You can just imagine the frantic scenes behind 'the scenes' as our wonderful Jersey elite implore the UK privy Council and Justice and Home Secretaries/ministers that if this isn't watered down it will be the end of Empire.

  4. 26 million pounds of our tax payers money and 2 years later and all that they can announce is: "The Panel has received new information as part of Phase 3 of its work, in respect of recommendations for the future of Jersey's childcare system." Could be interesting.

  5. Even if the eventual report is damning what price we have another Philip Bailhache move that the States simply stick their fingers in their ears, sing la-la-la we can't hear you and pretend it never happened? The Constable of St Martin and Andrew Lewis, Murray Norton and Co would be bound to go along with it. Not to forget Scott Wickenden who became Assistant Chief Minister for such a great job at... Oh shite! he hasn't done anything. Ever. Has he? Apart from being elected without enough proposers to to stand for election. Pretty impressive stuff.

    1. That's unfair on Scott as he managed to find the time to plant himself in the official's area at the island games Beach volleyball competition; a ladies match just happened to be playing ...

      The Beano is Not The Rag

  6. The problem when the Panel issues ambiguous Press Releases is that people start making up their own theories.

    Let's take this line from the Press Release for instance:

    "The Panel has advised the States of Jersey that there will be a delay to the publication of the report pending examination of the new information as to whether it affects the recommendations we intend to make."

    That line could suggest that the Panel and the States of Jersey have been in contact, in that the SOJ has sent new information regarding what changes it has made to the safeguarding of children etc.

    But this goes completely against what Francis Oldham said in her closing speech on 22nd June 2016. She said that "Interested Parties" (States of Jersey Police/Chief Minister's Department/Law Offices' Department) asked to continue a dialogue with the Panel and basically attempt to influence the final report. Oldham was having none of it as she explained HERE.

    She basically sent them off with a flea in their ear and confirmed there would be NO more dialogue. So where has this new information come from if she is as good as her word and had nothing to do with the Interested Parties?

    We could all have been sending lots of "new material" if we knew it was possible which would/could have contradicted what the Interested Parties were/are saying.

    That is, of course, if I am reading the (void of info) Press Release properly.

    The Panel really should be doing better that this.

  7. As long as it is done properly I will not be complacent.
    Though I will be expecting all recommendations to be implemented sooner rather than later.

    1. I agree. Me and my mates don't mind waiting another month, or even a year or two for it to be done over properly.

      In order that the recommendations can be quickly implemented it is essential that they are not too onerous and do not include unnecessary fuss like mandatory reporting.

      We know that with one firm hand on the tiller and another Bailhache on the bow, the good ship Jersey can be navigated to full independence and be free of the constant worry of proper outside oversight.

      I can't wait.
      Happy days are here again!

      That's funny :-)

  8. A chance to take more money from the tax payer.

    1. "A chance to take more money from the tax payer"

      That's a horrible thing to say about the dedicated and able lawyers and professionals involved.

      Making inappropriately uncomplacent statements like that, you would think that the CoI members had actually demanded their hourly rate be significantly increased on seeing the depth and breadth of cover up required[#1].

      The conduct of this inquiry has been beyond reproach and given the fact that it is deliberately branded a "Care Inquiry" it would not surprise me if the caring professionals involved did not give their time for free[#2].

      errrr...*that* #1 basically did happen btw!!!

      [#2] okay, I would not stake my life on that but I know that Advocate Philip Sinel did a huge amount of pro bono work.

    2. Yes, I got up at 4am to post this ..........10 March 2017 at 04:29

      I agree with the previous poster.

      People should shut up and stop criticising the CoI before its excellent report is even out.
      It is obvious to anyone except the followers of followers of bankrupts like Syvret and the Pitmans that at £23m for the inquiry, we only paid for a rickshaw and are getting a big shiny BMW sport.

      I'm already celebrating with my 2nd stella

      I went to Vick College you know.
      Cheers you losers :-x

  9. The COI was finished. WTF is this new information nonsense about. Who gets to see and scrutinize this new information.

    1. Those are very good questions Mr Sorda.

      Perhaps the scrutiny will be by the same people who scrutinised the non-prosecution of priority suspects during this "PUBLIC Inquiry"?

    2. Wasn't there some deranged pervy Teacher called Bacon recently found guilty and others on operation whistle blower...or was that operation cover-up?

    3. Reading it at the moment. Sozeller Vernon Tomes used to have paedophiles dealt with at Parish Hall Inquiry level so maybe this is the new info?
      See back then it wasn't seen as a crime but a normal part of Teaching. A perk if you like.

  10. I wish the people on here would make up their minds.
    Is this Care Inquiry a white wash, vires, waste of time or are people ignoring the doomsters and being optimistic?

    1. How can people on here would make up their minds up?

      If and When the report is finally published we can clinical evaluate the report.
      (the non redacted parts vs. known information.... vs. known redactions)

      Until then it is entirely fair to make observations and raise valid concerns.

      If the final report turns out to be a sandwich with the filling taken out there may be more suicides.
      That would be a further tragedy which we do not want to happen.

    2. @ Anonymous 10 March 2017 at 09:23

      "I wish the people on here would make up their minds.
      Is this Care Inquiry a white wash, vires, waste of time or are people ignoring the doomsters and being optimistic"

      I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so I'm not clear by what is meant by 'the people on here'.

      Those who have read the statements and testimony to the inquiry are clear that the documented evidence and witness statements would make it difficult for the inquiry report to be a whitewash.

      @ Anonymous 10 March 2017 at 10:34

      "If the final report turns out to be a sandwich with the filling taken out there may be more suicides.
      That would be a further tragedy which we do not want to happen."

      I think that this cuts both ways. I hope that genuine victims do not wish for suicides among falsely accused (should there be any).

  11. My first concern is who has made the submission, why have they been allowed to make the submission and doesn't this go against the COI Protocols? No matter who it is or what it concerns the COI was closed. Is everybody still allowed to make submissions or forward evidence. Have Health and Social Services written some new child protection rubbish to try and softened the blow. The COI now need to inform the public where this new information has come from. Remember, Open and Transparent

    1. That's right "Open and Transparent"

      Like the evaluation of the non-prosecution of priority suspects was ...NOT!

      There is a chance that this "new information" is good (I hope so, but I suspect not) 

      However, presumably ANYONE can now present "new information"

      LOL.......maybe Mr Syret could be persuaded to dig out a copy of that Pinel letter mentioned at the start of this thread
      "..who wrote to all staff pointing out that he had fully investigated all of the Senator's complaints (about child protection in Jersey) and found them to be groundless.
      Utterly groundless and merely an attempt to undermine staff morale!"
      Do you remember how long the JEPaedo willingly trumpeted the 'undermining staff morale' narrative?

      I gather that the Health Minister's flood of whistle blowers nearly dried up after staff were threatened by Civil Serpent management.

  12. How can Jersey have an individual sitting and presiding over our States when the facts show he was dishonest in what he stated as to his reasons not to prosecute the notorious Mr K?

    Our Bailiff, then Attorney General I believe, claimed that Mr K had always had consistently positive reports on his professionalims, did he not? This we now know even from Mr K is patently untrue.

    The Attorney General is supposed to make decisions based on evidence. Clearly it would seem he did not bother with little things like facts and evidence here. I do hope the COI will have noted this.

    As for our glorious States why hasn't anyone called for this seemingly blatantly dishonest man's head?

  13. No word on ITV or BBC TV news this evening about the contrivercial delayed CoI's report.

    1. Wouldn't be would there. Nothing to see here. Jersey is in safe hands. Jog on.


  14. Extracts of a letter from Mike Pollard that was sent to all staff.

    Our ref: JMP/LAW

    Dear Colleague

    Child Protection Services and our Children's Services More Generally

    On Wednesday last, I wrote to you following the dismissal of Senator Stuart Syvret as the Minister for Health and Social Services, which became effective the previous day.

    The Jersey Evening Post reported the dismissal and included in that report the following statement:

    'Members backed Chief Minister Frank Walker's move by a 35 to 15 margin, effectively deciding that his attacks on his own staff, other civil servants and politicians over the recent rows have been unjustified'.

    You will also be aware that Senator Stuart Syvret as Minister, invited people to come forward to him with any details of any incident of child abuse or any untoward incident of this nature. as a consequence of his call, he asked me to investigate two alleged incidents.

    The first concerns the circumstances surrounding the departure of a member of staff. Following my investigation into this matter, the Senator accepted that this had been handled correctly. The second concerns alleged incidents which occurred in the mid 1980's which of course is over 20 years ago.

    The truth is- as if we did not know it- that these are highly respected, caring professionals who work in one of the most high risk sectors of public service.

    In addition to the investigations (referred to above) which Senator Syvret asked me to investigate, you will appreciate that the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey have also asked me to investigate some allegations which were brought to their attention.

    What I expected to find in undertaking all of this work was that the vast majority of such allegations were groundless and could be easily rebutted. To be perfectly honest though I did expect - because this is the way the world usually turns - to find that one or two instances had not been handled as they could have been. What I actually found, without exception, was that every instance and every matter I looked into had been dealt with to the highest possible standard.

    Never before in my 30 years of practice have I found a service that has got it so right, so well and so often to such a high standard

    I trust therefore that this letter has put beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children's Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record.

    I will not take kindly to anyone who seeks to make mischief with these hard working staff on these matters...."

    Chief Executive Health and Social services,

    Mike Pollard.

    Dated 14/9/2007

    As requested:


    1. Less than two years after this highly contrivercial letter was written. Mike Pollard was gone.

    2. Well done BB

      The first poster on this thread asks if maybe this letter is the new information that the CoI has been given

      "I trust therefore that this letter has put beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children's Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record"
      Says it all really

      After investigation and due diligence by Mike Polard this was a statement of the absolute facts.
      There was also a very expensive independent States report (Williamson?) which found that the Health Minister was guilty of gratuitously bullying hard working staff.

      If only this information had been available earlier then the CoI could have completed it's work already, and for a fraction of the cost.
      Little wonder that Mike Polard's professionalism was rewarded with that ogley golden handshake. About £350k I think.

      Indeed many amongst my circle of friends say that the CoI was totally unnecessary and has been a damaging waste of time. Ironically, a growing number of child protection snowflakes agree with us on this point.

      What the CoI needs to realise is that the real scandal is the damage to the island's reputation.
      Any extremely right thinking islander would agree. Surely?

      p.s. If only Mike Polard had given evidence to the CoI (or been subpoenaed) then all of this nonsense could have been put to bed by the true facts like in the good old days.

    3. It has taken our elected government £800,000+ to prove that Health Minister Syvret is nothing but a liar and a bully.
      Thank Fatherland that this traitor to our Island's children can no longer stand for election!

      He should think himself lucky. There was a time (around 1938 I think) that such traitors would have been given a quick show trial and then taken to the harbour to be dealt with.

      Other would-be conspiracy theorists and online bullies should take note because we now have laws to swiftly deal with such things, and I don't mean just Data Protection.

      Further, I challenge the ex Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief to come back to the island and repeat their allegations about "a government within a government"

      Ridiculous! What evidence is there.

      We guarantee you a fair trial. Do you feel lucky?

    4. Pollard certainly should have been called before the Inquiry panel. This is surely indisputable. Okay, he could have then pushed off to Australia to avoid doing so but at least that action would have spoken louder than words.

    5. I'm sure they promised the Pitmans a fair trial? Then they even denied them the set-in-stone right to appeal to the Privy Toilet Council? Lovely place Jersey. Why ever do so many of us moan so much? We are lucky to get crumbs from the tables of our betters and let us never forget that lest we find ourselves getting a fair trial!

    6. The Inquiry's report better contain a bloody good reason for not having subpoenaed Mike Pollard. Otherwise it won't be worth the £26million worth of paper it is written on. It's an absolute scandal that he did not give evidence.

    7. Why not offer Mr Pollock an interview here on this blog? People getting castigated on blogs can get very emotional if they don't get the right of reply you know.


  15. Jersey Child Protection Committee Serious Case Review

    26 March 2010

    News release published by the Jersey Child Protection Committee:

    A teenager who took his own life is the subject of a serious case review by care agencies in Jersey.
    The information was revealed at the inquest into the unnamed 16-year-old, who died in May 2013.
    The court heard authorities became aware of the boy's tendency to self-harm at the end of 2012 and felt he was at risk of taking his own life.

    1. I think over that very same Polard-Period there was also the serious case review (Family X) where the children were left pray to the island's paedophiles for "over a decade".

      Failing to deal with this abuse has cost the island over £1,000,000 in treatment and care costs alone.
      This makes Polard's £300k+ golden handshake look like pocket money!

      I shall personally be sticking this up Jimmy Perchard's prawn cocktail.

  16. Don't worry Sir Philip Bailhache is now promoting much greater independence fo r Jersey , a true path 'to the sunlight uplands'.NOT!

  17. Any more news on who this 'new' information months after the COI was meant to have closed came from?

  18. As if this isn't worrying enough now King Bailhache wants us to be more independent! Does he mean that we should allow his bent Royal Court to completely disregard justice and the ECHR in order to secure a dictatorship?

  19. As someone said earlier The Mick Pinel letter is another classic. Someone must have a copy to download here to go alongside the Pollard classic....
    Keep the CoI members on there feet for their multimillion pound fee!?

  20. Pollard was Pinel's puppet.

  21. My worry is that the new information is to do with stage 3 of the it states in their press release. I would guess that it comes from the Health and Social Services department. Everybody else knows that the coi wrapped up last year and wouldn't bother. They are probably trying to soften the blow. I really hope that they haven't got a sniff of the final report.. The information is obviously substantive enough to cause a delay and so can't be easily dismissed.. The coi need to come and explain what this new information is.

    1. Rico, That was my best guess too given the wording of the communique from the Panel.

      This 11th hour acceptance of "new information" is surprising and seems rather irregular and likely is in breach of not only the published timetable deadlines but also the CoI's own rules and protocols.

      What could be *both* THAT IMPORTANT and have such potentially wide ranging BEARING ON THE ACTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS?

      Well we are all left just guessing and I suspect that we might never be told.

      WHO might the "new [very late] information" be from?

      a] Survivors, or their campaigners or champions: ......the Pitmans, Daniel W. Lenny H, G. Power, Advocate Sinel, or even Mr.Syvret? :-)
      b] The usual suspects: ........the culpable departments, the police, the Law Officers, the LG (even!) or Ms. Bergerac

      Given the conduct of this panel at nearly every stage I would put money on it being 'the usual suspects'.

      It would be excusable perhaps if there were a  now released sub judice matter which was  individually of this magnitude. If so the relevant prosecution has not appeared in the media!

      I suspect that  this delay is actually beyond parody which is why people are poking 'harmless fun' at the Panel suggesting that the  "new information" is actually old information, such as the now cringe-worthy Mike Pollard letter
      [I trust therefore that this letter has put beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children's Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record.]

      or perhaps the  "new information" is a re-submission of the apparently lost (at least off the website) documentary submission of Advocate Philip Sinel:

      You really couldn't make it up.

  22. The COI should say who this new info is from at the very least just to allay fears.

  23. So why didn't Stuart Syvret just give this Pollard letter to the Care Inquiry? Or did he? I find all of this cloak and dagger, cryptic stuff so distracting.

    1. I hope that you are not suggesting that the CoI Panel is being "cloak and dagger" or cryptic. These are highly paid professionals who are charged not only with discovering the truth (whatever it may be) but also with maintaining confidence and looking after the welfare of any people who have been badly wronged.

      Of course Stuart Syvret did not just give this Pollard letter to the Care Inquiry.
      To do so would have blown the lid off his conspiracy theories.

      This is not just any throw-away letter. It is a document (in the aftermath of the sacking of the Health Minister) from the Chief Executive Health and Social services proving that after investigation he "has put beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children's Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record."

      The investigation and letter prove that.
      Or prove that there was a Civil Service led attempt of a coup d'état against the Health Minister as was alleged by the multiply suspended Chief of Police.
      A sort of Paedo-supporting feudal "government within a government".

      Come on now! The CoI is not going to conclude that is it?
      Lawyering is a business like any other and that would be like fingering your own employer, so let's be realistic here.

      I have not checked but I think you will find that that fool Trevor Pitman submitted this Pollard letter to the Care Inquiry. The trouble with these inconvenient submissions is that they can so easily get lost or overlooked.

      If you are ultimately not happy with the conduct or final outcome of the inquiry you can always write to the Law officers, appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor or even the Monarch Herself.

      If this did not work for Advocate Sinel, I really do not see how it is going to work for you!

    2. Quite so "that fool Trevor Pitman"

      We can prove that Trevor Pitman was a fool.
      After all he bet his house and his future on receiving a fair trial!

      Like many on the island he could have been forgiven for thinking this a reasonable expectation at the time, but knowing what we know now it does seem rather a foolish gamble.

      He learnt from what had already happened to Syvret, but not until it was too late.

      What beats me is why they did not borrow money (from somewhere) to launch an appeal. LOL

    3. So Trevor Pitman submitted this seemingly devasting letter did he? So surely we can find it on the COI website? or was it one of those documents the Data Protection Kommandant kept fighting to have taken down? What a trouble-maker Pitman was. I heard he was one of those in the frame for leaking the in camera Andrew Lewis debate. The one the Constable of St. John said the person should be hanged for. So why can't we see this letter now and make up our own minds. Probably doesn't exist. Anymore.

    4. Appeal to be allowed to appeal? Now that is a sure way to lose even more money. Jersey's appeal court is hardly going to overturn a decision by the very people who handpicked them and give them huge sa,aries for very little work is it. Boy but this Potemkin Village Jersey style is damned good! Every angle tied up up. The 1000 year reich will go on forever and don't any of you plebs forget it.

    5. Sounds like a damning letter given all that has leaked out since. Surely the COI would or will be most interested in the light it sheds on an attempt to portray the failed Jersey care of vulnerable children by a senior civil servant as utter hokum?

  24. About the only plausible option is that something in the UK inquiry now underway references or impacts the recommendations being made by the Jersey COI. There were links between Islington and Jersey that would likely come up in the UK CSA. Perhaps someone is mindful of trying to get all the ducks lined up?

    1. The UK inquiry shows signs of being every much of a shambles and damage control exercise as the "Independent Jersey Care Inquiry"

      We have to nail our own shysters to the mast.

  25. Stuart Syvret has been very quiet on this one so far. He has usually contacted this blog site by now. Wonder why he has kept away from this one?

    1. Come on Stuart. Post the letter where we can all see it. If Trevor Pitman put it forward to the inquiry it seems to have vanished now. The letter would appear to be dynamite. We can't let it be erased as if it never existed.

  26. I confess I haven't followed these comments - or the latest fakery from the plainly ultra vires CoI - closely - so forgive me if I'm in error in what follows.

    Insofar as "The Letter" - referred to in several different ways above - I assume the letter in question to be the letter - e-mailed to all Jersey Health & Social Services staff - by then Chief Executive Officer of Jersey Health & Social Services, Mike Pollard?

    The letter from Pollard was written & e-mailed by him to all H & SS staff in the immediate wake of the criminal conspiracy to obstruct and sabotage the proper discharge by the Health & Social Services Minister of the functions and duties the Minister was - by law - obligated and empowered to carry out under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

    If that is, indeed, the letter under discussion - then - in spite of the corrupt - anti-democratic - criminal - efforts to suppress public-interest journalism on Jersey - efforts enthusiastically endorsed and shared-in by London / Whitehall and the CoI - the letter by the criminal Mike Pollard - and my reply - as the then H & SS Minister - both remain in the pubic domain at the following blog-postings.

    The first - titled, “Child Abuse in Jersey: #1 - And Why it Persists” - was posted on 09:04:2008 - and it includes the - self-authored - prima facie evidence against then H & SS CeO Mike Pollard: -

    The second - titled, “Child Abuse in Jersey: #2 - And Why it Persists” - was also posted on 09:04:2008 - and it includes both my explanation of the criminal conspiracy - against child-protection law on Jersey, in which conspiracy Pollard was acting as a core participant - and also includes the letter I wrote in which I rebutted the lies by the then CoE of Jersey Health & Social Services - and in which I explained the truth to the vast majority of good, honest H & SS staff: -

    As that latter blog-posting by me explains - the Jersey oligarchy - in effect the Law Officers Department and their puppet-apparatus, the Chief Minister’s Department - preferred to let some 2’500 good H & SS staff be lied to - overtly - on-the-evidence - be lied to in the interests of the Jersey establishment corporate conspiracy to cover-up decades of child-absue - rather than let my e-mail & letter of explanation be transmitted to staff.

    Those two blog postings - the evidence they contain - the evidence they disclose to the public - in the public interest - render as more “Game-Over” - as any attempted public-sector corruption as you could point to - in post WWII British history.

    And that’s the fascinating thing, is it not?

    The thing I find most curious about this thread of comments.

    Both letters - the foul - manifestly dishonest - child-absue concealing - letter from Mike Pollard - and my factual, honest, evidence-based - yet state-suppressed - response to it - have both been in the public domain since I published them.

    In April 2008.

    So how has this suggestion that the Jersey mafia’s lawyers - Eversheds - can have “only just discovered them” - ever have arisen?

    My advice: do not believe for one moment the delays in publishing the whitewa - er - sorry, “report” - of the CoI have - has anything to do with those particular items of evidence.

    I think the public are being led up the garden-path with diversionary lies.

    These delays are purely because of various factional battles behind the scenes - each trying to minimise their ultimate share of the “dirt” - the Jersey / Whitehall cosa nostra on one hand - or Eversheds etc... on the other.

    Look at it this way; there can be zero - utterly zero - claim that the CoI didn't have access to the corrupt Pollard letter- nor my honest response to it.

    As both have been-in the public domain - in plain sight - since I published them - in April 2008.

    Stuart Syvret

    1. Stuart you keep on referring to personal blog posts that are not official views by a qualified source after proper scrutiny. It further makes basic sense that if you really believed half the stuff you write and promote on this blog of yours, then you would have jumped at the chance to present it at the CoI. But you didn't so why should we believe any of it anymore?

    2. Absolutely @07:39
      I quote form the Pollard letter:

      The Jersey Evening Post reported the dismissal and included in that report was the following statement: 'Members backed Chief Minister Frank Walker’s move by a 35 to 15 margin, effectively deciding that his attacks on his own staff, other civil servants and politicians over the recent rows have been unjustified'.

      As was mentioned jocularly at the time this is tantamount to the disgusting crime of prolonged and unreported adult abuse.

      unreported until the JEP bravely strode in. It is fitting that the Chief Executive of Jersey Health & Social Services gained support by reaching for that throbbing organ of truth.

      Some people have no shame.
      Don't forget; if this £23+m CoI is not everything people had hoped for it is ALL Stuart Syvret's fault!!!!

    3. I think we have all heard that old chesnut about only evidence from people who are 'qualified' being valid.

      Why does the troll persist? As even a stella fuelled half-wit should be able to deduct it was generally people wholly 'unqualified' who ensured that all of these cover ups and failings were exposed and came to an end (we hope).

      Among those was Stuart. So give credit where it is due you sad individual. Stuart, Trevor and Shona Pitman, Bob Hill, Mike Higgins, Montfort Tadier, Daneil Wimberley and co can all stand with heads held high.

      Where were your f***ing 'qualified' 'experts' then?

    4. Well said.

  27. 07.39
    do you really think SS would have allowed himself to be locked up, hounded by all & sundry etc etc if he didn't believe in what he had put forward on his blog.
    I know which side of the fence I stand & it is not with 07.39

  28. I'm surprised VFC that you persist in demeaning what should be evidence and fact based public discussion by publishing such obvious irrational trolling as the comment at 07:39. Such editorial failings are one of the reasons this blog has become sabotaged and of increasing tedium.

    Why should I and other readers interested in facts and evidence be expected to waste our time responding to paid spin-doctors - who can't even be bothered to make their PR attempts faintly rational?

    The two articles I referred to above are evidence.

    They consist of historic - documented - documentary - facts.

    The actual letter - which was written and distributed by the corrupt Mike Pollard.

    And the actual letter - which was written by me - but not distributed at the time - because the Jersey establishment blocked it.

    Those two items of factual evidence were published by me - in an evidenced and necessary act of public-interest journalism.

    Plain facts - there to be read.

    So why should I and others have to be wasting time now responding to the blatherings of a gangster and halfwit who can do no better than attempt to imply that that historic data and evidence is, somehow, not, in fact historic data and evidence?

    Why do you expect me to waste my time writing the following? - "what does the troll "not believe"? Presumably, the troll believes the two letters did not - and do not - exists? That they are, somehow, 'fakes' - which I've just recently manufactured?"

    You see? The manifest absurdity?

    I took the trouble to respond to what I took to be questions asked in good faith.

    I don't intend to use my time responding to overt anti-rational child-abuse cover-up sympathisers.

    I suggest that you recover meaningful standards of public discourse here - rather than let the Jersey oligarchy win by sabotaging and reducing your comment section to something akin to the meaningless, anti-rational twaddle to be found below-the-line on all of Jersey's fake-news MSM.

    Stuart Syvret

    1. Stuart. We understand how deeply you care about this and we can understand why you are pissed off. My view is that VFC knows what he is doing and that airing alternative views or what one could call "Trump Truth" not only contributes to the thread, avoids the JEPaedo 'echo chamber' trap.
      but most importantly clearly demonstrates what democrats and child protection campaigners in jersey are STILL up against in 2017

      Credit to VFC.

      What is required now is an answer to the owned media


    2. "What is required now is an answer to the owned media"

      challenge the BBC with a TV licence strike
      - Go on Sue me - when you meet your charter obligations then I will be happy to pay.

    3. I'm with Stuart Syvret on this. The nauseating posts like the one at 07:39, continually going on that Stuart did not give evidence, well, they are become very tedious to read.

      Stuart's reasons for not giving evidence have been well rehearsed. Can't you put up an FAQ somewhere VFC :-) ? We are way beyond the time where someone commenting "he did not give evidence, ner-ner-ner-ner-ner" is a useful use of anyone's time. We can also of course respond with "Mike Pollard never gave evidence either. Why not?" I can go on all day doing that.

      Stuart Syvret has yet again published some very valuable public interest material. I look forward to reading the inquiry report when it comes out, and putting the comments of Mike Pollard into context...."I trust, therefore, that this letter has put beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children’s Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record." Yes. Quite. Ask the family XXX children.

      My guess is that, in their heart of hearts, the paedo-trolls know that Stuart Syvret was right all along, but they can't bear to admit it to themselves after all these years. Stuart Syvret didn't need to give evidence in order to fatally wound the Health and Social Services Department - their own managers did it for them.

  29. Could I ask if someone can make the 2 links to the 2 postings cited by Stuart clickable? I'm sure it helps readers to easily access the articles and to read that evidence for themselves, thanks. And could I thank Stuart as well? Not only for answering questions he was asked here, but for all the immense work he has done on this subject over so many difficult years. I agree he shouldnt have to be wasting time responding to comments which are obvious nonsense such as the 1 at 7.39.

  30. I agree with @8:49.

    Voice is a responsible journalist and I wonder what proportion of the shite that is posted to him is represented by @7:39.

    It's all very well for Stuart who has been over the ground time and time again, but there are always new readers, and even myself, who has been following the blogs for a number of years now, I welcome the ensuing restatements of selected aspects of the case. We can't all spend our days trawling the stuff to refresh our memories.

    I run a blog. I have been trolled by Stella. And I fully support Voice's judgement in this matter.

  31. Pollard letter: original

    Pollard letter: Stuart's response

  32. I think Anon at 7.39 raises a serious issue about having faith in your own evidence.
    If we choose to ignore that people such as Mario Lundy, Frank Walker and Mick Gradwell stepped up and gave evidence when asked, whilst Stuart Syvret refused, then what does it say about him?

    1. Mike Pollard

    2. A JonyMouse @14:39 "then what does it say about him?"[Health Minister Syvret]

      Let's imagine for a moment that this is a genuine question from a genuine person who is so lacking in knowledge or moral fortitude that it cannot answer that question itself:

      What it *says* about Mr.Syvret is that he has standards and an unwillingness to compromise on them.

      A good deal of time and emotional energy has been spent on this and other blogs arguing that the Health Minister's standards should be much lower or that he should be more willing to compromise (it's all the victims are going to get etc. etc. yawn)

      Personally I am grateful that Mr.Syvret's standards are not as low as the 3 characters you compare him with: Mario Lundy, Frank Walker and Mick Gradwell. At least one of those was a "priority suspect" in the child abuse investigation and I suspect that all three should be in prison for either child abuse or for perverting the course of justice.

      Would you like perhaps for Stuart Syvret's standards and expectations to be as low as Mr. Mike Pollard, the Chief Executive of Jersey Health & Social Services who reported in writing and after supposed investigation that "beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children's Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record."

      How low can you go?

      These are the very kind of lies, incompetence and continuing cover up which make a £23m CoI necessary (no actually, it needn't have cost 1/4 of that and could even have been dealt with virtually cost-free by the effective prosecution of suspects in 2008. This would have been closure and could have spared further suffering, or even the lives, of abuse survivors).

      "then what does it say about [Mr.Syvret]?" is of course diversionary nonsense indicating that someone has a pathological fixation.

      Far more relevant questions are:

      1.What does it say about the  £23m CoI that it refused the Health Minister any legal representation unless he signed away his rights in favour of their "protocols"?

      2.What does it say about the  £23m CoI that it then failed to subpoena the Health Minister, or indeed "beyond any scintilla of a doubt" multiple other witnesses like Mike Pollard.

      Was it lack of money perhaps? I think not. I suspect that the CoI was deliberately turned into a lawyer fest in order to exhaust the Jersey taxpayer into accepting a sows ear from their silk purse. The truth will be revealed by comparing which side spent all the money and on what.

      This latest delay of the CoI report might even have been sparked by the suggestion that the Jersey taxpayer could claim their £23m back off Eversheds.

      Perhaps we will be informed of the detail or real reason for the delay but on the conduct to date it is fair to say that the Health Ministers concerns about a fake CoI being a protocol for not revealing basic truths, was well founded (and then some):


    3. ....and what, one wonders, does it say about @14:39 and it's friend @07:27 that they persist with this fixation against Syvret and are blind to all else?

      The least worrying explanation would be mental illness or frailty.

      The least worrying explanation would be .......

      To be protected for so long makes it unlikely that Andrew Jervis-Dykes was working alone.

  33. I think some statement should be made just to confirm who has been allowed to provide late, and very, very late information so long after the Inquiry team stopped taking evidence.

  34. On the Filthy Rag on line pages it has a headline about the Care Inquiry 'being evasive' about what or from where this 'new' information is and came from. Does this mean, does anyone know, that the Care Inquiry has refused to tell the Care Leavers Association following a straight question? That to my way of thinking would be something to worry about.

  35. Urgent question tabled by Deputy Jackie Hilton.

    The following urgent oral question has been approved by the Bailiff and will be asked at the present meeting –

    Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

    “Given the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry has announced there will be another delay in the publication of its report, will the Chief Minister inform members what information he has about the delay and when he is expecting the report to be published; and will he confirm whether the Chief Minister's Department has been in dialogue with the committee of inquiry?”

    1. We all know Gorst - surely the worst Chief Minister of the three utter clowns to have held the job - will tell the Assembly he is unable to tell them anything.

      Worse still he may get Senator Routier to serve is one key role in the States - speaking in tongues for several minutes to wholley confuse an already confused situation. Assistant Minister for Gobbledegook he should be called.

      Or maybe there will be a different strategy? Letting the invisible, silent assassin pretending to be a progressive Deputy Scott 'I couldn't get 10 proposers but being a good boy the court let me retain the seat anyway' Wickenden stand up to mumble some tosh written for him by his mentor Ozouf?

      Whatever route they all lead to the same end. We will be told anything but the truth.

  36. Today's Rag has a piece about an appointment to a new Jersey Care Commission. It reads as if inspections will be carried out by this local Commission rather than inspection by outside bodies such as England's Care Quality Commission. Once again the States has failed to provide adequate independent oversight. Inspection from outside the Island is needed. Perhaps the Care Inquiry is considering whether this new body is fit for purpose?

  37. Wait til "bangok" has taken us to "independence" then the fun will start


  38. The Chilld abuse committee hunted the truth ( so they say ) and yet as Jurat Le Buthole says above, did not call Mike Pollard, chief executive of the Hospital and child services, when serious case reviews showed appaling lack of professionalism and incompetence under his watch. He no doubt would have got legal protection.

    Why was he not called ? How much more important do you need to be ? Syvret's argument, when they gave everyone else a lawyer but refused him smacks of States interference behind locked doors, so he was right not to attend, regardless of the rest of his arguments.

    Let us be honest, People are already concerned including ex states members that vital parts of this enquiry are missing, and certain accepted standards have been completely ignored.

    Now they go all secretive as to why they have done a U turn and accepted more evidence without a proper explanation with further delay.

    If I was a gambling man I would be very wary of discounting white as the enquiries favourite colour.

  39. VFC. Good Lawyer Guy, Alan Collins is in Jersey at present. Any chance that you could grab him for a real interview regarding this mysterious delay to the so called Independent Jersey Care Inquiry ?

    1. You seriously think Alan Collins is a "Good Lawyer Guy"?


      You people deserve all you get.


      Next you'll be trying to argue that the Association of Child-Abuse Lawyers are not a culpable - as-in de facto owned by the Lloyds of London Names - compromised organisation.

      Stuart Syvret.

    2. Stuart, can you elaborate?

      In what what are the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers linked to Lloyds of London?

    3. The Intrinsic Corruption of Lawyers - and the Insurance Market (Lloyd’s of London) - and the Double-Betrayal of Child-Abuse Victims: - part one:

      Comment at 19:03:2017 says: -

      "Stuart, can you elaborate?

      In what way are the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers linked to Lloyds of London?"

      To which I reply - You Are Having A Fucking Laugh - Right?


      Don't take the piss.

      What follows - touches upon the very core issues - which IICSA are going to have to - ultimately - dig into - even if it takes the highest courts to press their faces into it - as they kick and scream in contemptible - OBE-seeking-resistance - just as children screamed in fear and pain - whilst being raped, sodomised.

      Simple questions:

      How many London based legal practices - members of the Association of Child-Abuse Lawyers - "represented" - Jersey abuse victims?

      Lots. And Lots.

      How much compensation did the average Jersey child-absue victim get from the Jersey government - and the Jersey government’s insurers (ultimately Lloyds Names) - compensation scheme?? - I think somewhat less than £10,000 ??? - if that?

      Not enough money to buy a moderate car.

      That is - in exchange - for utterly destroyed - in many cases - lives.

      Savaged - brutalised - ruined - lives.

      Lives - being ruined - whilst the Jersey government - Jersey’s public authorities - KNEW THEY WERE BEING RUINED.


      Let me ask another question: -

      In contrast with the compensation received under the scheme by survivors - how much - do you think - the average lawyer & legal practice pulled in?

      I'll guarantee right now - it was a vastly - VASTLY - larger sum than that gained by the average survivor.


      Stuart Syvret

    4. The Intrinsic Corruption of Lawyers - and the Insurance Market (Lloyd’s of London) - and the Double-Betrayal of Child-Abuse Victims: - part two:

      Now - just how "perfect" - a scenario is that - for the lawyers - and for the Lloyds Names (that is, the ultimate insurance underwriters) - ?

      The survivors' "lawyers" do fuck-all - and guarantee a meaty, fat - “uncontested” - cheque for themselves as fees - in exchange for "shepherding" the survivors - "their" clients - down the path of least resistance - just like Bailhache LaBesse/Applbey Global did - as with the Jersey Blanche Pierre / Maguires victims - WHO GOT ZERO JUSTICE - and the lawyers get the vast majority of the money "in-play" - as 'fees' - with minimal work - minimal resistance and risk.

      And they deliver to the Lloyds Names a set of pacified claimants - with minimal insurance payouts.

      Quids In!!! All Round!!!

      And here is a very simple test - which the sceptical can carry-out for themselves - to gauge just how "serious" and "loyal" the average child-abuse law-firm was - the average member of ACAL was - in respect of gaining maximum relief for their - putative - "clients" - in "The-Jersey-Situation":

      Take a read of this Wikipedia article on "Damages" - that is, the legal compensations potentially available to victims of crimes, torts and malfeasances - such as the Jersey victims & survivors: -

      It is easily understood.

      Now - consider this; any lawyers, law-firm, legal practice, or chambers who had Jersey abuse victims & survivors as clients - would have - AT FIRST BASE - BEFORE ALL ELSE - sought out the testimony of obvious - key - witnesses - whose testimony would likely serve the interests of their clients.

      And - UNIQUELY - in The-Jersey-Situation - just what kind of witnesses were available to the Jersey victims & survivors?

      In The-Jersey-Situation - wholly uniquely - WITHOUT PRECEDENT - the Jersey victims and survivors could have had - hell, as a first-base negotiation tool - even before things may have come to court - an AFFIDAVIT from THE public official - THE PUBLIC-OFFICE-HOLDER - WHO HAD POLITICAL AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILD-PROTECTION IN JERSEY - they could have had from him - an affidavit - which would have sworn known, aware, deliberate, corrupt, crushingly evidenced - unavoidable - stark - culpability on the part of the public-office he held - the public-authority of which he was head - on the part of the Jersey government.



      Stuart Syvret

    5. The Intrinsic Corruption of Lawyers - and the Insurance Market (Lloyd’s of London) - and the Double-Betrayal of Child-Abuse Victims: - part three:

      I was - and always have been - willing to swear affidavits to that truth.

      How many lawyers - many of who were & are members of ACAL - lawyers supposedly “representing” Jersey’s abuse victims - approached me and asked for such an affidavit - as a core witness - as The Core Witness - whose testimony would have annihilated the Jersey government’s position - and brought - rightly and justifiably - millions & millions of compensation for the Jersey victims?


      That is how many lawyers - including ACAL members - who approached me and asked for an affidavit on behalf of their clients - the Jersey child-abuse-victims.


      Not one single lawyer - supposedly “representing” the survivors - sought my witness testimony.

      Even though my testimony would have annihilated the Jersey government position - and that of their insurers (Lloyd's of London Names) - and brought right & justifiable compensation for these child-absue victims of the Jersey government.

      Not one.

      Not one lawyer - not one ACAL member - approached me and asked for my testimony on behalf of their clients.

      And had they done so - that testimony would have been willingly given by me.

      This - THIS - is just how corrupt the whole child-absue concealment industry is.

      There’s now - coming to a chaotic end - a farcically ultra vires - frankly corrupt - “public-inquiry” in Jersey; a “public-inquiry” which pro-actively intimidated, threatened, and constructively excluded me - THE core witness from within the polity whose testimony would have been 100% on the victims side.

      A “public-inquiry” - every bit as corrupt - every bit a part of the gangster “legal” - and City of London Big-Money - establishment - as the multi-faceted lawyers who betrayed the victims at first cry for help.

      You now, here is an amazing - a truly amazing - fact - which speaks so much truth abut the British establishment - and Big-Money - and lawyers - and how abusers and abusing systems are able to get away with it; a fact which is truly remarkable:

      I - in spite of being the first ever politician on Jersey to speak-out against the decades of child abuse - those cover-ups - and against the concealment of other crimes - I am - and reflect upon this - if you’re curious about the conduct of lawyers - think about this - I am THE only human being - in the entire populations - of every Council of Europe signatory member-state - so that included Putin’s Russia - who cannot obtain legal representation.

      Think about that.

      Think about that - the true nature - conduct - and motives - of lawyers - of ACAL - when reflecting upon the fact that I get repeatedly jailed - jailed - without fair trial - for speaking-out against child-abusers and concealers - whilst being THE ONLY HUMAN BEING IN THE ENTIRE COUNCIL OF EUROPE - WHO CANNOT OBTAIN LEGAL REPRESENTATION.

      Think about that.

      Think about that - when assessing the true nature of the British legal profession.

      Stuart Syvret

  40. Let's be quite honest here. Take Mike Higgins out of the States and our government really should just issue pale grey uniforms and tall, black shiny boots to everyone. Reform Jersey? Whatever happened to opposition in there? Now they are either not in their seats or totally agreeing with Philip Bailhache! May as well claim independence and let Bailhache declare himself King.

  41. Probably wise not to have a referendum. With this States being the most useless, lazy and cowardly in our history how many people would bother to vote?

    The big dollop Macon was worried about 40% tunrout apparently. Come off it Jezzer. 4% is the turnout you should have been worried about.

    Probably going to lose your seat for life anyway.

  42. Yesterday a child-abuse survivor asked me, tentatively, how much "better" things were - than in July 2007?

    I looked them in the eye - and told them straight: - "worse. You must see that - surely? Actually? Worse. I mean - as if things weren't bad enough back then - when most of the key agencies were minded to - and were confident that they could get away with - covering up child-abuse. Now - now - they've been massively re-enforced - in that belief - and in that reality; now secure in the stark knowledge they can rely upon the Crown, the Police, the States, the Judiciary, the Secretary of State - and - ultimately - even - the "public-inquiries" - to join-in with - and endorse - and amplify - their corrupt cover-up of child-abuse?"

    The survivor said to me, "Yes. I was afraid you'd say that. I'm sorry. But - you know what I and my family went through; I couldn't put them through more stress and strain by coming out and organising and campaigning against the farce. I'm sorry."

    I said, "You have nothing to apologise for. It is not your fault that the Crown has allowed and abdicated its representative in Jersey - the Lieutenant Governors - to become nothing more than a self-shielding, self-sustaining criminal entity; a succession of hand-chosen gangsters with an over-arching "mission-statement" to shield the corruption of their predecessors."

    Stuart Syvret

    1. This comment has been edited to be in compliance with Jersey's Criminal Protection ......I mean Data Protection Law 2005

      From reading the above it appears that three poodles are required.

      May I be so bold as to propose:

      1. Marnie (Sack Whistleblowers) Baudins

      2. Piers (Teacher's Perks) Baker

      3. Ex Military (Mr. Potassium Chloride) "Nurse M"

      4. Stuart Syvret (Oh, maybe not)

      These three are to be congratulated for their contribution to child and patient safety in Jersey over the last few decades.

      I would also like top congratulate our esteemed government for not setting this up in say 2008, but launching this just BEFORE the CoI report is due to be out.

      Sheer genius that they got this so the right way round and perhaps even delayed the report. Win, win, win!

      We always win. To quote a closing paragraph from  Advocate Philip Sinel's submission to the CoI:
      "123.0  In no way do I believe that anything has changed or will change; all of the harm will be perpetrated again one way or another as we as an Island have been abandoned by its monarch and a feudal power structure which favours abusers."

      Philip always was a bright boy. Shame he was not one of us.

  43. Some of the comments above mention Jersey msm stories or comments in which, apparently, your public inquiry has stated its reason or reasons for the delay. Could we have links, please? Or could someone copy and paste the articles here? As another reader said previously, most of us out here in the real world have no way of knowing what's going on in your Jersey heritage media. Thanks.

  44. Can we please have an interview with Deputy Murray Smashy Norton? I am not really interested in what he might have to say. I just want to see if he is a real person or instead has somebody's hand, possibly Senator Lyndan Farnham, working him from behind?

    1. I thought that the other third rate, stag-night DJ MacLinton was Smashy? Must be Nicey I suppose? Seems to have gone very quiet regardless for someone "born to do this - Bbbbrrrrrrrrrrr!"

  45. Predicted attempted comebacks in 2018:

    Rob Duhamel

    Ben Shenton (Please Lord, NO!)

    Ian Le Marquand (Ditto)

    That ex-Deputy bloke who lost to Juilette Galichan in St Mary by six votes (Gotta be better than JG)

    Sean Shamus Dooley Diddly Squat Power (No! No! No!)

    Gerard Baudain (more comebacks than Frank Sinatra)

    Phil (drains) Rondel

    Stuart Syvret (Gotta be more useful to be in the States?)

    1. Stuart Syvret cannot stand for 7 years since he was jailed so forget it.
      Ian Le Marquand will never stand again and same goes for Ben Shenton.
      You forgot Nick Le Cornu.

    2. Why does ('I am a victim of the Media) Nick Le Cornu still stand when everybody knows he hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of ever getting re-elected? Its an embarrassment.

    3. Stuar can stand because he could have paid a fine instead so I am told. Hope he does. Why bring up Nick Le Cornu. He is beyond political resurection. Ben Shenton will stand. He is desperate to be important. Maybe he would even stay in the States more than half an hour this time around?

  46. Kick le Cornu would make avery good minister for anti-sexism.

  47. Pretty incredible that our ex Bailiff Birt is quoted in the JEP saying that some of Bacon's offences were more serious than Jervis-Dykes. Birt was the AG at the time of the Crown office's shameful part in the Victoria College cover up. According to police the Bailiff and/or AG prevented them pursuing the disgraced vice-principle who instead got a nice jurat's job. Same old Jersey way.

  48. I don't agree with Stuart Syvret on everything but I do agree that the banking cartel from London are obviously implicated. Maybe not in terms of them being necessarily directly implicated in the abuses but, as regards the cover-ups.

    My sense is that the Jervis-Dykes / Victoria College connections and the sailing groups are one of the keys to it.

  49. And of course the secretive Masonic brotherhood that cover each other's backs!