Monday, 1 May 2017

Public to Discover How Much "openness" £50k can Buy?


Senator Ian Gorst

Tomorrow (Tuesday 2nd May 2017) we should find out if the reported £50k plus spent by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, (the Taxpayer) on UK Spin Doctors has paid off.

In answer to Deputy Russell Labey's previous WRITTEN QUESTION the Chief Minister claimed that the aim of the £33,500 spent on Spin Doctors (Portland Communications) was in order to help him, Ministers and Civil Servants "to improve upon the past handling of such matters by the Island and being fully open and informative in the public response."

We have since learnt that the Chief Minister has spent a further reported £18,000 obtaining advice from former Tory Spin Doctor Ramsay Jones presumably for the same purpose of being open and informative in the public response (with regard to the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry's final report)  TO BE PUBLISHED 3rd July 2017.

Deputy Russell Labey

2. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Further to his answer to my written question on 18th April 2017, will the Chief Minister advise whether the £33,500 spent on consultancy in preparation for the release of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s findings included any expenditure on engaging Ramsay Jones; and, if not, what was the cost of engaging him and what is the total anticipated spend for all such P.R. advice and training relating to this issue?” 

Deputy Sam Mezec

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

“What measures, if any, will the Chief Minister be taking to ensure that, in the aftermath of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry publishing its report, the evidence it received remains publicly accessible and complete?”


Deputy Mike Higgins

8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

“In light of the States expenditure on public relations consultants, legal representation and civil service time in preparation for the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s report, will the Chief Minister undertake to investigate what measures, if any, can be taken to ensure there is ‘equality of arms’ for all parties involved with the Inquiry to be able to respond to that report?”(END)

We look forward to finding out how much "openness and informativeness" fifty thousand pound can buy.

157 comments:

  1. Chief Minister's answer(s):

    "I would like to be open with the Member(s) but unfortunately Ramsey is not in the island so I cannot.

    But please rest assured - lessons have been learnt. The Jersey Establishment will never again put ourselves, whoops, themselves, in a position where a couple of peskey senior police officers aided and abetted by a few trouble-making, thankfully largely ex politicians, and conspiracy theorist bloggers can expose such cover ups again.

    Thank you".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That answer is a work of genius. How true, sadly.

      I suspect Anon at 15:23 could be Proud Jerseyman of JEP online fame. How we miss him and his measured, conservative approach to keeping those uppity truthseeking proles inline.

      Delete
    2. who is the man with his hand up Ian Puffin's backside?1 May 2017 at 17:43

      Thanks for the praise anon but though a Jerseyman I am hardly proud of what has been passed off as government for so many years, nor the treatment of the few who have been brave enough to try and stand up against the corruption. As to being a presence on line on the Filthy Rag website I really would not lower myself so.

      Delete
    3. Who is the man with his hand up Puffin's backside?

      "Oscar Puffin" being the "child-friendly" puppet mascot of the Jersey ITV/ITN franchise Channel Television.

      What a knowledgeable question.

      Well, there have been a few.

      Not least late former Deputy Bailiff and Victoria College child abuse cover up criminal Frances Hamon. Remember? He who was identified and named in The Sharp Report as having told the then head master to ignore the many complaints of child abuse.

      And in the days before him, was a man Frances Hamon will have been beholden to, the late Wilfred Krichefski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Krichefski

      Monstrous, widely known, but so powerful in The Jersey Way thus terrifying and untouchable to his many victims, unashamed multi rapist of children, at various venues, including HDLG.

      And also beholden to Krichefski was one late Brian Le Feuvre (always insisted on the Norman French pronunciation) a former JEP reporter (1960s) and a part of the founding crew of Channel Television when it got going (1960s) full on rapist of little girls. Thus owned, owned, owned - like certain other powerful figures in the Jersey media.

      Speaking of 'hiding in plain sight' Brian Le Feuvre even did a local CTV documentary about the innocent eccentric man who went to live on the offshore reef the Ecrehous, to escape persecution when being wrongly accused of being serial child abuser 'The Beast of Jersey', Paisnel. Almost certainly Le Feuvre will have known the truth. Le Feuvre could well have been a 'client' of child pimp Edward Paisnel? Or other notorious child pimps like him, such as the late Jeff Le Marquand?

      Although, admittedly, whilst permanently entrapped, Le Feuvre was probably too old to have been a client of their successor Jersey child pimp, 'Mr K'.

      Even today, the truth is still out there. And it will arrive. In spite of Eversheds and Frances Oldham.

      Delete
  2. Why is there so much concern about losing evidence?
    Statements are already online and names of witnesses can be found with the search function.
    This anticipated Report need not be because it can only reflect what's already online so it will neither pull any punches or surprises.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on of course there may and likely will be 'surprises'.

      Damning incidents and/or failures in office may not even get highlighted.

      All depends on the deals done behind closed doors.

      Or what might be in a few plain brown envelopes?

      Delete
    2. The MSM would have reported on any controversial days of testimony already.
      Unless there was secret evidence given that nobody knows about how can there be any shocks to come?

      Delete
    3. Oh dearie me! The MSM would have 'reported' on any controversian evidence already! WTF? Even someone to the right of Attila The Hun would know that this is absolute cowpoo.

      A reader above mentioned evidence such as that of Deputy T Pitman highlighting how it will all likely be ruled outside of the COI TOR precisely because it shows the way Jersey works and how all of this cover up and skullduggery happened for so long.

      Where do you recall seeing/hearing this damning evidence being reported by Jersey's MSM dear friend? I must have been in the Outter Hebrides at the time and everyone else I know.

      Get real and no I am not Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
    4. They did some pretty good reporting with Bailhache's evidence and Lundy's so not sure what the commentator means.

      Delete
    5. A diversionary tactic @15:42
      Quoting what you purposefully chose not to answer

      "Where do you recall seeing/hearing this [Pitman's] damning evidence being reported by Jersey's MSM dear friend?"

      Are you a pro-Paedo Troll?

      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous at 15:42

      that's true.

      But you need to take a closer look. For example, the manner in which alleged abusers were allowed to testify as witnesses in other strands of the inquiry, implying that they were different people!

      Delete
    7. Re the reporting on Bailhache's evidence

      Were they able to report on him ignoring expert medical evidence to clear his golf buddy?

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

      Is Mr.K an alleged child torturer and serial rapist of minors?

      Delete
    8. At 18:49 the question is asked,

      'Is Mr.K an alleged child torturer and serial rapist of minors?'

      The answer to that question is "Yes."

      And is the key to unlocking the truth of the Jersey child abuse cover up.

      Which is why Eversheds and the imaginary 'public inquiry', you know, the one that pretends to be a quasi judicial public body but ignores the Salmon Principles and ignores the ECHR, has protected him so much. He goes down, The Jersey Way goes down. He 'managed' his reign of child abuse 'brilliantly' like all the cunning peadophiles, people like Savile like Cyril Smith, to have so much dirt on other establishment and society child abusers, they' secure for themselves protection for life.

      Everyone closely involved in events in Jersey knows that. We all know who he is. Eversheds and Bedford Row and Whitehall have utterly disgraced and shamed themselves here. They'll never hide it or recover from it.

      Delete
  3. This Report will concentrate on acknowledging the past and putting preventative measures in for the future.
    There will be no rabbits pulled from hats recommending prosecutions because it was never a court.
    Some of the Tweets saying the Inquiry is ultra vires and unlawful miss the Inquiry's objectives completely.
    Nobody was ever told they have the right to remain silent and anything they did say could be used as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. preventative measures like the rule of law??????

      Without that they are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

      Any additional child protection measures are of limited value without functioning police and legal functions.

      Yet more spin spin spin @7:05

      Ref the £50k of spin -Are you being paid of this, or do you have a reason for doing it for free?

      Delete
    2. Nobody is paid to have views on here.
      If I was aware of a cover up then I'd be down there shouting it out, getting the National Press involved and being the proverbial thorn in the Establishment's side.
      Not forever implying cover-ups on Blogs and never doing anything else with the claim.

      Delete
    3. "Nobody is paid to have views on here"
      Maybe they are maybe they are not -You can't possibly know that and that makes you a gobshite.

      How can you possibly ever be a thorn in the Establishment's side when you are that busy crawling up their exhaust.

      Most of us are busy raising families which makes activism a precarious activity.

      Activists who have genuinely been a "thorn in the Establishment's side" ....rather than just a gobshite ........ end up being imprisoned and bankrupted, like Syvret and Pitman

      Delete
    4. £50k buys a lot of trolling and astroturfing

      It is among the services offered by PR companies

      Delete
    5. Not forever implying cover-ups on Blogs and never doing anything else with the claim.*

      Activists who have genuinely been a "thorn in the Establishment's side" ....rather than just a gobshite ........ end up being imprisoned and bankrupted, like Syvret and Pitman*

      No connection whatsoever.
      Imprisoned and bankrupted by their own actions.

      Delete
    6. 'Activists who have genuinely been a "thorn in the Establishment's side" ....rather than just a gobshite ........ end up being imprisoned and bankrupted, like Syvret and Pitman*

      No connection whatsoever.
      Imprisoned and bankrupted by their own actions.'

      That is exactly the type of history re writing pro Jersey mafia trolling we debated above.

      The Pitman's were 2 of about only 5 members of your Jersey legislature who were serious in opposing the child abuse cover up scandal. They were subject to defamation by your local mafia, so sued. One can take the view they might have been unwise to do so. But even so, there's no escaping the fact the court they went before was structurally biased and ultra vires. One of the individuals who comprised the 'judicial tribunal' one 'jurat' John Le Breton, had an evidenced history of serious involvement in the child-abuse cover up nightmare at Victoria College. That's as massive, fatal and contaminating a conflict of interest as one could imagine. The judicial tribunal over the Pitmans was therefore unlawful.

      The fundamental issue underpinning the Jersey child abuse scandal was a failure of corporate governance, a failure of effective checks and balances, a fundamental propensity to an actual 'culture' of concealment, with profound consequences for public safety and the protection of the vulnerable. Stuart Syvret exposed such issues, exposed vitally important evidence, not only in connection with child abuse, but also case supporting ‘similar fact evidence’, evidence which showed that not only did the States of Jersey cover up child abuse, they also covered up the murder in hospital of vulnerable patients. And although the Jersey government spin doctors like to claim they oppressed Syvret JUST for exposing that, BUT AS EVIDENCE SYVRET SUBMITTED TO THE COI SHOWS, in fact the Jersey establishment were in direct contact with Google, and trying to silence Syvret from months earlier. Scroll down the following EVIDENCE FROM SYVRET, SUBMITTED TO THE COI, to the letter to Google from the fatally conflicted Applbey Global (Bailhache LaBesse)

      http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Key%20Documents/Application%20for%20funding%20of%20legal%20representation%20for%20Stuart%20Syvret%20with%20documents.pdf

      Read that dynamite evidence, evidence which proves the oppressions and suppressions against Syvret, by a fatally conflicted law firm, and note that it states the following,

      'I refer to the above matter. As you will be aware from previous correspondence, we act for the Jersey Data Protection Commissioner ("the Commissioner"), WHO FIRST CONTACTED Google INC. ("Google") IN NOVEMBER 2008, regarding her concerns in relation to a blog hosted by Google Blogger, at http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com ("the Blog"). Mr Stuart Syvret is the owner and operator of the Blog.’ (Caps added for emphases).

      It is noted in legal terms by those of us who've followed the saga closely with a disinterested lawyer's perspective, that that vital evidential fact, the attempts by a conflicted data protection commissioner & law firm, to get Syvret's blog shut down from November 2008, was never ever disclosed in court to Syvret.

      To try and convey the gravity of that issue, that is, how serious the non disclosure of such vital evidence is, consider the current position of London law firm Leigh Day who are being subject to Misconduct proceedings in a case brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which has accused Leigh Day of pursuing claims despite holding key evidence that "undermined" their authenticity, evidence Leigh Day failed to disclose.

      And in that evidence from Syvret, from Google, just look at the list of 30, yes 30, of Syvret’s blog postings they were trying to get removed & covered up. Most of which dealt only with the child-absue cover ups.

      The Pitmans & Syvret, bankrupted, imprisoned, for exposing establishment cover ups.

      Delete
  4. I see Robert Hall on BBC news tonight has he been brought in ready to cover the Inquiry report as he always appeared to be an "establishment" man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's interesting. Is that news available to watch on line somewhere, for those of us happy to be non resident in Jersey?

      Delete
    2. As was his employer, the BBC, who at that time were still strenuously covering up for the still living Jimmy Savile, who the Jersey child abuse investigation may have caught up with, had it not been sabotaged."

      "Caught up with" in what sense? Are you aware that Lenny Harper stated that while one allegation was made against Savile as regards his time on the island, there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges?

      I think that it is also worth reading the Dame Janet Smith report, to which I attach a link.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/dame_janet_smith


      Delete
    3. Thank you for the link @23:40
      The BBC paid a huge amount of licence payer's money for Dame Janet Smith to basically give them a clean bill of health.

      For a critique of how these things are done it is worth reading attached link:

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

      It would appear that the Jersey CoI is well on the way to proving Mr. Syvret right again.

      Delete
  5. I'm outta here.
    You give a view and then become a victim of a slagfest.
    Bitterness like this does nothing to repair the past and move on so I wonder who keeps on writing so much hate, then again should I care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is precisely why everybody should have given evidence.
      Getting it off your chest is the first step in healing.

      Delete
    2. Yes, everybody should have given evidence
      It was the CoI's duty to provide circumstances conducive to everybody giving evidence.
      Provide appropriate and unconditional legal representation and to subpoena ALL critical witness so that the inquiry was complete and fit for purpose.

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

      "Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry A Fake, Partial, Incompetent? "


      Getting it off your chest is indeed cathartic to most. It can also be fraught traumatic and push damaged people to, or even beyond the edge.

      The cathartic effect is good but a fake CoI is in many ways yet another abuse of these people perhaps even more importantly fails future generations of children and vulnerable islanders.

      Delete
    3. Why should any former Senator of the States be given special treatment when its a public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry?
      We didn't hear others making up this tosh.

      Delete
    4. The rule of law.

      "Why should any former Senator of the States be given special treatment when its a public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry?
      We didn't hear others making up this tosh."

      Because it is not "special treatment".

      It's the rule of law.

      All people are entitled to the protections of the ECHR. For example, Article 6, the right to a fair hearing.

      And all public-inquiries in the British Isles should adhere to the Salmon Principles. Certainly, in respect of the latter, the very very expensive tax payer funded lawyers provided to the States of Jersey Police Force made that very plea to the COI. They cited the Salmon Principles. And the COI agreed with them and gave in to that demand.

      But yet in the case of Stuart Syvret - with zero funded legal representation - made the same point when applying for legal aid, the COI attempted to wholly subvert the very purpose of getting legal representation in the first place, by trying to coerce Syvret into signing away all his human rights first, before they'd consider giving him any legal representation!

      You might like to think the settled rule of law is "tosh". Other's cannot be compelled to share your view. You don't like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his rights to the protections of the Salmon Principles, you might not like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his absolute Rights as guaranteed in the ECHR. Well, that's just tough. Tough, you hear? It's called the rule of law.

      Syvret has those legal rights, and he chose not to surrender them.

      He has that absolute right in law.

      But I'm glad the commenter cites the importance of the "public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry". Yes, when we're considering the importance of a statutory public inquiry, fully possessed of all of the quasi judicial powers needed to ensure all relevant evidence & testimony is obtained, we have to ask why the COI has failed its public duty, to use its power of subpoena to bring before it around a couple of dozen very, very obvious key witnesses (of which Stuart Syvret is merely one) and has in stead left vast lacunae in the work of the public inquiry, and thus failed to fulfill its TORs and legislative purpose?

      You know, for close observers of this farce from outside of Jersey (and outside of the UK for that matter) it's simply astonishing, that a statutory public inquiry into something so important as decades of child-abuse cover-up should have attempted to impose obviously unlawful a priori "conditions" upon the man who first publicly exposed that child-abuse cover-up in July 2007.

      Obviously, within the lawless fairy-land jurisdiction that is Jersey, your local mob can and always will get away with whatever it pleases. For example, running a "public inquiry" from the building of a fatally conflicted law firm, The Ogier Group, and so by intimidating a number of witnesses away from engagement at the very beginning. But Eversheds? But France Oldham? Back in London? Their reputations are trashed.

      And its so interesting, in a not good way, that this COI has so embarrassingly decided its "history" begins on the 15th May 2014, which is the earliest date Panel Rulings appear in its 'Key Documents' - rather than on the 14th May, when the COI made the legally indefensible Panel-Ruling to constructively-exclude Stuart Syvret by breaching the Salmon Principles, and his Article 6 Rights in refusing to give him legal representation funding unless he signed up to their ultra vires "protocols".

      Delete
    5. Thank you @ 11:43

      I had felt myself coming under some pressure for supporting Stuart in the essence of his case if not always in its style.

      The case as you put it is as unanswerable as it is sad. Many people at great emotional and other costs have gone along with this Inquiry. I know and have the greatest respect for some of these and their decision was a conscientious one.

      As a result I hope something will eventually come out of the vast amount of detailed evidence which has been accumulated and published.

      I am off island and only have access to the published material. It is clear that the Inquiry intended to destroy most if not all of its non published material and, after an indecent interval, make the published stuff as difficult as possible to access (FOI etc.).

      The only service I can give is to ensure that the published material remains accessible. With that in mind I have downloaded it all and if any of it disappears or becomes not freely available I will mirror it on my own website.

      Unfortunately I don't see the Inquiry repairing its website by 3 July so there might be some merit in constructing a user friendly index to the material. I haven't thought this through at a detailed level but will give it some consideration over the coming months as time permits.

      No doubt my public interest defence would suffer the same fate as Stuart's, but they'd have to extradite me first and I suspect that the Irish courts would not be as easy a walk over as Google/Blogger, particularly in the case of "political" offences, of which they have much experience.

      Delete
    6. I only count up 2 people on here who support Stuart Syvret's stance anyhow but come 3rd July 2017 his non attendance and influence on the whole subject of historic abuse will be insignificant. People will only be interested in the Report findings and nothing else.

      Delete
    7. My sympathy @14:07 that you are unable to count up to 3

      That you continue to tell us what
      'other people will only be interested in'
      shows that you are still a gobshite.

      How many intelligent people will be interested in the typical two phrase paedo-trolling verses the excellent analysis of "Pro Bono" @11:43 ?

      "The rule of law", so excellently explained at 11:43 is why the abuse was so bad and for so long.

      It may be alien to the jersey way but the rule of law is not some high falutin concept. It is what does, or rather should, protect everyone in society from the worst excesses of rule of HM's Barons and Shysters.

      Without the rule of law it will all happen again once the dust has settled.
      Perhaps that is what the gobshite wants.

      Delete
    8. You mean the Rule of Law untested in a proper Court of Law.

      Delete
    9. Never seen so many legal opinions by non legal people.
      People write this stuff as if its legal fact when its not even got a case study to fall back on.
      For goodness sake if people really believe what they are writing then get take it up a notch at least.

      Delete
    10. Ha Ha @16:43
      Your critique of other people's "legal opinions" would be more convincing if you were a lawyer. You appear to be a gobshite not a lawyer.

      Someone who apparently IS a lawyer @11:43  even offers a "case study" which you claim to want:

      "It's the rule of law.

      All people are entitled to the protections of the ECHR. For example, Article 6, the right to a fair hearing.

      And all public-inquiries in the British Isles should adhere to the Salmon Principles. Certainly, in respect of the latter, the very very expensive tax payer funded lawyers provided to the States of Jersey Police Force made that very plea to the COI. They cited the Salmon Principles. And the COI agreed with them and gave in to that demand.

      But yet in the case of Stuart Syvret - with zero funded legal representation - made the same point when applying for legal aid, the COI attempted to wholly subvert the very purpose of getting legal representation in the first place, by trying to coerce Syvret into signing away all his human rights first, before they'd consider giving him any legal representation!

      You might like to think the settled rule of law is "tosh". Other's cannot be compelled to share your view. You don't like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his rights to the protections of the Salmon Principles, you might not like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his absolute Rights as guaranteed in the ECHR. Well, that's just tough. Tough, you hear? It's called the rule of law.

      Syvret has those legal rights, and he chose not to surrender them.

      He has that absolute right in law.

      But I'm glad the commenter cites the importance of the "public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry". Yes, when we're considering the importance of a statutory public inquiry, fully possessed of all of the quasi judicial powers needed to ensure all relevant evidence & testimony is obtained, we have to ask why the COI has failed its public duty, to use its power of subpoena to bring before it around a couple of dozen very, very obvious key witnesses (of which Stuart Syvret is merely one) and has in stead left vast lacunae in the work of the public inquiry, and thus failed to fulfill its TORs and legislative purpose?

      You know, for close observers of this farce from outside of Jersey (and outside of the UK for that matter) it's simply astonishing, that a statutory public inquiry into something so important as decades of child-abuse cover-up should have attempted to impose obviously unlawful a priori "conditions" upon the man who first publicly exposed that child-abuse cover-up in July 2007.

      Obviously, within the lawless fairy-land jurisdiction that is Jersey, your local mob can and always will get away with whatever it pleases. For example, running a "public inquiry" from the building of a fatally conflicted law firm, The Ogier Group, and so by intimidating a number of witnesses away from engagement at the very beginning. But Eversheds? But France Oldham? Back in London? Their reputations are trashed.

      And its so interesting, in a not good way, that this COI has so embarrassingly decided its "history" begins on the 15th May 2014, which is the earliest date Panel Rulings appear in its 'Key Documents' - rather than on the 14th May, when the COI made the legally indefensible Panel-Ruling to constructively-exclude Stuart Syvret by breaching the Salmon Principles, and his Article 6 Rights in refusing to give him legal representation funding unless he signed up to their ultra vires 'protocols'. "

      Delete
    11. Stop calling people names and go and get this theory tested or get a proper Legal Opinion on it.
      If a qualified Lawyer is prepared to put their name to this and says its accurate, proper and legal then I'll start to take it seriously.

      Delete
    12. @18:28
      Isn't Philip Sinel a qualified Lawyer?

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html
      "Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. Statement of Advocate Philip Sinel"
      NB the documents attached to Advocate Sinel's statement cannot be found on the fake CoI website!

      At what point should we start to take a gobshite or Paedo-Troll seriously?

      Delete
    13. Yes, good comment at 18:47 re Philip Sinel.

      And he wrote just how it would be pretty much impossible for Stuart Syvret to achieve effective legal representation in Jersey, back in March 2011.

      And he was right. Stuart Syvret couldn't even get legal representation at the hands of a 'public inquiry'!!!!

      Read it here,

      'http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/access-to-justice/

      A very telling read!

      Delete
    14. Says - "It is an enormous shame that the former health minister is not giving evidence" and nothing about his made up legal reasons being legit.

      Delete
    15. Sometime this blog begins to appear like the comments section of the Filthy Rag, so low is the standard of comments, trolling basically, it let's publish. What is 'made up' about the right to a fair hearing? What is 'made up' about those long established rights, as can be easily read and understood from this very helpful and useful PDF guide,

      http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRHAND/DG2-EN-HRHAND-03(2006).pdf

      What's that! Facts? Evidence? Clear explanations of what the uncontroversial, established, settled case-law on the necessary purity of the administration of justice?

      How about this VFC? You don't publish further abusive, idiotic empty trolling, and instead place a simple and fair hurdle on that commenter, that you'll publish their comments when they come back & argue with a rational, fact based response?

      I worry you're being led slowly down a path of falling standards and you're not noticing it. Require some facts from these opponents, instead of trolling. If you don't VFC will become basically destroyed by trolling, just like that wide and healthy number of Jersey blog sites there used to be back in Jersey in 2008/9.

      Delete
    16. 'How about this VFC? You don't publish further abusive, idiotic empty trolling'

      Person is only questioning the authenticity of your claims.
      Why so sensitive?

      Delete
    17. I get bored reading stuff like this, 'Person is only questioning the authenticity of your claims. Why so sensitive?' Well, speaking for myself, I get 'sensitive' to reading crap like this because it's trolling. And I don't spend my expensive time, if you don't mind, reading this site to witness counter-intellectual debate obstructions. The dispute between those commenters has the quality of one of them being sincere, and pointing to various established evidenced facts, and the other merely asserting clear untruths. Frankly my advice to the sincere commenter is to stop wasting their time. They're obviously putting some helpful thought into contributing to this blog's 'product' so to speak, helping to make it readable and informative, only to be kicked in the teeth by the moderators who let them be trolled.

      The constructive reader has helpfully referred to a definitive guide, written for a lay audience, on the proper, ECHR, Article 6 compliant objective administration of justice.

      The troll by way of contrast asserts what? They're questioning what? The 'authenticity' of what? Of the accumulated wisdom of ECtHR case law on the right to a fair hearing? Oh, well, awesome, one agrees. They must have some marvelous & insightful deconstruction of established western jurisprudence. OK, so sock it to us then, let's hear it, or read it, rather.....?

      ???...

      ...well....

      ....tumbleweed....

      This is becoming pretty pathetic really.

      I advise the constructive reader to cease their efforts if the VFC moderators are going to treat them so contemptuously. There are only so many hours in the day.

      Delete
    18. Why don't you set up your own blog then?

      Delete
    19. Is Anonymous at 08:54 the Gobshite Paedo-Troll again?

      If so I would like to congratulate him for his (unintentionally?) constructive suggestion: "Why don't you set up your own blog then?"

      23:26 may not have time to take up your sensible suggestion, but others might. The more quality blogs the better, especially if they are off island.

      23:26's limited time may be best spent continuing to contribute to this blog -albeit that time is wasted reading one sided "debates" with the inevitable paedophile or pro establishment trolls.

      Delete
    20. Thank you for the kind words of commenters at 23:26 and 20:59
      It is not just "trolling", it is trolling of a child protection blog. Now what sort of person would do that?
      And do it endlessly.
      And try to taunt the Pro Bono lawyer commenting to reveal their name .......perhaps so they and their family can be subjected to death threats to them and their family -Like happened to Syvret, the Pitmans and probably others at the hands of a well known troll. ......my mate ex-military 'Nurse M' is going to kill your family!

      I think VFC judges it about right. If you "over moderate" comments it can drive away new readers and stifle debate. Sometimes it is a difficult call
      Ongoing comments keep a blog alive and current, the crap comments are annoying but they only take a few moments to skim read. The problem is if there is not a posse of moderately informed volunteers to challenge and correct the troll.

      The JEP site is a troll zoo because the Paedo Troll has his say but other commenters are not allowed to post challenging facts.

      Here we must embrace challenge and let opinions be expressed, whether they are uninformed or just bigoted and odious.

      More importantly IMO we should put our heads together and find ways to expand the campaign and take it to new readers who may not even use the internet.

      Well done VFC and thanks to 19:32 and all others who help out.

      There is no perfect solution. VFC and other bloggers can only use their best judgement.

      Delete
    21. People are only trying to get to the truth and these constant knee jerk counter attacks against reasonable questions only shows the critics have it right. You are unable to handle cross examination and that is the real reason you ran away from the COI.

      Delete
    22. I hope that other readers find it as hilarious as I do.
      The determination of the 2-liner pro-establishment poster on a child protection site speaks volumes!

      Apparently this "shows the critics have it right" when they bounce back with yet another 2 liner which totally ignores factual links and information by other readers, including the Pro Bono lawyer 3 May 2017 at 11:43

      Apparently "You are unable to handle cross examination and that is the real reason you ran away from the COI"

      PMSL. I think you may be fixated on the Ex Health Minister. You need help my friend.

      Why would I ran away from the COI. I have no evidence to give.

      Wait a minute. I do have some but it would be "Category 3" under the cover up protocols. Best save it for the blogs then.

      @11:31 a good way to demonstrate that you are not a gobshite or Paedo Troll is to comprehensively answer Pro Bono lawyer 3 May 2017 at 11:43

      Another 2 liner won't cut it, but it is all you can do


      Perhaps the Paedo Toll first requires the lawyer's name so that suspected serial killer "Nurse M" can kill his family? But the gobshite also posts anonymously LOL

      Delete
    23. For the hard-of-thinking, the bulk of the comment by Pro Bono lawyer 3 May 2017 at 11:43 was:

      "It's the rule of law.

      All people are entitled to the protections of the ECHR. For example, Article 6, the right to a fair hearing.

      And all public-inquiries in the British Isles should adhere to the Salmon Principles. Certainly, in respect of the latter, the very very expensive tax payer funded lawyers provided to the States of Jersey Police Force made that very plea to the COI. They cited the Salmon Principles. And the COI agreed with them and gave in to that demand.

      But yet in the case of Stuart Syvret - with zero funded legal representation - made the same point when applying for legal aid, the COI attempted to wholly subvert the very purpose of getting legal representation in the first place, by trying to coerce Syvret into signing away all his human rights first, before they'd consider giving him any legal representation!

      You might like to think the settled rule of law is "tosh". Other's cannot be compelled to share your view. You don't like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his rights to the protections of the Salmon Principles, you might not like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his absolute Rights as guaranteed in the ECHR. Well, that's just tough. Tough, you hear? It's called the rule of law.

      Syvret has those legal rights, and he chose not to surrender them.

      He has that absolute right in law.

      But I'm glad the commenter cites the importance of the "public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry". Yes, when we're considering the importance of a statutory public inquiry, fully possessed of all of the quasi judicial powers needed to ensure all relevant evidence & testimony is obtained, we have to ask why the COI has failed its public duty, to use its power of subpoena to bring before it around a couple of dozen very, very obvious key witnesses (of which Stuart Syvret is merely one) and has in stead left vast lacunae in the work of the public inquiry, and thus failed to fulfill its TORs and legislative purpose?

      You know, for close observers of this farce from outside of Jersey (and outside of the UK for that matter) it's simply astonishing, that a statutory public inquiry into something so important as decades of child-abuse cover-up should have attempted to impose obviously unlawful a priori "conditions" upon the man who first publicly exposed that child-abuse cover-up in July 2007.

      Obviously, within the lawless fairy-land jurisdiction that is Jersey, your local mob can and always will get away with whatever it pleases. For example, running a "public inquiry" from the building of a fatally conflicted law firm, The Ogier Group, and so by intimidating a number of witnesses away from engagement at the very beginning. But Eversheds? But France Oldham? Back in London? Their reputations are trashed.

      And its so interesting, in a not good way, that this COI has so embarrassingly decided its "history" begins on the 15th May 2014, which is the earliest date Panel Rulings appear in its 'Key Documents' - rather than on the 14th May, when the COI made the legally indefensible Panel-Ruling to constructively-exclude Stuart Syvret by breaching the Salmon Principles, and his Article 6 Rights in refusing to give him legal representation funding unless he signed up to their ultra vires 'protocols'. "



      We know you won't effectively answer that because a gobshite can't

      Shall I let your next 2 liner lie or shall I keep posting that erudite contribution?

      or perhaps I should pull out some stonking links to hit you with?

      Something which will stop other readers getting too bored :-)

      Delete
    24. Fascinating: 'You are unable to handle cross examination and that is the real reason you ran away from the COI.' I must have been in some form of rather long fugue state as I've no recollection of being a relevant witness to your public inquiry, being a mere distant, yet interested observer. Admittedly I've never been cross-examined in anger, but I'm pretty good at doing the cross examining (if I say so myself), so I don't imagine being on the receiving end would hold much fear for me. Especially not from this Panel & Eversheds from what we've observed. I'd say I've witnessed students delivering more fearsome scrutiny. But is there not something of a greater problem in the..er..'reasoning' of our trolly troll troll? Namely the rather fundamental difficulty that your COI was so determined to be a 'fearsome' seeker after truth that it chose to be the only statutory public inquiry in modern British history to eschew cross examination?

      Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta, me old fruit.

      Pip Pip.

      Delete
    25. All this name calling is cumbersome.
      I gave evidence to the COI and if you think I am a Paedo-Troll and Gobshite for questioning Legal Claims against the COI then I pity you.

      Delete
    26. That's an (old) new twist on the 2 liners

      Lots of people gave evidence to the CoI

      Mr K apparently did so as "Mr K" the alleged perpetrator and as "Witness 28" the abuse victim.

      Purely giving evidence (or claiming to) proves nothing. You could be anyone.

      Have you verified your identity with VFC to check the truth of this claim you make from time to time?

      "questioning Legal Claims" is just fine if you actually engage with the answers people give.

      Prove that you are not a gobshite by adequately answering the legal opinion offered to you 3 May 2017 at 11:43
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2017/05/public-to-discover-how-much-openness.html?showComment=1493808197646#c3457687697159012439

      Repeating the same guff without such engagement is just trolling IMO

      you need to up you game.

      Delete
    27. There is no game.

      You are the one making legal claims against the COI so its up to you to pursue them and not argue with people who question their legitimacy or when you are going to put words into action.

      Delete
    28. Another 2-liner @19:43

      Let's re-visit a previous 2-liner and the answer to it:

      "Why should any former Senator of the States be given special treatment when its a public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry?
      We didn't hear others making up this tosh."

      Because it is not "special treatment".

      It's the rule of law.

      All people are entitled to the protections of the ECHR. For example, Article 6, the right to a fair hearing.

      And all public-inquiries in the British Isles should adhere to the Salmon Principles. Certainly, in respect of the latter, the very very expensive tax payer funded lawyers provided to the States of Jersey Police Force made that very plea to the COI. They cited the Salmon Principles. And the COI agreed with them and gave in to that demand.

      But yet in the case of Stuart Syvret - with zero funded legal representation - made the same point when applying for legal aid, the COI attempted to wholly subvert the very purpose of getting legal representation in the first place, by trying to coerce Syvret into signing away all his human rights first, before they'd consider giving him any legal representation!

      You might like to think the settled rule of law is "tosh". Other's cannot be compelled to share your view. You don't like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his rights to the protections of the Salmon Principles, you might not like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his absolute Rights as guaranteed in the ECHR. Well, that's just tough. Tough, you hear? It's called the rule of law.

      Syvret has those legal rights, and he chose not to surrender them.

      He has that absolute right in law.

      But I'm glad the commenter cites the importance of the "public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry". Yes, when we're considering the importance of a statutory public inquiry, fully possessed of all of the quasi judicial powers needed to ensure all relevant evidence & testimony is obtained, we have to ask why the COI has failed its public duty, to use its power of subpoena to bring before it around a couple of dozen very, very obvious key witnesses (of which Stuart Syvret is merely one) and has in stead left vast lacunae in the work of the public inquiry, and thus failed to fulfill its TORs and legislative purpose?

      You know, for close observers of this farce from outside of Jersey (and outside of the UK for that matter) it's simply astonishing, that a statutory public inquiry into something so important as decades of child-abuse cover-up should have attempted to impose obviously unlawful a priori "conditions" upon the man who first publicly exposed that child-abuse cover-up in July 2007.

      Obviously, within the lawless fairy-land jurisdiction that is Jersey, your local mob can and always will get away with whatever it pleases. For example, running a "public inquiry" from the building of a fatally conflicted law firm, The Ogier Group, and so by intimidating a number of witnesses away from engagement at the very beginning. But Eversheds? But France Oldham? Back in London? Their reputations are trashed.

      And its so interesting, in a not good way, that this COI has so embarrassingly decided its "history" begins on the 15th May 2014, which is the earliest date Panel Rulings appear in its 'Key Documents' - rather than on the 14th May, when the COI made the legally indefensible Panel-Ruling to constructively-exclude Stuart Syvret by breaching the Salmon Principles, and his Article 6 Rights in refusing to give him legal representation funding unless he signed up to their ultra vires "protocols".

      Delete
  6. Off topic but relating to an earlier post which drew attention to the absence of the submission from Mr. K who had an oral hearing on Day 43 in which the "missing" statement was referred to.

    It appears that the statement was there all along.

    Mr. K is Witness 28 and the statement is filed under the latter moniker.

    It appears that Mr. K was abused and went on to abuse though the latter aspect was not gone into in any detail. He was giving evidence by video link.

    This is the oral session
    Link

    This is the submission
    Link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good work Póló

      There is a typo/glitch in your first link
      I think it should be:

      www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/JERINQ%20-%20Day%2043%20Final.pdf#page=36

      oral session by "Mr K" starts on page 36
      (filthy B*****)



      Your 2nd link works fine:
      www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/Day%2043.pdf#page=391

      Witness Statement of "28" starts on page 391

      Delete
    2. The web site of the Jersey child abuse public inquiry is so bad it's nearly impossible to make easy and detailed use of it. Certainly that's the case for people with a motivated, specific interest in these matters. I can only imagine how difficult and off putting it is for the casual reader. I know that even professional journalists are frequently bad at doing detailed original research of their own and are hungry, hungry for pre-prepared 'script' they can copy & paste and easily regurgitate. It's called 'churnalism'. One has to wonder at why the COI web sight is so bad? It's doubtful indeed that it is an accident.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks @ 9:02

    Don't know how that happened to one link and not the other. I think I'll blame the Inquiry website )

    Corrected link.

    Mr K's oral session:

    Link

    [Note: the deleted comments above are because it happened again, twice. This is a final try.

    Strangely, it worked fine from the email notification.

    If this doesn't work perhaps Voice would do the needful and delete my corrections completely.]

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re: Advocate Sinel's submission to the Inquiry.

    The documentation for Day 139 (29/2/2016) has been revamped and added to between 27/3/2017 and 7/4/2017.

    I don't know what additional redactions might have been made to the Advocate's statement but his backup documentation has now appeared.

    Statement
    Link

    Backup documentation
    Link


    [I hope links work, if not let me know. Thar be gremlins.]

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re: Advocate Sinel's submission to the Inquiry

    His penultimate exhibit will be of particular interest to some of us and merits very close inspection.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Polo, your targeted link to a particular page does not work on a Mac

      http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/Day%20139%20Documents_Redacted_Optimised.pdf#page=1022 does not work on a Mac

      That's why I've typed it in full above, page 1022.

      If you need us Mac users to go to a particular page, best option is to state the page number. Cheers.

      Delete
    2. @ 00:38

      Thanks for that I should have picked it up from your earlier comment. Old habits die hard.

      I'll do "[Active] Link [+ state page number]" in the future.

      Pull me up if I forget - sometimes I'm rushed and other times the harrowing material is very upsetting.

      Equally, in future, anytime I'm putting in a link I'll check it via Preview. It should avoid the mess earlier where absolute addresses turned relative in the processing.

      Cheers.

      Delete
  11. I've just finished reading the supporting document to Advocate Sinel's statement.

    They are eye-opening to say the least. The witness statement of witness 875 is particularly heartbreaking. A very difficult read.

    The big question is, why has the Inquiry only now put these documents online, when it could have put them online many months ago? Advocate Sinel's witness statement has been online for months, but the supporting documents have for some reason not been published until now. Why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the CoI have published ALL of Advocate Sinel's supporting documents.

      What struck me about 875's statement was the innocence and the landscape of insecurity and fear.
      The shock and lack of understanding of what was foisted upon her, the grooming and the intense fear of the adult with power over her. The fact that an uninformed child has no grounding as to what is normal or acceptable. This could happen to any child in the same circumstances.
      The confusion that (for the vulnerable and uninformed) a few acts might have been consensual, given the grooming and the time period involved.

      The brutality and perversion inflicted on her was shocking. I suspect that her internal injuries from one of the incidents might provide the necessary corroborating evidence.

      Of course in Jersey expert medical evidence in jersey can be discounted with the flick of a pen in the hand of a Bailhache Brother

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

      I suspect that 875's younger sister has a story to tell (but hopefully not so bad) Some people decide to lock it away and take it to their grave. Who can blame them for wanting to leave that Pandora's box shut.

      In some of VFC's interviews Advocate Sinel was visibly upset and I think mentioned difficulty sleeping.

      No doubt Mr. Sinel will have done this particular work for free and just slammed into the brick wall of the of the paedophile protectors. Whether Jersey's paedophile protectors do this just to avoid "bad press" for the island, or out of some darker motive I do not know.

      A bit of both I suspect, but if it was to avoid bad press it is a very poor judgement in the long run.
      Not to mention being reprehensible and morally bankrupt!

      Hats off to all the good guys who stick their necks out or give their time for free.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your support.

      One of the problems is that readers don't get to see the comments that aren't published. In the case of this Blog Posting where there are close to 60 comments published, there are more than 20 that have not been published. It's a balancing act to allow challenging debate and giving Trolls a platform and we try our best to get it right but might not always succeed.

      On the same kind of note some comments aren't published for a number of other reasons including one that was left this morning which could identify an alleged abuser. If the commenter wishes to re-submit the comment taking out the area where witness 737 might work then the comment should be publishable. I can redact and publish if the commenter wishes?

      Delete
    3. Hi VFC,

      Please further redact my 737 comment as you find necessary.

      It may be fine as-is because the meat in the sandwich is pasted from what the CoI themselves have put in the public domain.
      It is the CoI that published "area where witness 737 might work".
      See Polo's link
      www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/Day%20139%20Documents_Redacted_Optimised.pdf#page=1022

      page 1022.

      The CoI makes multiple blunders. Its redaction in some areas is over zealous and just plain sloppy in others.

      It does not state the place of work. If informed readers are able to work it out, then is that a problem for the CoI not you?

      Delete
  12. RE. Advocate Sinel's submissions.
    No doubt this will be deemed "Category 3" and deleted by the CoI's deliberately restrictive "protocols" because the youngest victim (as far at as we know) was 18. It is however centrally significant to the culture of concealment.
    This establishment linchpin was untouchable because if you own the island's media you own the gullible electorate.
    The government, the media and the legal system all bound together by "tensegrity" not integrity. No wonder abused children were unprotected and will continue to be until we have the separation of powers and the proper rule of law.

    Below is the text of one of Advocate Sinel's letters to the AG/Law Officers:

    START
    "I have credible evidence to suggest that the above named has raped at least three females and has been guilty of serious internet misuse. Bearing in mind that this spans decades I would be grateful if could; explain how this came about i.e. why your predecessors failed to take action, and state what steps you will now take.

    I am copying this to [Redacted] as he is the chairman of [Redacted] and it is in the public interest that he is at the very least aware of the situation.

    I am also copying this letter to Francis Oldham QC who as you know is heading the Independent Care Enquiry, if the allegations are true they go a very long way to explaining the Islands culture of concealment Effective and impartial media would have saved many lives.

    l have nothing to indicate that [737] has interfered with minors, I will let you know if that position alters."

    [Advocate Philip Sinel]
    END

    What could "...and has been guilty of serious internet misuse" mean?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Interesting discussion on BBC Radio Jersey at the moment about help with rape and abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Am I right in thinking that Polo has stated that he saved for posterity several months ago the 200+ page witness statement of former Deputy Pitman, before it began its disappearance tug of war? If so can he kindly point to where I can find it on his blog? I am beginning to find all of this more than a tad baffling and not just a little perturbing. Innocent I may be but I would have thought retaining all evidence should be sacrosanct to any inquiry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I downloaded various documents at different times depending on my interest in them. I didn't get the very first uploading of Trevor Pitman's statement but only grabbed it after it had disappeared and then reappeared.

      In this way I do have a version downloaded on 6 January 2016. Trevor's statement + 23 exhibits is 1098 pages long. The full document (1381 pages 84MB) also contains André Bonjour's statement and exhibits. That was Day 109, 18/11/15.

      On 21 March last, I downloaded everything I could find on the Inquiry site.

      Day 109 documents from this set is the same page length for Trevor and for the total. File size is 82MB. There is no date given on the Inquiry site for the date at which this was last revised. Recording of such dates is a bit haphazard on the site.

      Internal document information on the two versions show that the [my] original was created on 5/1/16 (my download of 6/1/16) and the current version records the same creation date but a latest modification date of 20/7/16.

      I have not put these up on my own website, and I have not compared the two versions. I think that would probably be quite tedious as much of the content is probably in picture rather than text form. If anyone out there is in a position to do a comparison I will put the earlier version up on my website and it can be compared with the current version.

      To sum up. I don't have the original version, before the messing started, but probably shortly after the first reappearance when whatever damage there might have been may well have been done.

      On the other hand. Trevor's documents include Rico Sorda's posting of the leaked In Camera States' debate on the firing of Graham Power, and Trevor's material might just have been put on hold until the States eventually voted to release this.

      Delete
  15. I have the same two versions of Trevor Pitman's statement (Day 109, 18/11/15) with "last modification" dates of 05/01/2016 and 20/07/2016.

    If we look at the exact file sizes, they are 88,427,876 bytes and 83,790,367 bytes, respectively. That's a significant difference (over 5%), but as Polo has pointed out, the two versions match in terms of total page length. We should note that the redaction process reduces the word count (hence the file size) but deliberately preserves the pagination of the document, to avoid problems with cross-references and indexes.

    I have put the 2 versions of TPs statement (but not AB's statement or the accompanying exhibits) through a text-file comparator and the only difference is the redaction of the whole of paragraphs 322 to 256 inclusive (pages 81 to 90), where TP comments upon the handling of the court cases involving James Claude Donnelly, Ian Bartlett and Andrew Jervis-Dykes.

    Those same persons are named, and their crimes are discussed, elsewhere in TP's statement (and elsewhere in the Inquiry's documentation) without redaction, and in any case, the Inquiry procedures allow the naming of convicted offenders.

    I can only assume, therefore, that the redaction was designed to hide from public view TP's adverse comments (whether justified or not, I of course will not say...) about TPTB's handling of those cases. Amongst other things, TP highlighted radically divergent sentencing criteria between those cases, suggesting that Donnelly was not "one of the boys" and so ended up with a far longer sentence than the others. He also suggested that these cases show (quote, from redacted para 354): "[how] the likes of the Bailhache brothers and Sir Michael Birt etc have thus far been able to avoid any in depth scrutiny and questioning of their records on such matters."

    The redaction of those paragraphs is sufficient to account for the 5% difference in file sizes, so I wouldn't expect to find any other significant changes in document content. I will nevertheless do a similar comparison on the remaining parts of the Day 109 documents and will report back "in due course" as they say.

    RL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, a correction to my last comment. In the 3rd paragraph, it should (of course) read "paragraphs 322 to 356 inclusive".

      Second, I have now compared the remainder of the Day 109 document file content (Bonjour's statement, and exhibits from both TP and AB), and have found no other differences between the two versions (files dated 05/01/2016 and 20/07/2016).

      If anyone has a copy of the very first version of this document (before it went AWOL), it would of course be interesting to conduct a similar comparison. Any offers?

      RL

      Delete
    2. A big thank you to Polo and RL.

      Can I be the only person who finds himself completely shocked by RL's revelations? So apparently it is quite alright for one of my former elected representatives to have his sworn statement covering matters that any one can see is of huge relevance to showing the public how the much talked about Jersey way really works simply blacked out and effectively eradicated?

      RL highlights that one of the matters being wiped out in this way relates to the handling of the Bartlett case by William Bailhache. I read of this case at the time and I could not believe my eyes when I learned that Bailhache had apparently brought the Jurat John Le Breton out of mothballs to sit on the case. How that could happen after the Stephen Sharp report into the Jervis-Dykes scandal was beyond me.

      Later reading the Care Inquiry evidence received from the former police officer investigating Jervis-Dykes only compounded my amazement. And yet RL highlights for us that this and other observations have apparently been deleted so that the public, whether present or future, cannot see what a concerned elected States member had to say in criticism of those in our judiciary. Outrageous is the word that springs to mind.

      I'm afraid to say that though I did not agree with his decision reading of this I can now understand a little of why Stuart Syvret decided he would not give evidence.

      Delete
    3. A couple of straightforward observations, if I may, following up Anonymous' comments at 20:51...

      1. There is nothing in the Inquiry's protocols that expressly requires - or even allows - the redaction of anything in a hearing transcript, in a witness statement, or in an exhibit merely because the content might cause discomfort for any individual or organisation. What has been done to TP's statement is not legitimate "redaction" - it is illegitimate "censorship".

      2. On the face of it, EITHER the Inquiry has deliberately and voluntarily contravened its own protocols, OR it has allowed itself to be pressured by TPTB. Either way, it has caused irreparable damage to its independence.

      RL

      PS: On a (possibly) related matter, does anyone have a copy of the Transcript of Day 82 (1st July 2015)? It's not on the Inquiry website (or if it is, I haven't been able to find it). That day's documents indicate that the witness was former care worker Susan Doyle, who in para 83 (p. 20) of her statement refers to herself as a whistleblower.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I would like to highlight a much pasted but little debated contribution from earlier in the thread.

    Without the rule of law the innocent can be proclaimed guilty, and the guilty can be proclaimed innocent. Where proclaiming innocence is too problematic for the status (& power!) of a particular perpetrator, an extremely light sentence can be given to the favoured and loyal.
    With the Police force on a leash the "problematic situations" do not often arise because the wrong sort of crimes do not get properly investigated.

    On a more subtle level the arena can be tilted and the rules tweaked and "reinterpreted" to near guarantee the result that the ruling barons want.
    Many fear that that is what has happened to this CoI

    "THE RULE OF LAW" is next comment (too long as one)

    ReplyDelete
  18. "THE RULE OF LAW"

    RE:"Why should any former Senator of the States be given special treatment when its a public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry? We didn't hear others making up this tosh."

    Because it is not "special treatment".

    It's the rule of law.

    All people are entitled to the protections of the ECHR. For example, Article 6, the right to a fair hearing.

    And all public-inquiries in the British Isles should adhere to the Salmon Principles. Certainly, in respect of the latter, the very very expensive tax payer funded lawyers provided to the States of Jersey Police Force made that very plea to the COI. They cited the Salmon Principles. And the COI agreed with them and gave in to that demand.

    But yet in the case of Stuart Syvret - with zero funded legal representation - made the same point when applying for legal aid, the COI attempted to wholly subvert the very purpose of getting legal representation in the first place, by trying to coerce Syvret into signing away all his human rights first, before they'd consider giving him any legal representation!

    You might like to think the settled rule of law is "tosh". Other's cannot be compelled to share your view. You don't like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his rights to the protections of the Salmon Principles, you might not like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his absolute Rights as guaranteed in the ECHR. Well, that's just tough. Tough, you hear? It's called the rule of law.

    Syvret has those legal rights, and he chose not to surrender them.

    He has that absolute right in law.

    But I'm glad the commenter cites the importance of the "public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry". Yes, when we're considering the importance of a statutory public inquiry, fully possessed of all of the quasi judicial powers needed to ensure all relevant evidence & testimony is obtained, we have to ask why the COI has failed its public duty, to use its power of subpoena to bring before it around a couple of dozen very, very obvious key witnesses (of which Stuart Syvret is merely one) and has in stead left vast lacunae in the work of the public inquiry, and thus failed to fulfill its TORs and legislative purpose?

    You know, for close observers of this farce from outside of Jersey (and outside of the UK for that matter) it's simply astonishing, that a statutory public inquiry into something so important as decades of child-abuse cover-up should have attempted to impose obviously unlawful a priori "conditions" upon the man who first publicly exposed that child-abuse cover-up in July 2007.

    Obviously, within the lawless fairy-land jurisdiction that is Jersey, your local mob can and always will get away with whatever it pleases. For example, running a "public inquiry" from the building of a fatally conflicted law firm, The Ogier Group, and so by intimidating a number of witnesses away from engagement at the very beginning. But Eversheds? But France Oldham? Back in London? Their reputations are trashed.

    And its so interesting, in a not good way, that this COI has so embarrassingly decided its "history" begins on the 15th May 2014, which is the earliest date Panel Rulings appear in its 'Key Documents' - rather than on the 14th May, when the COI made the legally indefensible Panel-Ruling to constructively-exclude Stuart Syvret by breaching the Salmon Principles, and his Article 6 Rights in refusing to give him legal representation funding unless he signed up to their ultra vires "protocols".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time to get away from these daily posts trying to justify Stuart Syvret snubbing of the Care Inquiry.
      Many of us tried to push him to change his mind but he flatly refused so lets stop raking over it.
      Our expectations of 3rd July is only important.

      Delete
    2. Clearly we are beyond the point of persuading Stuart Syvret to give evidence to the Inquiry. I was going to say "cooperate" with the Inquiry. But, on reflection, he did actually cooperate with the Inquiry. It was the Inquiry that rejected him and that should be borne in mind.

      Many people are clearly fed up with Stuart and I assume, from following all this for a number of years now, that he can be a difficult person to get along with.

      But that is not the point. His actions have earlier shown up the Jersey justice system for the sham it is and they have now seriously cast doubts on the bona fides, objectivity and diligence of this Inquiry.

      These are things that need to be borne in mind when looking at whatever emerges on 3 July next.

      The original comment on this thread on the rule of law and its reproduction above should be read, and re-read, very carefully. It is a very succinct illustration of what Stuart has been protesting over the last decade, and it's all true.

      Delete
    3. Polo, I think you'll find there are only about 3 people opposed to Stuart Syvret who post here. 2 of them might make the occasional grumble. The 3rd individual who is responsible for 99% of the comments attacking Stuart Syvret is pro child abuse cover up troll who is widely known for making death threats, and for being protected by the Jersey establishment. Please don't boost the behaviour of that sick individual by suggesting he equates to 'many people'. He's a sad drunkard who posts across Jersey's social media forum under dozens of avatars and multiple ip addresses. Please don't be conned by the fool.

      Delete
    4. I am well aware of Stella's boyfriend. He visits my blog from time to time and attempts to post comments which have been rejected elsewhere. I do not indulge him.

      Delete
    5. Stuart Syvret can be a difficult person to get along with. This is because of his uncompromising character and moral fortitude.

      We should be grateful for this because so many others have been worn down by the establishment or absorbed into "the dark side" by one compromise too many.

      It may cause a few readers a hissy fit but on analysis Mr Syvret's position has been proved justifiable (or just plain RIGHT) in well over 90% of material issues.

      People may not like it but for a politician to compromise on material issue when they are right is not just a betrayal of good sense, but also a betrayal of their constituents.


      Moral fortitude and uncompromising character served Syvret well as a long term poll topper until he was "denounced" by state media with an ongoing hatchet job.

      When it comes to Jersey's blanket media, a good proportion of people are like sheep.

      Delete
  19. I want to thank Polo for his extremely helpful contributions to this subject and the foresight to hold these documents permanently, thereby allowing future scrutiny of the CoI. Like others, I find the CoI website tricky and cumbersome to navigate.

    I note the link -

    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/JERINQ%20-%20Day%2043%20Final.pdf#page=36

    is the hearing of 'Mr K' ‘(Witness 28)’. Mr. K claims he was born in 1964 and lived in HDLG since the age of 2, thus making Mr K approx. 53 years old today. Mr K claims he was regularly physically and sexually abused at HDLG. Mr K had a brief stint at Les Chenes and later left HDLG in 1980/1 at 16 years old. He moved into Basil Lodge where Mr K says he;
    “went on the rampage. I hated authority, I hated the
    Old Bill, I hated everything that had any rules or
    regulations and I was out to rebel and cause as much
    trouble as I could.”

    The hearing ends with the COI asking "what is your abiding memory of those 13 years [at HDLG]?" Mr K replied, "Just horrific, horrific. No childhood,…... As a victim myself at Haut de la Garenne I then went on to create victims myself…."

    Now, when we read or discuss “Mr K”, haven’t we, the regular VFC blog readers, always thought we’re discussing a golf-partnering individual? The frequent visitor who the 1980’s HDLG residents feared the most? A man who ‘volunteered’ his services at HDLG and soon swapped careers to work in the Children’s Service? That’s whom I’ve assumed Mr K was, until now.

    But according to another COI document, Golfing ‘Mr K’ was born in 1958, 6 years earlier that Mr K/28. The golfer attended good schools. I can’t find the schools Mr K/28 attended, but know Les Chenes was one of them. So, are these 2 Mr K’s the same person? According to the COI evidence, they are 2 individuals.

    Here is the link from which I make that deduction.

    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/Day%2067%20documents.pdf

    I fear this could be a ‘deliberate’ mistake by the COI. It may seem a trivial matter, a mere accident of duplication, but it conveniently muddies the already murky water, and bearing in mind how central to the inquiry Mr Golfing K is, how can this have been overlooked?
    I’m now concerned a number of other 'deliberate mistakes' have been planted throughout the COI documents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are indeed two Mr K's. They are indeed two different witnesses. This is unfortunate ... Mr golfing K who is witness 7 is not the same person as the other
      Mr K who is witness 28.

      Delete
    2. This is serious stuff! Mr K, for sure has two identities. Do the COI know this? Or are they 1/ purposely covering for golfing Mr K? Or 2/ Following their usual pattern of incompetency?

      Delete
    3. Hold on a minute!?

      There are 2 'Mr Ks'....!

      This is very very serious. Oh so serious indeed. Is it true? Is it really correct that the COI deliberately used the same identifier lettering for 2 different witnesses!?

      I'm sorry, but if so, it's simple corruption. No competente serious public inquiry would do that. No serious exercise in public investigation would generate confusion by giving the same identifying lettering to 2 different individuals.

      A lot of us me included have commented about 'Mr K' always on the understanding that there was only 1 'Mr K'. The golfer 'Mr K' associate of William Bailhache.

      Until reading these comments on VFC it never ever occurred to me there were 2 different 'Mr K's in the COI's records.

      I think we really have to recognise the seriousness of this. Because of this insane use by the COI of the same identifying letter to apply to 2 completely different people it could be that some crimes have unfairly been ascribed to 'Mrk 1', and 'Mrk 2' has escaped the criticism!

      Many thanks to the person who spotted this and draw it to our attention. We have to get this clarified by the COI.

      Delete
    4. As if having (apparently) two "Mr K"s wasn't bad enough, there's also a "Miss K" (witness number 623). See page 67 line 11, of the transcript for Day 64 (6th March 2015).

      RL

      Delete
    5. Christ on a bike!

      This COI is becoming exposed as more and more chaotic by the hour.

      Delete
    6. Judging by the stuff coming out of RL's work on the vanishing Pitman evidence William Bailhache and dodgy golfers seem to go hand in hand?

      Let's hope the COI have the courage to put him and the Jersey way judiciary firmly in the bunker!

      Delete
  20. I note the points on Mr. K @ 11:24. I have only glanced briefly at Mr. K's evidence a while back but my recollection is that he had to be corrected on some timings in the course of the oral hearing, so perhaps the anomaly referred to is just one that was not picked up by the Inquiry. They're pretty slipshod, as well as being malicious. If the website is any litmus test they are all over the place.

    If I was them I'd be shaking in my boots at the moment in the face of the outside forensic analysis to which their material is being subjected.

    I haven't yet had time to check this out but, taking the belated appearance of Advocate Sinel's documentation, I'll bet they are doing a quick sweep of the site - not to make it easier to use, but to tidy up any loose ends that may come back to bite them by 3 July or thereafter.

    There used to be a handy feature on the site which showed when documents had been uploaded and I intended having a quick look through the "transcripts" index to see how many recent dates occurred there. I may do that later. But that feature seems to have been suppressed in many cases with no dates now given.

    Anyway, we'll labour on as best we can for the moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Polo, I commented above at 20:43. Please take a look at what I wrote there. Really, if 99% of people have been labouring under the delusion that there was only 1 'Mr K', then we need to pool thoughts and get to the bottom of this. It cannot be an accident!

      This is so so serious. It's difficult to ascribe this to incompetence. No real inquiry uses the same anonymising lettering to apply to 2 different people! This is just extraordinary.

      This situation must be clarified. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I'd appreciate your assistance.

      Delete
  21. A couple of comments were inadvertently published earlier which had links to an audio recording of Advocate Philip Sinel naming an alleged abuser. As soon as it became apparent where the recordings led to I immediately set about getting them removed. I want to thank Polo for being so understanding with this issue and removing them for me sooner than I could.

    Commenter "Click Here" who makes some very well researched points has subsequently left comments with links to the same recording. I hope you can appreciate that I am unable to publish these comments or any comments that might identify alleged abusers or Victims/Survivors.

    Thanks for your understanding with this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A couple of comments were inadvertently published earlier which had links to an audio recording of Advocate Philip Sinel naming an alleged abuser"

      If the audio recording is was taken off the CoI website then what is the problem?


      Okay, without THE RULE OF LAW you could well be "Syvreted"
      Quite possibly in secret and behind closed doors.

      I take it that Syvret is still subject to 'superinjunctions' on pain of re-imprisonment?

      Delete
    2. At 6th May 06:34, a reader asks: -

      "I take it that Syvret is still subject to 'superinjunctions' on pain of re-imprisonment?"

      I couldn't possibly comment.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
  22. The standard of comments on this thread are so encouraging, some real, in-depth analysis and research. VFC really does put the Jersey media to shame.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Voice, I hesitate to bring this thread back “on topic”, but ...

    Living, as I do, thousands of miles away from Jersey, hence deprived of the ... errr ... “benefit”? … of the island’s print and broadcast media, I was wondering if the erstwhile Mr. Gorst answered the three questions that were supposed to be put to him on 2nd May? And if so, what did his spin doctors allow him to say?

    A link to Hansard or some other reliable source would be appreciated.

    RL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will try and get you a link tomorrow. Limited internet access at the mo. Unless another reader could kindly supply one?

      Delete
    2. RL, you can WATCH the 2nd May session here:

      <a href="https://statesassembly.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/284909>https://statesassembly.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/284909</a>

      Click on the right hand side to skip quickly to "Oral Question 2 - Expenditure on public relations advice (1(265))"

      It's the new system for live broadcasting and recording the proceedings of the States Assembly. It is excruciatingly watchable.

      Delete
    3. Many thanks Voice - I'm sure that link to the webcast will be of interest to someone here, but unfortunately I live on the “wrong” side of the Atlantic – and the “wrong” side of the equator. I am blessed with the world’s slowest “broadband” connection and cannot view streamed video – however excruciating it might be!

      A link to text would be much appreciated – whenever you are able.

      RL

      Delete
    4. Hansard for the States Sitting 2nd May 2017 doesn't appear to have been published yet. But when it is it will be HERE.

      Delete

  24. May I comment on the Statement by the COI regarding Syvret and the link for that statement found above and reproduced below.

    I am just an average person but this statement proves to my mind two major stumbling blocks one for Syvret and one for Francis Oldham.

    Firstly did Stuart Syvret in his pitch to get legal funding ever think for one minute that Francis Oldhan QC, would ever provide money to employ lawyers to put her own COI and its crew under the legal spotlight regarding it's own operations and actions. Dream on Mr Syvret you should have got the legal representation first and played them a their own game later.

    However - the interesting part is that by not providing funding for a core witness who held the position of Health Minister over children's services at the head of Government, she has shown a shocking lack of judgement, lack of professional aptitude and left her panel open to serious and valid outside critisism of failure and incompetence in just that one statement. In my opinion of course.

    Anonymous3 May 2017 at 09:25

    http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Key%20Documents/Application%20for%20funding%20of%20legal%20representation%20for%20Stuart%20Syvret%20with%20documents.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  25. Am I right in thinking that around 28 comments have been removed in the time that this post was down?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Philip Ozouf says Jersey has a great future and critics of the council of ministers have got it all wrong.

    So that's all right then.

    Now we can all rest easy, stop moaning and re-vote in the same collection of numpties next year.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have been going through the news releases on the Inquiry site, most of which I had not read before. I remark below on just a few of the things that struck me.

    The first release is dated 13 March 2014, and as late as 2 September 2014, by which time they should have known better, they are referring to the "Jersey Evening News". Would that it were.

    On 10 September 2014, reference is made to evidence from private sessions not being reported or published. This seems sensible enough, but one wonders if, but for the interest sparked by Daniel Wimberly in the document retention protocol, would such evidence have been scheduled for destruction?

    On 24 September 2014 the Inquiry reported:

    "The volume of documentation already referenced and the enormous amount of material anticipated over coming weeks have created technical challenges for our suppliers. Solutions are being developed that will enable the public to download large quantities of documents efficiently, and allow us to provide this facility as the amount of material we consider grows significantly, over the duration of the Inquiry.

    "This issue is being worked on as a priority by the companies involved and when the system has been tested and is operational, we will make available online all the documents produced in all the public sessions of the Inquiry."

    One would have thought that this would have been sorted at the outset. It's not rocket science. The piece caught my eye in view of the Inquiry's shitty website to this very day. I wonder were the companies concerned at all up to the job.

    On 15/1/2015 reference is made to the first Mr. K (alleged victim/witness 28). On 14/4/2015 reference is made to the second Mr. K (alleged abuser/witness 7). Despite being actually in press releases, nobody from the Inquiry seems to have picked up the anomaly.

    On 1/7/2015 there is a report of an oral session with Sue Doyle. While her statement is in the online documentation there is no transcript of the oral session.

    After October 2015 the Inquiry stopped issuing releases on evidence being heard. It is not clear whether this reflected (i) appearances by the more politically controversial witnesses, (ii) a realisation that the Inquiry was out of its depth and would not be able to cope with the contributions of these witnesses, (iii) a desire to downplay the content, or (iv) just plain fatigue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Polo for your forensic work. Is now not the time for lists, list of COI flaws/ errors / mistakes. A list of requirements survivors and others would consider acceptable outcomes and from which the COI can be judged upon. Not forgetting the list of BBC and other MSM material that seems to have vanished. We failed to keep our eye on the ball on that one.
      It's easy to forget the BBC's blatant failure to stick to the BBC Charter. It did the survivors a great disservice in the BBC's attempt to erase history in refusing to report on Graham Power's defence statement.

      Delete
  28. On the previous thread Polo refers to the vanishing BBC material.
    The Jersey Way blogsite was a great source of pertinent BBC Jersey and States Chamber audio clips.
    I regret to inform VFC readers that these too have vanished. ****
    Please IT geeks, bring it back for us, and permanently for the record.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given the bad "press" the MSM in general, and the BBC in particular, have been getting in connection with the Inquiry and the topics covered by its TOR – both in witness statements and here on the blogs – I think it’s hardly surprising that we’re seeing a generalised purge of publicly-accessible archive material, especially from the Operation Rectangle era.

      The MSM are already gearing up for the publication of the Inquiry report and will be keen to remove from public access, as best they can, all trace of documentaries, news items and other materials that might contradict what they plan to say when the report is published.

      Let us be in no doubt: the scripts of a huge number of main-stream media reports extolling the virtues and recommendations of the Inquiry are being drafted NOW, many weeks in advance of 3rd July.

      And before any here asks: am I suggesting that the report has been leaked? – No, certainly not. The fact is that the MSM don’t need to read the report, or even set eyes on it, before drafting their accounts of what a great contribution it will make to the safety of Jersey’s children and adolescents for the rest of the 21st century.

      RL

      Delete
  29. The hiding of this post and all comments for ten days or more, and its subsequent re-appearance with almost 30 comments eliminated - without one single word of explanation - must surely cast serious doubts as to the real motives for cutting out certain posts.

    Many of the comments (and links) that have been eliminated concerned the blatant censorship of a sworn witness statement prepared specifically for the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry by a prominent ex-politician, originally placed in the public domain by that same Inquiry in full accordance with its own published protocols, and subsequently replaced on the Inquiry website by a "revised" version with a huge amount of additional – and apparently unwarranted – redaction. Other comments now removed from the cited blog post related (iirc) to the Inquiry’s naïve choice of a certain local (Jersey) supplier of IT and web services.

    I find it ironic, to say the least, that comments here in the "non-mainstream media" about censorship of the Inquiry’s published documents should subjected to what is, to all intents and purposes, censorship. Since VFC has already told us he has not been "got at" by the authorities, I can see only one possible (and, indeed, potentially justifiable) explanation for what has happened - or rather, what may be on-going away from the (short-term) public gaze.

    As regards the reason why we have been offered no explanation by VFC, my gut tells me that if I’m right in my speculation about what’s happening in the background, even the folk from Portland Communications would be hard-pressed to put a positive spin on it. Maybe "no comment" is VFC's only safe comment - for the time being.

    Be that as it may, it’s a sad day for the "transparency and openness" that was the original topic of this post.

    RL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. @ RL
      Thank you for all your work. Don't imagine for a moment that it is unappreciated.

      There is indeed an element of irony there but it is a little "syvretesque" of you to have pointed it out.

      Syvretesque may be a little unsettling but it is/should be a complement. I rarely have the moral fortitude to challenge my friends and this is a quality which is sometimes badly required.

      Maybe in this case, maybe not. It is easy to leap to conclusions but there are invariably a myriad of things we have not thought of or have knowledge of.
      I hope that VFC will be in a position to enlighten us in the fullness of time.

      A couple of possibilities have struck me.

      -Sub judice? .... possibly, but I don't think so

      -Could VFC be keeping his powder dry and  be saving your revelation until the 'right time'? -I don't think so(;why publish in the first place?)

      -Could there be a survivor welfare issue? There were one or two things un-redacted off the CoI website which concerned me (re "jigsaw identification") but I don't think this particularly applied to the deleted comments. However what if VFC had been requested to remove links to certain information by a victim; would he really ignore that.
      The risk of identification might not even have to be real for VFC to respond on welfare grounds. Let us not forget the utter vulnerability which people can feel and that these things can even precipitate the tragedy of suicide
      Not due to rationality but within the context of a sick society's flawed value judgements.


      These things are amongst the ongoing costs of child abuse. Sexual abuse introduces levels of complexity which most of us cannot fully appreciate.

      Potentially a good deal of that abuse occurring or continuing due to relatively good people not having the moral fortitude to question and challenge people who they considered to be friends


      A bit of syvrteesquenss may not be superficially popular but is one of the few things which can protect children from ongoing harm and protect the rest of society from all manner of insidious corruption.


      The irony you point out is entirely valid but my inclination is to cut him some slack and give team voice the benefit of the doubt. Like yourself they have not been paid £23,000,000 for their work.

      Delete
    2. "Potentially a good deal of that abuse occurring or continuing due to relatively good people not having the moral fortitude to question and challenge people who they considered to be friends."

      That’s very true, and is no doubt one of the many factors that has allowed abuse to prosper in the Island (and elsewhere, worldwide…) for many decades. And the same applies not only to "friends" as such, but also to "bosses" in the workplace, and "colleagues" on the shop floor. With the added difficulty, in Jersey’s small community, that chains of formal command in health, education, social services, law enforcement etc. are very short and, in many cases, operate in parallel with informal non-work contacts (think golf, leadership of youth movements, church, etc) between those same people. It’s little wonder there have been so few "whistle-blowers" in Jersey – and that they have encountered so much difficulty not only in getting their message out but also in maintaining their standing in society.

      That situation is reflected here on the blog, too. It isn’t any easier to challenge those we regard as "friends" here in the virtual blogosphere than it is elsewhere, face to face (not that I’ve ever met anyone connected with VFC in real life…). All the more so when the very person we are challenging has his mouse pointer hovering over the "delete" button as he reads our comments prior to letting them go public.

      That’s one reason I chose to limit my comment to pointing out the irony, without speculating about what the motives might be for the removal of 30 or so comments. Like you, I have thought it through and listed several possibilities (six - including all those you mention yourself). I have discarded four of them as insufficient to warrant the scale of the censorship (both in the affected witness statement and here in the blog). And for the time being I am keeping the remaining two possibilities to myself, precisely because mere speculation (however well-reasoned it might or might not be) can all too easily turn into "alternative facts" when released into the public domain. To minimise the risk of further hurt to victims of abuse we need proven facts, not mere speculation, so I am quite prepared to give VFC the benefit of the doubt – and wait and see what happens next.

      RL

      Delete
    3. I agree with so muc of what RL has written. We can only speculate the reasons as to why VFC has felt the need to delete certain comments. They may have very good reason to be afraid. There is not much protection over in Jersey as we now know. You only have to look at the treatement of those who did go out on a limb for the victims as public figures. They were smeared and attacked with every weapon at the Jersey elite's disposal. Eventually all ruined when they would not back down. What I hope the global media will pick up on when the report does come out is the 30 paragraphs belatedly redacted by the COI for from within the witness statement of, as RL highlights, a very prominent former politician (Deputy T Pitman) and tore away the covers (before redaction) of the selective nature, gross inconsistency and clearly politically driven sentencing (or not), proecution (or not) employed by those who head up Jersey's judicial function. This should form a ket strand of both the COI's report and any international reporting.

      Delete
  30. There are 26 letters in the alphabet. Therefore 26 letters to choose from. Therefore how could it be possible to use K twice and for two completely different people? One Mr K, an alleged abuser and the other Mr K, an alleged abused. Is this an honest genuine mistake by the COI team? Serious questions should be asked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed ....."26 letters in the alphabet"

      If really pressed one could also lower & uppercase Mr k / K

      Or with a £23m leap of the imagination one could introduce a 2nd alphanumeric field ..... Mr K1, Mr K2 ..... Mr Ka, Mr Kb, Mr Kc ........ etc.

      The possibilities are *literally* endless!

      Or one could even give suspects more meaningful aliases
      ...Mr Fagg-Burns ?

      Delete
  31. Earlier in this thread, someone wanted to know when the Hansard for the States Sitting on 2nd May 2017 would be published. It is there now:

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Hansard.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  32. New post please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think pressure on VFC is wise. VFC provides exceptional and quality investigative journalism into a range of issues that the local and national MSM fail us on, repeatedly.
      I appreciate the core 30 odd comments were particularly valuable and perhaps in time, these could be re-posted. I saw no evidence that would reveal the identity of a victim but I may have over looked something in the content. As a body of work, it was outstanding and no doubt ruffled someones feathers. It will have certainly caught the attention of the authorities. VFC made a decision for whatever reason and chose to redact these comments. I'm sure VFC will continue to provide further excellent posts in the near future as the blog approaches it 9th year. IMO the VFC blog is worthy of national and international blog awards.

      Delete
    2. I agree entirely with the above comment. VFC will have genuine reasons for removing the comments he did. This blog has been invaluable in the quest for the truth and justice and thus far has never put a foot wrong and I doubt it ever will. An awful lot of people have much to thank this blog for, and recognition of this would be indeed well deserved. Thank you VFC.

      Delete
    3. I agree entirely with Gillian at 19:36.

      We should remember that the redaction problem was originally caused by the Inquiry's own handling of the material. Forensic follow up in this thread put VFC in a very difficult position. I am quite sure that his motivation in his reaction was to protect the good guys.

      He is virtually the only man left standing as a credible Jersey medium. The MSM have disgraced themselves over decades and are now putting out a few tokens with which to defend themselves when the international press descends on 3 July.

      VFC needs to be left to make his own pace. Any pressure would be most unfair.

      Delete
  33. Yes new post please. I don't want to be forced to borrow a Jersey Evening pravda!

    ReplyDelete
  34. VFC is a wholly community based initiative not a 'professional' one as far as I know. Far more professional than the 'professionals' it is true. But he or they (I don't know those behind it) have to safeguard themselves.

    As pointed out on here many a time we only have to look how two or three very high profile people who fought for Jersey to be a decent place in the public spotlight eventually got screwed and forced out of politics. For people without a public persona the risks must be even worse if they ruffle feathers one time too many.

    That said it is darkly ironic is it not that the witness statement butchered and having significant evidence removed from the public case which is at the centre of the missing comments saga belonged to one of those very politicians.

    I wonder if the former Deputy Pitman still thinks giving his statement to the Care Inquiry was worth all the obvious risk and effort now? I wouldn't blame him if he did not. I just hope the report proves my concerns unfounded.

    ReplyDelete
  35. To quote the reader on 20th May at 11:52, above - who says, "Or one could even give suspects more meaningful aliases
    ...Mr Fagg-Burns ?...."

    Indeed.

    And an hypothetical 'Mr Fagg-Burns' - could turn out - "who-knows" - to be the most horrifying - most manipulative - most foul - most torturing - most child-raping - most child-pimping - most entrapping - most-used-agent-of-entrapping - most cunning - most crazed - most megalomaniacal - most - overt - 'in-plain-sight' - yet protected -
    psychopath - in all of contemporary Jersey international tax-shelter/child-abuse entrapment haven history.

    And - let's face it.

    He is.

    As we all know.

    Doesn't look too good.

    That's tough, Eversheds - that's tough Frances Oldham.

    But, hey - you know, you took the gig.

    It looked so attractive.

    So simple.

    Like taking sweets from a baby.

    It looked so - so, so easy - back then.

    Back then - when it seemed plausible and dismissively simple - to so casually sign a few pages of manifest lies & nonsense - 'which would slap-down and tame the key whistle-blowing witness, the then Health & Social Services Minister Stuart Syvret' - slap him down and have him grovelling at your The-Ogier-Group-hosted feet.

    The thought - that - on the evidence - by this stage - you'd all be entrapped - an evidenced criminal enterprise - entrapped - in a gyre of entrapment-upon-entrapment - with the cunning, Savile-like ‘Mr Fagg-Burns’ at its centre - that you’d be captured into being his “team” - never entered your conspiratorial heads.

    It was just so - so - lucrative.

    What was it?

    £12 million - plus whatever flowed - after you corruptly helped spin an approximate doubling of that sum - to spin another £12 million back into Jersey government departments - to buy-up the rest of your City-of-London Commune colleagues? Well - it was something like that.

    Easy money.

    "A simple gig" - you thought.

    You weren't told you'd be on a doomed fight - on the wrong side - of the British Watergate.

    But - well - here you are.

    So do hurry up, boys and girls - do hurry.

    You're so - so late - so overdue - already.

    And we're waiting - waiting - we're hungering - up & down the UK for the Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" to "report" - waiting - waiting.

    The truth - the victims - justice - the rule-of-law - are all waiting - waiting - for this corrupt inconvenience to end.

    Waiting.

    For this self-damning diversion to end.

    For this excuse - this obstacle - this self-demonstrated ultra vires shambles - to end.

    Then things can begin.

    To quote the horrifying words of "Mr Fagg-Burns" - when staring at a female child-victim in a cell who was naked apart from a T-shit - "will I do you now or later? - Nah, I'll do you later."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was Mrs Fagg-Burns also a child abuser?

      Delete
    2. I think that the rather well informed commenter @3:50 knows that nothing will change on 3rd July. After we strip off £!6m of waffle and hand wringing there will be precious little meat in the sandwich. Sauce but no burger in the bap.

      In particular I predict that all non prosecution decisions will be confirmed! at the most a little disquiet and regret will be expressed.

      This particular aspect of the PUBLIC inquiry was farmed out to a tame silk. An exceedingly expensive rent a mouth.

      A lawyer can be like a cab for hire. You can go where you like if you can afford the fare and the Jersey taxpayer has deep pockets and very little say in the matter.

      Am I saying that this is bent?
      -not necessarily. He can only give his "opinion" on what evidence is presented to him. Those who control what instructions and information is presented to him have near total control over his verdict (so to speak)

      Informed readers will also recall the Napier report into the suspension [constructive dismissal] of the Chief of Police. The uber critical ToR voted by the states after considerable work by Bob Hill MBE was omitted from Napier's investigation.
      The shysters laughably claimed that it was a mere "clerical error"
      Yes they think we are stupid!

      The thought that the Napiers of this world do not know that the wool is being pulled is utterly ludicrous.

      The meter is ticking nicely ....but their cab is going to hell.


      P.S. 3 June is the beginning not the end.......

      Delete
  36. Tou say ..."To quote the horrifying words of "Mr Fagg-Burns" - when staring at a female child-victim in a cell who was naked apart from a T-shit - "will I do you now or later? - Nah, I'll do you later." " ... but how do you know he said that cos I don't recall that being put to mr k when he was being questioned by the COI ? Please could you let me know where to look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I gather that a good number of Jersey care home victims spoke to the Health Minster before and after he was deposed. My recollection is that that testimony is one of the things which appeared on the Health Minster's blog together with the information that "he raped her when she was # years old".

      Probably one of the many missing witnesses or hidden testimonies on the CoI website

      Delete
    2. So 'Mr Fagg Burns' was also 'Mr K' (that being the golf club buddy of William Bailhache Mr K, not the other 'Mr K' this incompetent COI has wrongly given the same identifying letter to) according to comment on 24th May 11.46!?

      Wow!

      I hand't realised that, I hadn't drawn those links together. Wow. If that's right, if the cigarette burn torturing maniac whose victim has been endorsed by the COI's expert, to the terminal damnation of William Bailhache who lied to the States, is the same person who was raping little girls, then, just, wow.

      Jesus.

      How much worse can the Jersey child abuse scandal get.

      Thanks for the clarification 11.46.

      Delete
  37. Anonymous 23rd May 19.37.

    I too would love to know what my former St. Helier Deputy - the only one worth voting for - now thinks about the inquiry and all that has gone. Not just regarding the saga of his own evidence. But generally.

    ReplyDelete
  38. More talk of cracks within the council of ministers today. Is the muppet party finally falling apart at the thought of Gonzo Gorst bringing back Kermit Ozouf?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Reckon this colossal financial outlay on the new hospital should be suspended until after the next election. Hopefully by then we will have some more capable people in charge. What do other readers think? I mean we are going to be paying for this for years. Should convert St. Saviours Hospital and save a fortune.

    ReplyDelete
  40. About seven weeks to the intended publication of the COI report.

    What odds on it being delayed yet again?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Allow me to paste an intriguing little snippet from earlier in the thread, 5 May @15:16 :

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

    At 6th May 06:34, a reader asks: -

    "I take it that Syvret is still subject to 'superinjunctions' on pain of re-imprisonment?"

    I couldn't possibly comment.

    Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the few people who have not worked it out
      -If a person is NOT subject to what is colloquially termed a "superinjunction" / "gagging order" etc. then they area are at liberty to say that they are not subject to such a thing.

      If a person is NOT subject to a superinjunction then they can face imprisonment if they say that they are under a superinjunction.

      Apart from it being the ex health minister's basic human right this might also be why it was critical for him to get legal advice to ascertain what evidence he could give to the CoI

      Mr Syvret has already been imprisoned twice and runs the gauntlet of death threats from Team-Paedo @Jersey.

      Unbelievable !

      The 'Care' Inquiry is a sick joke.

      Delete
    2. Sorry,

      "If a person is NOT subject to a superinjunction then they can face imprisonment if they say that they are under a superinjunction."

      should read:
      If a person IS subject to a superinjunction then they can face imprisonment if they say that they are under a superinjunction.

      But I guess you did not need that explaining

      Delete
  42. Back in 2008 / 2009, William Bailhache was the A-G. If he'd done his job properly and prosecuted those found guilty instead of protecting his friends, Jersey would have required a new prison wing for all the paedos. HDLG with a cage built over it could have been a good location for a paedo prison. But alas and ironically, it's kept as an under-used private youth centre. Duh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guilty rather than "found guilty" -no charges ...no trial .....no justice for victims.

      Surely the cellars at HDLG would be the place to keep the abusers and the Bailhaches

      Delete
    2. I think the reader who comments 14:23 has rather jumbled their words somewhat. And somewhat misunderstood what the legal position and relevant issues are. Perhaps I can assist? Back in 2008/2009 William Bailhache was your Attorney General. A fact which is peculiar to Jersey in that your AG is also your Director of Public Prosecutions, and occupies therefore a structurally and unavoidably ultra vire post. The irreconcilable conflict of interests being plain.

      However, to clarify what the commenter said, one 'prosecutes' suspects, not the 'guilty'. A person may very well be prosecuted, yet be innocent. And are regraded as innocent until convicted. So I think the word the reader was intending to use was 'suspect'.

      And yes, most certainly, notwithstanding the nonsense already written by the tame silk hired by the COI when they wrongly chose to attempt to privatise a central part of their 'public inquiry' function, a very significant number of prosecutions should have taken place, but did not.

      But the real issue is this. And I fear people fail to see it. The question is, 'should William Bailhache, as a person, never mind what public office he held, have been involving himself in any such matter at all? Is it not the obvious fact given his familial, personal, and political preexisting entanglements and thus conflicts of interest, that it was not lawfully possible for him to take any official role on behalf of any 'public body' or 'public authority' in connection with the Jersey child abuse issues?'

      Unavoidably, and obviously, by any rudimentary understanding of the law, it was not possible, that is not lawfully possible, for William Bailhache to be involved in any such matter.

      So your primary position is far more basic than 'William Bailhache made the 'wrong' decisions concerning the prosecution questions back in 2008/2009'.

      The fundamental point is that 'it was simply not lawful for William Bailhache to have failed to recuse from any involvement at all, back in 2008/2009.'

      He should have recused, and played no role at all. And if your public inquiry fails to state that obvious and unavoidable fact, then it is indeed a corrupt charade.

      Delete
  43. Some people have asked for a new post. If time constraints of fitting in whatever those behind this great and valuable blog need to do in their daily lives can I make a suggestion? What about an interview with someone of interest regarding their own take on what would be a good outcome of the COI?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jersey - Police State.

    'Man arrested over "offensive" Manchester terror attack comments'

    Link - http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/man-arrested-over-manchester-terror-attack-comments/#.WShIsWgrLIW

    http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/man-arrested-over-manchester-terror-attack-comments/#.WShIMWgrLIV

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What did this person say? Presumably it worse than posting lies and abuse about politicians and bloggers who stood up for the Jersey abuse victims? You know the sort of stuff Jersey's police and Attorney General have refused to do anything about for nearly a decade.

      Delete
    2. Think the Law only got tough end of last year.

      Delete
    3. "the sort of stuff Jersey's police and Attorney General have refused to do anything about for nearly a decade"

      Sure they had their reasons.

      Delete
    4. "Sure they had their reasons"

      Being corrupt Paedo Protectors?

      Delete
    5. Free Speech maybe. If people cannot attack Politicians online then we may as well live in North Korea.

      Delete
    6. Attacking (criticism of) politicians on line is different to using a 100 different fake avatars to feed a deranged troll's inadequacies by the peddling of made up hate filled lies. Same as leaking a bloggers tax details which our diligent boys in blue also did nothing about. Obviously this latest case does not feature one of the boys?

      Delete
    7. That is an odd turn of phrase which I find a little disturbing @19:06

      Why would any normal person want to "attack Politicians online"
      Most commenters want to make relevant observations regarding a politician's policies, performance and behaviour.

      "Attacking" politicians is something more than "free speech" isn't it?
      Isn't the focus is all wrong?

      And for some perhaps a small step away from posting e.g. Mr & Mrs Pitman a serviceable round of ammunition with a note attached saying "shut up or the next one is delivered by rifle" or something to that affect.

      I wonder if more fresh air and wholesome human company keeps the brain and personality healthy.

      Delete
    8. No idea what you are talking about.
      Politicians get attacked online all over the World.
      Look at Trump, Corbyn and May at the moment. Attacks against Le Pen in France, its part of the job and they don't cry 'trolls'; they all roll with the punches and get on with their politics which will never be palatable with everyone.

      Delete
  45. The gloves are off.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anon - 21:04, some Jersey Politicians have major difficulties dealing with critics online whilst others do the right thing and never react.
    From experience once a Politician reacts then they get buried with it.
    Twitter is full of Trolls, alleged Russian Trolls, alleged ISIS Trolls and any other alleged **** stirrer who wants to try and influence public opinion on political viewpoints but this kind of thing is as old as politics itself. Satire, cartoons, spitting image, Goebbels who said that if you repeated a lie often enough it becomes a truth, same yesterday, same today.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ozouf had marquees up in his garden yesterday pre announcement of gettinghis "job" back so celebrations planned in advance of announcement!!

    ReplyDelete
  48. That is an odd turn of phrase which I find a little disturbing @19:06

    WHAT!!!!!
    Are you saying Gorst and Ozouf aren't being attacked at the moment. Attacked since 7 pm yesterday? Seen Mezec attacked online today about Monkey comments. Saw Noel being savaged about Taxi fares. Think attacking politicians is very normal.
    Who writes this guff?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its the attacking that's putting good people off from standing though.

      Delete
  49. Sam Mezec has made a blunder.
    Comparing Gibraltar Politicians to Monkeys.
    What a stupid thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Those who put themselves into the Public Eye should have thick skin and be able to deal with the cross fire that comes with it.

    It is those who are in the Public Eye who use their status to abuse members of the Public who really put this Island to shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "abuse members of the Public"  - What, like the Death threat Troll?

      But it is not rally a member of the public. It was (and maybe still is) a political and criminal thug used by the ruling political faction to threaten child abuse victims, bloggers and opposition politicians.

      A number of politicians even did guest postings on his blog attacking the child abuse investigation.

      This character even got itself named in the UK Parliament.
      Do you remember that?

      But yet the real "shame" of this island remains uncleansed.

      Delete
  51. Attacking i.e. criticising politicians policies or even gaffs is fine. It is the multiple trolling in obsessed individuals just making up lies about people that is not. That is where the police should come in. But they don't.

    ReplyDelete