Wednesday, 7 November 2018

Stuart Syvret and VFC Discuss "The Jersey Situation."


Former Health Minister/whistle-blower Stuart Syvret


Yesterday (6th November 2018) former Health Minister/Senator and whistle-blower Stuart Syvret gave a presentation to States Members during their lunch break at the States Building. Following the presentation VFC was granted an exclusive and in-depth interview with Mr. Syvret to discuss the contents of his presentation which was primarily concerning "The Jersey Situation" not to be confused with "The Jersey Way."

Regular readers/viewers will be well aware of the infamous "Jersey Way" but the "Jersey Situation" is a different animal and one which all should become familiar with (if they aren't already). It is explained in the interview/discussion and was explained to States Members yesterday and it is believed that some Members had their eyes opened and were very receptive to the message Mr. Syvret was conveying. Will it make any difference..........Can it make any difference? This too is discussed in the interview/discussion.

We make no apologies for the length of the video. In times gone by we might have split it into two or possibly three sections but with renewed outside interest in "The Jersey Way" and indeed "The Jersey Situation" we want to make it easier for researchers (and ourselves) to be able to access this vital/crucial information and research as easy as possible. We know that those who matter will watch every second of the video, and those who don't, don't matter.

We hope those who do watch the video in its entirety will be given pause for thought and have their eyes opened as to what is still able to happen on our island because of "The Jersey Situation" and might be inspired to join the cause and speak out against it.

Again, in times gone by, we would have written, in the main Blog Posting, about the contents of the video/interview/discussion but, as mentioned in the above paragraph, those with the real interest will watch it,  not need to be told what is in it, and be able to make a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

We thank Mr. Syvret, not only for this interview/discussion, but for continuing to stand up for what is right despite the threats, death threats and intimidation he has received, and continues to receive, for being an anti-Child Abuse/corruption campaigner.

401 comments:

  1. To give us an idea. Can we have the list of the newer states members who attended Stuart Syvrets presentation yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blogger glitch: If this blog posting stays current for much longer, the number of comments will exceed 200.

      When it passes 200, readers will only see those first 200 comments unless on arrival/refresh they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread.

      NB. later replies, even those amongst the first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that *Load more* link is clicked (several times if it reappears).

      Readers who wish to read the whole thread without omissions need to click "Load more..." (right at the bottom) until it disappears, and then read from the beginning.

      Delete
  2. Sorry guys, when you ended the interview by saying you hope London may one day get involved, which we all know will never happen, you may as well draw the curtains.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I think you'll find some customary allies of the Jersey establishment in London are in for a few shocks in the fullness of time. I'm reliably informed some of the individuals ought to develop a tolerance for prison food. There's a limit to how much Russian oligarch money & influence can jeopardise Britain.

      Delete
  3. I cannot pass comment on the interview as I have not yet watched it, but will do so tomorrow when my mind is fresh. However I am intrigued, and pleased that Stuart was afforded the opportunity to offer his presentation yesterday, but interested to know how this 'came to pass' and also who did,and did not attend. Pleasing to hear that some were receptive to what he had to say because to be honest, he did get an awful lot right, and has been a stalwart regarding child abuse issues.

    Look forward to listening tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If I was in the shoes of the Jersey establishment I wouldn't be worried about Stuart Syvret so much, as he said you can't combat the mafia power from in Jersey. But I would be very worried about men like Graham Power and Lenny Harper and their determination, influence, and contacts. The impression I get is that they were the wrong men to try and go to war against.

    Your problem in Jersey is you have no figures of authority and competence amongst your elites willing or capable of ridding yourselves of villains and idiots. The consequences of that are going to be severe, it would appear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hopefully Stuart will have sensitised some newbies to what is going on and what needs fixing. And you have covered that in the interview.

    However, in response to your question of how it is going to be fixed, Stuart is not that clear. Perhaps some further development of this angle could be pursued in another interview.

    There is a vicious circularity in the present Jersey situation. The very people who should normally be there to solve the problems, right the wrongs and redeem the irredeemable are actually part of the problem.

    Stuart seems to be relying on eventual perceived damage to Britain's reputation to cut the gordian knot.

    However, looking at the present Brexit shambles it is likely that Britain will have no reputation left to damage. So what happens then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you'll find, for some authorities in Britain, that the conduct of the Jersey money industry & partners in London is already beyond mere 'eventual perceived damage'. The seriousness of the situation long went beyond mere 'cosmetic' concerns. Astutely observed by Mr Syvret; the tide of dark money and its influence and power has become somewhat too much of a good thing. The safety and security of the state will be defended. Alas, it would appear your established chaps and their friends here know no self restraint. Do not be surprised if a little constitutional 'shock and awe' becomes employed to slap your fools into the 21st century.

      Delete
  6. Stuart's comments on timescales reminded me. Jerseys coming 30 year war

    ReplyDelete
  7. He speaks many truths. The establishment / mafia closed him down. Many people still have a great respect for him myself included

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great work VFC!

    It is great that a sizeable minority of states members felt able to take a few minutes out of their day to be confronted with some uncomfortable truths. What matters now is what they DO with the information.

    They should not need to be confronted. It is part of their job to keep themselves informed beyond the comfortable "Matrix world" that is built and nurtured for them. Are they up to the job?

    From time to time it is helpful to revisit pages from the Health Minister's blog.

    Todays extract is from:

    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-medium-is-the-massage-part-1/

    I have made only a few minor amendments. Can you spot them?...

    "Although Jersey is a self-governing jurisdiction, which makes its own laws and sets its own tax rates and so forth – like a mini-nation state, – it is, effectively, a single-party state. 98% of political candidates run for office as so-called 'independents'. [now93%?]

    How this manifests itself in practice is, of course, a de facto Conservative [& Mafia] Party – operating on a covert basis working to hidden agendas. Moreover – the ‘cultural’ resistance to political parties has been very carefully nurtured and promoted by the island’s media over the decades – particularly the Jersey Evening Pest. [or JEPeado as it prefers to be called]

    The reason for this is obvious to anyone upon a moment’s reflection.

    With political parties the voting public actually have a clear choice concerning which political philosophy and manifesto of policies they will be governed by. The electorate has power.

    And that is the very last thing that the Jersey oligarchy wants to see.

    Voter power, you might think, is a very foundation stone of functioning democracy. But in Jersey it is viewed as though it were the second coming of Mikhail Bakunin.

    Instead, in Jersey, people like me trawl around the election campaign trail – trying to sell our wares to the voters – usually on the basis of nothing more substantive than “Hey – I’m a nice guy – my great-uncle lived in this parish – and I like your pub - so please vote for me.”

    In my case I like to imagine I offer a little more substance – but the net result of this approach to democracy is a legislature comprised of a disjointed, directionless rabble which possesses no electoral mandate for a particular political direction or programme of policies.

    Such a lack of focus results in a “let’s make it up as we go along” approach to policy formation. Most members of the Jersey legislature, no matter how well intentioned, are just sitting around waiting to be led – waiting to be told what to do.

    And it is into this policy vacuum that the winds of power rush – sweeping up the gullible and the ignorant – and carrying them along on a Mistral of Groupthink. ....."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do hope that, in the interests of balance, the establishment and communications department organised a counter presentation to new states members detailing how much better the Ex-Health Minister's life would be now if he had NOT intervened to try to stop Jersey's most vulnerable children from being systematically beaten, raped and abused.

      As so many times before we can rely on the majority of politicians to do the right thing....

      ......for themselves?

      Delete
  9. You do not have to be a child. The majority of the #MeToo movement does not know that it was born.


    Stuart Syvret also described the "Jersey Situation" as a tensegrity structure.

    Prosecution of some well connected criminals cannot take place because their prosecution would cause the whole façade to collapse and they would bring all the other members down with them if one of the linchpins was pulled.

    On the subject of the "Jersey Evening sex-Pest", readers should study the following as this one of many allegations

    www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Transcripts/Day%2081%20Documents%20Optimised%201.pdf

    "The requested content does not exist." is the message you will receive because this and all the other 'public evidence' has been taken from public view.

    Fortunately VFC is here to drip feed what the public has already paid £23,000,000 for:

    "1. I was born on ###### 19## and am Jersey born and bred. My father was
    an old Victorian disciplinarian.

    2. At the age of 18 I worked for the States of Jersey. In order to assist my
    mother who was having financial difficulties, I went for an interview for a job
    at a ########################### The interview took place
    around 6pm on a winter's evening when I went to the interview in ###########
    The man who interviewed me was [737] I didn't know it at the
    time but [737] was a ##### I wasn't particularly interested ######
    at the time, but I do remember saying that ############# The
    interview proceeded normally and towards the end I asked whether he would
    consider paying me a lower wage and paying cash in hand: I wanted to help
    my mother out of her financial difficulties and this seemed like a good
    practical solution. I had no idea that it was not an acceptable thing to say, it
    felt like the right thing to do at the time.

    3. After I mentioned cash in hand told me that he thought 'we
    could come to some sort of arrangement' and proceeded to violently rape
    me. I mentioned something about reporting it, but [737 just laughed and
    said 'Who would believe your word against that of a ######### .
    After hearing that I didn't feel confident to report the incident.

    4. I was in a terrible state when I left. My clothes were torn and I was
    bloodstained. I walked to my next door neighbour's house as I wasn't
    comfortable to go straight home and face my parents. My neighbour's name
    was ##### When I knocked on the door her husband answered.
    He exclaimed 'Oh my God' and went to get ######.
    ##### gave me some of clothes to wear so that I could go home.

    5. I reported this incident much later on in my life and I will go on to talk more
    about this later in my statement. I would be happy for the Inquiry to access
    my police statement about this incident.

    ……."


    For some reason you will NOT read about these allegations in the JEPeado.
    This is only one of many rape allegations against this tensegrity linchpin. He can do what he likes and is still paid huge amounts of *your* money.

    Maintaining the Matrix is not cheap, and this is it's nature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that statement is one of the especially interesting ones, a selection of which have long been shared amongst, er, Jersey Situation aficionados here in the City. Incidentally, we're very puzzled as to what on Earth the Jersey mafia imagined they could achieve by taking the archive down . For a year and a half. Everyone and their dog has the whole thing copied already. Everyone I've spoken with can't help but classify this as another disastrous blunder. What happens when the 'revised' version gets published and interested observers around the world gleefully go through it comparing it microscopically to the original to see which bits have been censored and altered?

      That is going to look 'splendid', isn't it.

      The capacity of your Jersey Bosses to employ dummies seems boundless.

      Delete
  10. So Syvret spoke to some States Members. Without any doubt, some who attended will have been involved in the jobseeker sanctions cover-up. For almost 2 years between 2013 and 2015, the Social Security Department was closing the claims of some households on the back of a supposed 6-week sanction but then refusing to allow those households to make fresh applications for benefit when the 6-week period had ended, unless the sanctioned jobseeker had continued to satisfy actively seeking work requirements for the whole of those 6 weeks regardless of the household having no eligibility for any benefits. The Department was even disregarding some periods of certificated illness that the sanctioned jobseeker may have had during those 6 weeks and - quite remarkably - was also disregarding any periods of WORK that the sanctioned jobseeker undertook during the 6 weeks unless they were working at least 35 hours per week on average.

    Although there is a requirement to be actively seeking work when the Income Support claim is open and benefits are still being paid, there was no similar requirement in law (during 2013-15) after a 6-week sanction took effect and closed the claim. Yet Social Security officers were telling the recipients of these 6-week sanctions that unless they continued actively seeking work during the 6-week closure period when no benefits were being paid, then that household would not be permitted to re-apply for Income Support at the expiry of the 6-week period. Sure enough, in cases where a sanctioned jobseeker just turned up at the expiry of the 6 weeks to recommence actively seeking work and make a fresh application for Income Support, the Department would point blank refuse to issue a new form and the jobseeker would be told that he/she would not be permitted to re-apply for benefits until a fresh period 6-week period of actively seeking work had been completed.

    Needless to say, this resulted in a supposed 6-week denial of benefits in law continuing to last for months, with the household having no statutory right of appeal to challenge the continuing period of time beyond during which they were prevented from re-applying for benefits. When these sanctions were adopted by the States on 8th October 2013, absolutely nothing was said about the 6-week period of non-payment having the ability to last longer than that without means of appeal, nor about any requirement for the sanctioned jobseeker to continue actively seeking work during the closure period. Yet many States Members would have been informed privately of the real situation.

    In June 2015, the States Assembly was forced to adopt a rectifying amendment which quietly added to the Regulations the same requirement for the sanctioned jobseeker to be actively seeking work during the 6-week closure period that they had been enforcing nevertheless unlawfully for the previous 2 years. This is when the real stink began because it became impossible for the small group of States Members who had strongly opposed these sanctions when they were debated in 2013 to remain unaware of the unlawful activities that had been going on for the previous 2 years. I personally e-mailed Deputy Judy Martin at that time and fully explained what had been going on. I sent a carbon copy of this e-mail to Deputy Mike Higgins. Neither did anything or said anything and this remains the case 3.5 years later. Both of them conveniently skipped the States Meeting when the rectifying amendment was adopted. Deputy Geoff Southern has also remained completely silent on this issue for the past 3.5 years despite spending most of that time on the Scrutiny Panel which oversees Social Security. Now Deputy Martin is Minister for Social Security and Southern is her Assistant... and the silence about the Department's law-breaking continues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A serious issue, to be sure. But a bit of a distraction tbh, in the context of this posting and interview which is all about deeper darker very serious criminality. I hope we stay on subject.

      Delete
  11. Without knowing the states members who showed an interest. We cannot have any idea if Syvrets efforts were worthwhile. Can someone please enlighten us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can always e-mail all States Members to ask if they attended.

      Delete
  12. My riends went to Cyprus a few weeks ago and met two Russian couples, when they said they were from Jersey the replie was that it is where the realy dirty money is and its organized and a few people were running the island i wonder what they know then.

    ReplyDelete
  13. At last. Someone says openly the hitherto unsayable. The 21st century Jersey establishment are a collective of mafia syndicates in partnership with global mafia syndicates.

    'The Jersey Way' is 'our thing'.

    It's always been about 'doing the business'. Capisci?

    Your Stuart Syvret, he's a brave man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Capisci? Yes, I understand and totally agree with you.

      Delete
    2. May I point out, in case it is lost on some of your readers, the significance of the phrase used by the person who commented yesterday at 20:35? He likened 'the Jersey way' to 'our thing'.

      'Our thing' in Italian is 'cosa nostra'.

      Cosa Nostra is the description given to themselves by the Sicilian Mafia. The foundation of their culture of criminality has no 'organisation' as such, no written 'constitution', no 'contracts', rather, just a 'culture', a 'way of doing business', an 'understanding'. 'Our thing'.

      To liken 'our thing', cosa nostra, to 'the Jersey way' is a very astute and helpful observation. 'How 'the Jersey way' works isn't written down anywhere, it isn't a formal system, instead it is a 'culture', a way of 'doing business', an 'understanding'. And like 'our thing', cosa nostra, 'the Jersey way' is fundamentally not compatible with the rule of law.

      Delete
  14. Just imagine if the States Members who attended, got together and not only shone light into this darkness, but never gave up until the rule of law is made to apply in each and every case. No exceptions, no omissions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a low calibre the Care Inquiry was to not want his evidence, not support him to coming forward or even subpoena him so he had to. Of ALL the 100,000 people in Jersey, they miss out Stuart!! To me, it confirms the inquiry was nothing more than an establishment damage limitation exercise. Kind of obvious when they put Richard Jouault in charge of resources.

    It must have been hell to be Stuart, and probably still is. Doing the right thing and having the full weight of the Jersey Way sticking a metaphorical knife in his back. Putting him in prison, placing legal injunctions on him. Loosing his winning case in court. The phrase 'the deserves a medal' comes to mind. But the UK establishment will never award those who expose the Jersey and ultimately the UK Situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "low calibre" seems a very charitable description of the Care Inquiry.

      "£23m fraud" would be more accurate, surely?

      Delete
  16. Hi, I believe a friend of mine was stating that there was some post on twitter, Stuart Syvret made in regards to survivors and a legal case. I thought this was all done with? and is there not a statute of limitations on these things?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's consider the law. Insofar as criminal offences are concerned, there is no statute of limitations in UK or Jersey law. It matters not that a crime was committed thirty years ago - if the crime comes to light, and sufficient evidence is available, a prosecution can be brought.

      As far as civil legal claims are concerned, there are time limitations, known as 'prescription periods'. For many claims, these will be three years, or six years in certain cases.

      But - and it is a very significant "but" - civil legal claims are NOT time-limited if some kind of fraud, dishonesty, crime, or similarly unlawful act or omission has been committed by the defendant organisation or public authority.

      And that most certainly - and indisputably - is the case in respect of the public authorities of Jersey. The evidenced fraudulent and corrupt conduct by the Jersey authorities is vast. Thus those people who were failed by the Jersey authorities during their child-hoods are able to bring claims. They will not be time-barred.

      The relevant legal maxim is the latin phrase "fraus omnia vitiat" - "fraud vitiates everything". Thus everything - even time-limits - are vitiated, that is 'neutralised' or rendered ineffective and not applicable - if some kind of fraudulent conduct has occurred.

      The following is a famous passage of a judgment by Lord Denning:-

      “No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever…”

      Jersey's many child-abuse victims should seek and obtain effective legal representation. Such legal representation will - expressly - plead fraud and corruption by Jersey's public authorities (very easily provable) then legal claims by the victims will not be time-barred.

      And - remember - there is no statute of limitations in respect of crimes. So criminal charges can be brought without time-limit. And there are - literally - dozens and dozens of significant prima facie criminal acts committed against the child-abuse victims by Jersey public employees and Jersey public authorities - crimes such as conspiracy to pervert justice, perjury, misconduct in public office, child-abuse, fraud, embezzlement etc.

      There is no lawful way in which Jersey's public authorities can escape justice. Time-limits do not shield them.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  17. On the final day of the Care Inquiry (18 months ago?) UK lawyer Alan Collins presented evidence of the many outstanding abuse cases that had been "ignored". He is still having to try to persuade our government to take appropriate action about these cases. He has received no support then or since from Jersey lawyers - yet he is still having to drag our government to respond too. Bearing in mind that the devastating Inquiry Report has been long published with its condemnation of the Jersey Way and we supposedly have a Children's Commissioner, a Minister, a Director General, Charlie and a "Pledge" which all States Members and civil servants have been asked to sign - it should be obvious that the inability to reform Jersey's structures has fallen under the spell of something quite extraordinary. Bearing in mind too that the role of the Bailiff is another of the reforms that the Inquiry Report urges - and it s patently obvious that the "Jersey Way" simply cannot contemplate such an "interference" and is resisting this at so many levels.
    When we also bear in mind that such fine pillars of the Jersey Way as UBS is facing yet another gigantic fraud based court case in Paris we really should be able to see where the power lies in little Jersey. It may well be "emotive" to talk in terms of the Mafia - but that is the reality. Not the gangsters from Italy any more than any other country these days but it is international crime at a level that the world has never seen before - and Little Jersey is caught up in it. So far, nobody has been blown up in their car for exposing such activities in Jersey - but around the world that is the reality for many politicians or journalists who try to expose the corruption that they encounter.
    Of course Stuart has suffered personally for trying to do the right thing politically - as have others. It is all part of the Jersey Way - or whatever term is used - to suppress the voice of dissent. We are none of us perfect but the flaws in Jersey have been evident for a very long time and I keep referring to the events of 1769 in order to give an historic perspective. Sark is now presenting yet again in it own tiny way the same sort of constitutional barriers that arise in all the Islands with monotonous regularity and the same call for the cavalry to be sent in from somewhere - usually from London - goes out.
    I am linking here to this interview with Deputy Tadier that followed the failed show trial re Nick Le Cornu and his wife. Once again a dissenting political person was clearly targeted but after the fiasco of the trial there was no expression of concern from other lawyers or politicians and Deputy Tadier could see no possible redress for the injustice. Even questions in the States are not allowed.
    Such is the Jersey Way. It has been exposed because of the Care Inquiry but could equally have been revealed by another critical tribunal with £millions of resources.
    Its not to minimize the gravity of the abuse of children - but rather to emphasize that it is this system which has been historically so flawed that such scandals can exist. And now that the enormity of the institutional failures has been investigated and analysed - we as a little community are still unable to grasp the enormity of the problem and how it might be dealt with - and of course the "mafia" wants to keep it that way.
    Here is the link https://youtu.be/DEAoU3Dif8k
    Maybe the Voice can activate it for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. or you could just go to the european courts of human rights..........if the victims are allowed to consider themselves humnan.Why has this not been done already and why should the victims have to ask these authorities or any to do what the are paid to.

      Delete
  18. These new states members are still finishing at midday every second Tuesday. Let's hope they are doing their homework.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Replies
    1. Agreed.
      I knew an inmate who was with Morag.
      She showed no remorse at all.
      A heartless woman.

      Delete
    2. The sentence was pathetic.

      Delete
  20. Stuart Syvret openly named several very serious criminals when he spoke to States members last Tuesday. But he did preface his words by saying 'this would only be the tip of the iceberg'. Chat amongst States members has been red hot about this. They take it there's a great deal more to come when circumstances permit. Amongst those he named and whose crimes he broadly described were several very highly ranked former and current public officials. The powers that be are seemingly frightened by this, judging by the vibe. Just beginning to wake up to the inevitable. Smarter rats jumping ship and all that.

    The mafia syndicates which have captured Jersey and run the place are frightened of Syvret. We hope he's taken precautions. Being frightening to the Mob is not generally a signifier of long life. However, I get the sense from my intelligence that even if they whack him, it's too late now. The overreach by the Jersey 'families' has been remarkable to observe these years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That they're 'frightened by this' is putting it mildly. This weekend I've heard hard core Jersey establishment types speaking about if there was any chance of getting William Bailhache's resignation announcement reversed! Not because they doubt Tim Le Cocq's commitment to protecting The Jersey Way when he succeeds Bailhache, he's a 'made man' after all. But they doubt a Le Cocq Bailiff era will be as successful as the Bailhache Brothers era in kicking the can down the road.

      Delete
    2. You just wait.

      We've already seen the London authorities starting to get tough with the regime in Sark only last week.

      Outside intervention seems to be closer than people thought.

      Delete
  21. Listening to your interview and the mention of the useless Lieutenant Governor (29m54s in) reminded me that I wrote to the current fella's predecessor some 5 years ago about Stuarts incarceration and, despite a reminder, have not heard back, not even an acknowledgement, since.

    That's how useless these guys are.

    Letter & reminder reproduced below.
    _________________________________

    To: governorsoffice@gov.je
    From: Pól Ó Duibhir
    Subject: Imprisonment of Stuart Syvret

    Dear Governor

    Are we to take it that you have no problem with the current imprisonment of Stuart Syvret, whatever the proximate cause of this move by the Jersey courts/administration (as you know, they are all the one).

    You will be aware that Stuart Syvret, through a campaign of speaking truth to power, and also involving civil disobedience, has been testing the conflicted administrative/judicial system on the island.

    One of his objectives is to bring this anomalous situation on the island to the attention of those whose responsibilities should oblige them to do something to rectify it.

    It is quite clear, that, Jersey being a Crown Dependency, the only channel of appeal is to Her Majesty, ideally through you as her representative on the island. You will be aware that those conflicted persons currently exercising authority on the island do so through the powers conferred on them by Her Majesty through her Letters Patent.

    Could you confirm that Her Majesty is content with the way these powers are being exercised, and if she is, how she justifies this view in the light of the lack of separation of powers and the lack of respect of the requirements of the ECHR, matters which have been highlighted by Stuart Syvret, most particularly in the period since his dismissal as Minister on foot of his revelations about child abuse on the island.

    On the other hand, if Her Majesty is not satisfied with how the powers she has delegated are being exercised, what is she proposing to do about it.

    You will be aware that most of those outside the island, who know what is going on there, are aghast at the breakdown in the rule of law. Such a breakdown is not only in breach of the ECHR but also has serious implications for the stability of the island's important financial sector.

    Thank you,

    Pól Ó Duibhir
    (former resident on the island)
    10/11/2013
    ____________________________________

    Reminder:

    Do you think I might get a reply or even an acknowledgement of the email below soon?

    Or is it your habit to ignore inconvenient emails.

    Pól Ó Duibhir
    17/11/2013

    _______________________________________



    ReplyDelete
  22. Pól Ó Duibhir - why did you think Stuart Syvret was any different to other members of the Public?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very good question and it is a pity that the Lieutenant Governor hadn't the wit or grace to reply to me and ask it.

      The list is a long one but some points would be:

      -not every member of the public has been a Minister sacked for investigating what turned out to be widespread endemic child abuse,

      - not every member of the public has their house unnecessarily raided by a small army of police in a warrantless search in which the place is turned over and privileged information is confiscated

      - not every member of the public has a public interest defence thrown out in court in mid process

      - not every member of the public campaigns online for justice only to have their blog taken down on spurious legal grounds

      - not every member of the public has to go as far as "the mother of parliaments" to have his oppressors named (and unfortunately not apparently shamed).

      Now if you want to see a self-proclaimed ordinary member of the public, there's always Jon.

      In any event my current comment was about the lack of even a courtesy acknowledgement of my letter from the Lieutenant Governor's office.

      Delete
    2. Polo.

      Thank you for providing documented evidence that the LG looks to be ignoring possible judicial corruption. As asked in the video discussion/interview just what is the purpose of the LG if not to be the eyes and ears of the Crown to ensure good government and the rule of law? Who is he answerable to? This IS "The Jersey Situation."

      Delete
  23. What a stunning backdrop! Good to see Stuart still active. Excellent interview.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Very good interview. Well done VFC and Stuart Syvret. Be nice to see a few more political figures give you an interview. They might not all be of the standard of a Syvret, Pitmans, Higgins but surely they can't all be in the club? Can they?

    ReplyDelete
  25. As a long-standing observer of events on Jersey I have been reflecting on your interview of former Health & Social Services Minister Stuart Syvret. I have followed events there since the international coverage began in 2008. My conclusion, and it is one shared by fellow observers, is that the Jersey establishment is in defeat. It cannot now win. The inevitable is only a question of time.

    Why do I come to this view? Because any organisation which finds itself in some form of crisis must firstly contain and limit that crisis and then bring about, engineer if you will, an ending to the crisis. This is standard strategic management. But when we look back over a decade's worth of deep and continuous crises, the Jersey authorities have done the opposite of 'contain & time-limit'. They have responded to one embarrassing fail with another, often worse, failure and controversy. And then, another misguided action in an attempt to damp down the previous one. And then another act of stupidity in an attempt to suppress the deleterious effects and impacts of the previous folly, etc. etc. And so it goes on today. You are now lumbered with the inescapable consequences of running the most dysfunctional and unfit 'public-inquiry' in modern British history. (Was it imagined no-one would notice? What on Earth were you thinking? Just astounding.) But still the madness continues. The latest insanity? Attacking and undermining the democratic authority of the public by introducing legislation to jail their politicians for 5 years for whistleblowing. (Seriously? Dear oh dear.)

    Rather than 'containing' the crisis of governance on Jersey, the island authorities have amplified it again and again. And again. And in so doing have disobeyed with reckless effrontery that other golden rule of crises management, 'limit its endurance'. Follow a clear strategy to limit the time frame of the crisis. Have a clear (and credible) target at which it can be said the proverbial 'line' can be drawn under the controversy. Instead of doing that, the Jersey authorities have become seemingly addicted to the generation of a constant supply of most unwise responses to each self-generated crisis in something akin to a radioactive chain-reaction.

    The Jersey establishment has already generated enough 'fuel', enough material, to keep the engines of constitutional controversy running enthusiastically for at least the next 4 decades. And yes, I have kept a weather eye on events on Jersey enough to make that confident assessment. And the wonder of it is that even now there's no sign on the part of your leaders that the madness is ending.

    Basic response to a crisis: limit its scale. Limit its time-frame. The Jersey authorities have done the direct opposite, and amazingly continue to do so. For this reason the Jersey establishment are, ultimately, in defeat. And deservingly so. No shareholders would tolerate such staggering incompetence from their board of directors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The latest insanity? Attacking and undermining the democratic authority of the public by introducing legislation to jail their politicians for 5 years for whistleblowing. (Seriously? Dear oh dear.)"

      Unbelievable if true.

      Which legislation is this?

      Delete
    2. The draft legislation is the proposed Draft Cybercrime (Jersey) Law 201-

      Whilst it will be protested that this is merely 'standard legislation', rather it must be read in the context of a clearly evidenced knowledge of the anti-democratic abuse the Jersey authorities make of laws such as RIPL and of the DP law. Those existing laws were corruptly abused without remedy to oppress and suppress the then Senator Syvret and his vulnerable constituents including child-abuse victims he was helping. Read in that light the 'creative' application and adaption of the cybercrime law and its misuse against democracy seems boundless. 'Troublesome' politicians and their 'troubling' constituents will have this law abused against them in all kinds of ways so as to thwart effective political opposition, and thwart the common law right of people to communicate in confidence with their elected representatives.

      There are several articles which will enable and allow your politicised and conflicted Attorney General and Bailiff to seize material of all kinds from members of the public and their elected representatives. Parts of the proposed law carry 2 year prison sentences, for example under the computer misuse (Jersey) Law.

      And let us suppose a whistleblowing member of the public has communicated some damning document, revealing public wrongs, to her elected representative? Naturally enough the politician will wish to protect her constituent from exposure. So the Attorney General and the Bailiff order a raid on the politician's home, seize her computer. The computer is 'locked' by a code, and the politician refuses to disclose it, knowing that a campaign of victimization will be pursued against her constituent. The penalty on the politician for refusing to disclose? 5 years in prison.

      There are other parts of the proposed legislation which, in the Jersey context, amount to police-state suppression of the free functioning of democracy. Not least because you do not possess an independent, lawful, objective, non-politicised judiciary, and the proposed law hands what are huge, and frankly unchallengeable, powers to the unelected politicians of Bailiff and Attorney General.

      Not lost on external observers is the clear subtext to present legislative steps being taken on Jersey. What is observed is the consolidation and retrenchment of power into the hands of your traditional elite, and the limiting, intimidating, chilling and controlling of elected politicians. That much is plain from the proposed changes to parliamentary privilege on Jersey. Your politicians will face 6 months in jail for merely 'leaking a States document'. We have to wonder if that will be imposed as a consecutive sentence, to be served after the 5 years for shielding a whistleblowing constituent, perhaps?

      Clearly, the cybercrime law, whilst similar laws exist elsewhere, cannot be regarded as safe in Jersey given the island has none, literally none, of the standard divisions of responsibility, separation of powers, independent regulation, lawful judicial function, independent police force, agencies free of personal confliction, and all the other safeguards which functioning democracies possess.

      After the evidence of the state oppression and suppression of Syvret and his constituents by profoundly conflicted agencies and individuals, Jersey cannot be seen as fit to introduce and operate laws which will then be abused against democracy.

      Delete
  26. Hope this has been shared with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

    ReplyDelete
  27. At 18:57 yesterday reference is made to what should be the 'basic response to a crisis: limit its scale. Limit its time-frame.'

    I have come to follow events on Jersey from afar, as a part of my PhD research on the social psychology of systems (organisations) in crisis. If I let myself I could write you 50 pages of commentary on what is going on in Jersey authority decision making, so I won't.

    But I would like to recommend to your readers that they do some basic reading on phenomena such as 'sunk cost fallacy'. Insofar as your establishment can be viewed as an 'investor', it's 'spend' (by which I mean all of the doubling down on the corruption and cover ups, not all of which are financial investments but rather spends of 'credibility', and 'investments' in very high risk activity) falls into classic 'sunk cost fallacy' territory. This is the theory used by economists to describe what are frequently irrational decisions by individuals and companies to carry on 'spending' on activity which has already proven to be unprofitable, and has caused significant 'losses', the 'thinking' being that 'well, we have 'spent' x million, and it hasn't worked. But if we stop spending on that 'investment' or 'project' all of the x million we've already spent will be wasted. So we may as well carry on that 'investment'. This is described in the literature as 'loss aversion'.

    On viewing the Jersey situation we also see another classic theory confirmed, in that the near complete absence of 'personal responsibility' (direct risk of 'losses' on the actual individual decision makers) greatly amplifies sunk cost fallacy behaviour. It is far easier to carry on with an wholly irrational and failed decision making path if it isn't you, personally, running the risks and taking the 'losses'.

    Thus we produce a component of what will be a complete description of the social psychology of 'the Jersey situation'. People like your leaders have carried on with an irrational 'investment' in cover ups and corruption because a) it is not them personally who are making the 'investment', and b) sunk cost fallacy thinking causes them to experience 'loss aversion' (they already in effect made a vast 'investment' which is a 'loss' because it hasn't worked) so they wrongly respond by pouring more 'investment' into a loosing strategy.

    Another very similar theory describes the phenomena of 'escalation of commitment', which likewise describes irrational decision making by individuals and organisations whereby some prior decision or policy or course of conduct has proven to be a mistake, a failure or actualy disastrous, but because so much commitment has already been made to the wrong path of action, the response of the individual or organisation is to do completely the wrong thing, and 'escalate investment' into what is already an irredeemable failure.

    We observe all kinds of classic organisational dysfunction on the part of Jersey's authorities because of the failure of those authorities to mitigate against irrational decisions driven by 'invested' influential individuals. This is largely why your community is in the crisis it is.

    Frankly, competent organisations know all this stuff, and have done for years. They employ psychologists and sociologists so as to mitigate against the risks of irrational decision making by 'invested' individuals. Interestingly, given Syvret's comments, it is known that even serious organised crime syndicates (high value 'businesses') such as 'mafias' take their 'investments' so seriously, and the minimising the 'risks' they run, that the clever 'firms' employ psychologists. That has been observed taking place by law enforcement agencies as far back as the 1980s.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A comment above at 13:38 on the 8th November 2018, quoted some paragraphs from the statement of a witness to the public inquiry.

    That statement describes the rape committed on the victim by a senior and powerful Jersey mafia lynchpin.

    Operation Kraken considers it important and necessary to the public good that some further quotes from the same witness statement should appear here. So as not to create difficulties for VFC we redact the name of the rapist, but we let it be known that Operation Kraken globally has access to the unredacted statement, save the victim's identity, and the statement will be internationally published in the fullness of time as a necessary step in civil society opposition to international serious organised crime.

    Operation Kraken.

    “Contact with Senator Stuart Syvret

    102. In around November 2008 I made contact with the then Senator Stuart Syvret. I knew he was interested to hear about any abuse cases so I telephoned him and told him about my experience. I was worried, because Police Chief Graham Power had been suspended and I feared my evidence might fall by the wayside. I trusted Graham to do the right thing because my very close friend ******************, had told me that he was a man of great integrity. *************** was the **************** at the time.

    103. Senator Syvret had been the Minister of Health & Social Services and had publicly raised his concerns about the failings of the Child Protection System in Jersey, so I turned to him for independent guidance regarding what to do now my case had gone to the Attorney General and believed not to be robust enough to pursue through the courts.

    104. After disclosing my personal story to Senator Syvret he made enquiries concerning ****************. He discovered another victim of *************** through various contacts he had. This woman disclosed an experience of gross indecent assault to Senator Syvret. However, within a matter of a few months of taking up my concerns he [Syvret] was imprisoned for Data Protection Law issues, so I never got to hear what happened to this woman. I feel I was responsible for Senator Syvret’s imprisonment therefore, even though I had never asked for this line of action to result as a consequence of my disclosure.

    105. I would like it known for the record that I did not know Senator Syvret before this time and so ************* accusation (when interviewed by the police) that I had made up my story because Senator Syvret and I had colluded in a lie to bring him down because of a personal political vendetta on the part of Senator Syvret, was totally without foundation.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus. That is serious. A senior establishment figure being investigated for rape. The suspension of the Police Chief. The political imprisonment of a senior opposition politician who was supporting the alleged victim. Even on the limited facts contained in paragraphs 102 - 105 combined with a generality of knowledge of events in Jersey, this is seismic. Whilst I don't specialise in criminal law I have a general understanding of the field. I'm racking my brain to think of another British policing/political scandal of that magnitude. I can't think of one or anything which gets even close to this. I'm going to take a closer interest in events now. This is huge. Seriously. I'm genuinely shocked. The legal & constitutional implications of the events described are as dramatic as it gets.

      Delete
  29. Your Jersey establishment have really blown it, haven't they?

    This going to get extremely messy. Jersey and London are into unknown territory now. There's never been anything like 'the Jersey situation' before. God only knows what's going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Great timing by Syvret! Last Tuesday he said that major City law firms were basically 'front' organisations for serious organised crime. No doubt the usual suspects scoffed at his remarks. Have any of your readers seen the latest edition of Private Eye? On page 37 is an article which begins by saying the following.

    'As Security Minister Ben Wallace admitted last week to a parliamentary inquiry into financial crime networks, British law firms "are too often woven into their web"'

    Must check the railway time table. I do believe a train is coming :d

    Do your politicians know where they're going to build your second prison?

    ReplyDelete
  31. The authorities in Jersey very much need to establish a line of communication with Mr. Syvret. It is most regrettable, to say the least, that this was not done several years ago. The initiation of the Care Inquiry was the logical place to begin the necessary rapprochement. The provision of legal representation to him would have furnished a means of understanding his position and perhaps of influencing him, not in any improper sense, but through discussions. Nothing is ever lost by talking. It was a most serious mistake by the Jersey authorities to deny to themselves the opportunity to establish a line of communication with Mr. Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As Mr Syvret said in as many words. He was in a no win situation, if he had kept quiet he would have been hammered and because he spoke out he was and still is being hammered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me state that that - categorically - formed no part of my thinking. Ever. At no stage did I consider, or weigh-up, which path might lead to me receiving less of a "hammering".

      I simply did what was right. I did what I was required to by law.

      The notion of doing anything else never crossed my mind.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
    2. Let's be realistic here. If Syvret really wanted to avoid "being hammered" all he had to do was not find out (and worse still make public) that Jersey children were being abused on an industrial scale.

      He would not have been roughed up by the JEPeado, imprisoned and super-injuncted, had his livelihood and career destroyed and his life threatened.

      Despite his young age he was the longest serving states member at the time of his dismissal as Health Minister.

      What are current states members going to do to right the wrongs of the past (those that can be corrected, anyways) and to ensure the safety of present and future generations.

      The proper rule of law is the bedrock of child protection and public safety. Fake CoI's and Commissioners-for-Children are just wasteful follies built on mud.

      They crumble and shift even before the next wave of neglect and criminality hits.
      NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE ….as a certain Health Minister stated when answering a question ……..over a decade ago!!!

      Delete
  33. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman16 November 2018 at 17:00

    Nothing directly to do with this excellent interview with former Senator Syvret. But can I just use your pages - Jersey's most trusted media and reporter of real news - to briefly state how sad Shona and I were to be told about the untimely passing of Deputy Richard Rondel?

    Richard had the good fortune (some might say otherwise!) of being seated between me and Deputy Mike Higgins when he was first elected. As a person Richard was a pleasure to know - warm, funny and with a rare ability to, at least appear, to enjoy the company of all he encountered in the States. Your readers will likely understand when I say that this really was no mean achievement in a place like the States Assembly!

    I actually think Richard may almost have been too nice a person to be in politics - as he once acknowledged to me he really found it very difficult to confront people for fear of upsetting them. In a political arena which is, and likely always will be - often of necessity - highly challenging and even sometimes downright hostile this never can have been easy.

    Regardless of the above Richard made a huge amount of friends through his warmth and good humour. In what is a very difficult time Richard's family can certainly take some huge solace from this. He will be hugely missed.

    Trevor and Shona Pitman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Trevor. Didn't know Richard but he seemed a very likable chap. Politicians do need to be willing to rock the boat though as you rightly say. Look where we are now. No one will say boo to a goose.

      Delete
  34. How great to hear from Big Trev and Shona. What do you think about what Stuart and VFC were discussing in the video? Will you come back and stand for election again? Do you still have your blog? I loved your BTR's they were a must watch and I would very much welcome its return.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two f**king legends. Come back. Don't mess about or think you are not needed. It is dire over here. The States may as well not meet at all. Nothing happens.You would both top the poll + it would be a timely two fingers to the crooks Stuart talks about who treated him and the two of you so disgustingly.

      Delete
    2. I can but only concur 100% in regard to the comments above. Two politicians who acted for the people, without fear or favour. Very much missed for their honesty and forthrightness. However, as with Stuart, would you want to return to that which caused you so much destruction in your lives? I think not, but it is heartening to know their voices are being heard again.

      Delete
    3. Can we really afford the return of Pitman's Bald Truth calling out all and sundry while our leaders are handling the difficult intricacies of Brexit? We need to keep quiet and be respectful to those in London. Pitman would hardly observe that on his blog would he.

      Delete
    4. @14:26
      It seems that some people would use any excuse to avoid confronting corruption and child abuse.

      If you think " our leaders are handling the difficult intricacies of Brexit" you are delusional.

      Can we "really afford" to have a corrupt legal system?

      Were you campaigning for the protection of children and other abused islanders prior to this Brexit nonsense?
      I think not. but do please provide some evidence if you were.

      Delete
    5. @14:26

      The truth is not for sale.

      It is not the responsibility of dissidents to sit down and shut up on the grounds that the truth isn't "respectful" enough to the mafia syndicates in the City and their capos here in Jersey.

      Delete
  35. The truth is not for sale. True. But also true is the truth being held to ransom?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WTF "the truth being held to ransom" is meaningless waffle.

      children being beaten, raped and buggered is not meaningless.

      ......Or perhaps it is to some?

      Delete
  36. One wonders if your legal establishment figures have any inkling as to how much they are hated by their colleagues in London? Even their allies. There was a time when club dinner dates and bonhomie (plus the Big Fact Cheques) eased and distanced all notion of consequence. But now?

    Now former brought agents see the doomed lunacy they were stupid enough to engage in, and curse their fortune for ever aligning with such fools.

    There is going to be a very angry middle Jersey, to say the least, when the hammer drops.

    Is there anyone in the Jersey establishment, who can see looming reality? Who can lead? It would appear not. If there were they would have acted some time ago. The hour is too late.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The hammer is already dropping and middle Jersey is most certainly beginning to feel the pinch.
      Years of austerity was always going to come back and do in the middle class eventually.

      Delete
  37. I’ve noticed that the majority of complainants of corruption, being committed by the government and judicial mafia , talk a good fight ….but when it comes to fighting injustices if you look closely at what they are doing , or not doing as the case maybe , it becomes clear that they either have no intention to do what’s needed when fighting for justice as members of the public , or to exercise their powers as States Members to bring wrong doers to justice.

    This is because their judgements or actions are most likely clouded by their own individual greed, delusional ego , conflict of interest, or being corrupted. It’s very easy for this to happen in so many ways in Jersey.

    I've only seen one person in the States Assembly in the last decade who was never corrupted and has acted in an honourable manner and tried to follow all processes and procedures open to themselves as a States member and abiding by their oath of office to the letter - and that was Stuart Syvret - its just a shame that no one supported him in the ways that were needed...and that includes several people who portray themselves publicly against corruption and cover up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What utter rubbish. Trying to make out that only Stuart ever tried to 'do the right thing' only undermines the truth of the good and brave few who did the same.

      Delete
    2. Its true - show me one States Member who supported him and exercised all the powers open to them under Standing Orders powers so to make sure he had support in the ways he needed it , together with dealing with all the conflicts of interest that were apparent but never dealt with.

      He had too much on his plate , and not one states member stood up to assist him and victims under what would be the legislative intent of their powers as States Member.

      Delete
    3. Anon 11:55, i think you misunderstand as you think im talking about victims of the Child abuse situation - im talking more generally as a society as to why the issues that many people face , in so many areas , with regards to an obstruction of justice and why they are never dealt with under the legislative intent of justice.

      There is a difference between doing the right thing in fact and procedure , and portraying or believing to do the right thing upon their own interpretation . In matters of alleged corruption involving our government, police, prosecutory authorities, and judiciary , all that needs to happen is to make sure that that those who are subject to such allegations are not in a position of administrating , investigating , or reviewing the principal complaints , and that also goes for complainants - its a fundamental aspect of justice and States Members who are portraying to act in the public interest never seem to approach this issue with the attention it deserves under the legislative intent of their oath and powers, albeit when supposedly acting in the public interest.

      If the government, police, prosecutory authorities, and judiciary are committing offences then they will always carry on doing so because of no fear of them not being involved in overseeing or directing their own investigations - To this day ive only ever seen one States Member trying to address these issues and his name was Stuart Syvret .....and i did not see any other states members who did what was needed to support him by exercising the powers open to them under the legislative intent of those particular matters involving child abuse to solely deal with these matters which was obstructing independent investigation and review.

      Delete
    4. We have a real problem fighting injustices and corruption in jersey for several reasons, here are just some of the issues imo – some more obvious than others- some of which can be dealt with and some look very hard to overcome without some sort of education, event, or precedent.

      1. The Island’s Demographic

      1.1 A condition and a set of circumstances of living on a small island

      What I have noticed is that there is natural tendency for many islanders who are not born here , or have no roots here , to shy away from fighting corruption of our government, Police, and Judiciary under what would be normal processes . There always comes a time when decisions need to be made when trying to fight injustices and wrongs carried out by the local government and police.....but those decisions tend to be more difficult with those who have no roots in Jersey – they tend to approach injustices in a half-hearted way and just gradually accept the corruption because of fear of on-going persecution in their private or professional lives - I think it’s a natural reaction which Jersey people would also face if in another jurisdiction under the same circumstances like a small island and constitutional set-up.

      1.2 Many of these persons who are alleged to cover up corruption or benefiting from it can be business leaders , lawyers, civil servants , states of jersey employees etc , police officers and even states members - therefore a small but substantial part of the islands population not only knowingly accepts corruption going on in our government, policing and Judicial mafia, but their everyday working life thrives off it and they have been for decades.

      2. Ministerial Government – this style of government in Jersey facilitates corruption because of there being no separation of the Ministerial legal advisers and the role of prosecutors in the island – Mr Syvret explains this in the video and it’s not difficult to understand.

      3. The Legal Profession – Every Legal firm knows in Jersey that it’s imperative to act in the interest of the corrupt Police and authorities and to never really take them on using the full force of law - not just so they won’t be targeted themselves and it being against their financial interest when representing their own clients in the mafia's courts , but because it’s imperative that they don’t raise Human Rights issues in our courts which could set dangerous precedents for all of the dodgy dealings going on in these law firms and shell companies. It’s a “favour for a favour” profession with the courts and prosecutory authorities and the cover-up of wrongs is seen as an opportunity rather than taking on the mafia.

      The only way to resolve this would be for members of the public to gain legal assistance from lawyers outside of the island …but for that to change a law change is needed.

      Delete
    5. As a London based lawyer currently seconded to the UAE, but still maintaining a weather eye on the unfolding gangster enclave that is Jersey I found this interview hardly reassuring that anything has changed on your little tax Haven. Nevertheless if John Lennon was right that life is what blindsides you on a dull Tuesday afternoon while you are busy making other plans I might suggest that your corrupt overlords might get that blind-sided shock by way of my country's about to explode Brexit calamity. It is certainly long overdue.

      Delete
  38. Good to know there remains some outside lawyers monitoring Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Originally from Surrey , now living in New York. I did however live in Jersey for about 18 months in 2009/10 and have been reading your blogs since then. I wish i knew then what i know now about the place , but in all honesty it probably wouldn't have made a difference , maybe.

    I was working there as an accountant for a UK firm on a standard trust beneficiary case which fully complied with all Jersey Regulation with the firm i was representing . The firm i worked for employed a local lawyer in one the Jerseys biggest firms Carey Olsen and i was to assist him in presenting the civil case from a forensic accounting standpoint as expert evidence . I was working on this case for two years as it involved a very large sum - what was to happen within that two year period in Jersey will stay with me forever.

    Within the first few weeks of me landing in the island I was of the position that my qualified accounting procedures was going to win the case in court as i had never lost a case when providing my very detailed and bespoke reports to UK Courts . I expected an open and shut case as we had clear evidence of what i believe had to be fraudulent activity by the local trust administrator as i could prove it couldn't be anything else. I thought it would take no more than 6 months to get some positive ruling but i started to have concerns with the Law Firm that my clients had employed to present my expert evidence .


    ReplyDelete
  40. I was creating forensic accounting reports that surpassed all regulatory compliance procedures from a Jersey Legal perspective ( as i had read about Jersey court cases involving accounting regulations before i decided to assist in the case.) I knew what was required to assist in my clients representation but i started to get concerned when the Jersey lawyers employed by my clients were refusing to either present the damning evidence before the court or have them checked over by one of the local Jersey Accountants. I made several complaints to the local Bar complaints society but i never received a response . I tried to get help from the courts but they didn't assist in any way . I tried to contact some local Politicians and was given the name of a Senator Heegins i think , he said he was going to help but never returned any of my calls in the last 4 weeks i was there . This was when i started to have serious concerns about teh level of corruption and cover up in the island.

    I went to the police with the complaints about criminal conspiracy an perverting the course of justice as i learnt that one of the respondents had knowledge of specific information that would have been impossible for them to know about unless our lawyer had tipped him off . In the end the Police couldn't do anything as the courts told them it was part of a disclosure process which simply wasn't true and there was never any record of it being so to which teh Police agreed but they still did nothing . I've since learnt that the respondent in the case , the trust administrator who was subject to illegal accounting procedures and professional negligence , has a sister who is a Partner at the Law Firm we employed , im convinced there was foul play but it was impossible for me to prove . In the end my clients convinced their clients , who were two elderly ladies whose mother was actually born on the island before the first world War , to drop the case even though we clearly had all that was required to win the case from a high threshold . It was a very frustrating time for my clients and my family as i was there to win the case with my expensive forensic reports. I must have visited 8 different Law Firms to acquire legal assistance in Jersey but all of them refused to act on behalf of my clients stating conflicts of interest or not having the resources available.

    I have some tips for anyone there and that is to NOT trust any lawyer in Jersey , and if you are forced to need a lawyer to represent you or your clients then make sure you do some homework on them before you do and make sure you go into it under the suspicion that your lawyer is easily corrupted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds about right.

      Did Philip Sinel not have to go to the US courts to get justice for a client in a matter which, under "normal" circumstances, should have been sorted by the Jersey courts.

      Thank you for your detailed account (no pun intended). It clearly sounds irrefutable, based as it is on personal experience.

      Delete
    2. Don't know of any Senator Heegins but we do have an excellent Deputy Higgins who, despite battling illness in recent years, has pretty much been fighting a one man war for accountability in the States, what with the likes of Reform now being quieter than a gaggle of mute church mice since they were given jobs in the Establishment government.

      Delete
  41. Yes i remember now he was a Deputy , was he sick in 2010 ? that might explain things but he seemed fine to me . I did get the impression that he was stringing me along as all he had to do was address the issues with the Minister who was responsible for Justice in the island . He didn't return my phone calls or emails in the last 4-6 weeks and it left me feeling that he spoke a good game but never had an intention to act.

    There was another Politician whose name escapes me , i think it was the Senator i spoke with . I met him in one of the country parishes in the west of the island when he attended with his daughter and wife which was totally innapropiate as we were in email correspondence and he knew the context of matters i wish to discuss with him.

    I knew straight away that he had no intention of helping to address the injustices with the who were politically responsible . I remember the meeting and he didn't come across as a politician either , actually when i look back it was one of the most bizarre meetings ive ever had , prayers to all you islanders if he is still one of your politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  42. When is the next post likely? Live to know when PPC will be making the changes needed to our electoral system after the electoral monitors report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL @13:08 -you mean IF not WHEN, surely?

      You will be stitched up for generations to come.

      Delete
  43. We will continue to be failed by our politicians and our fake democratic system.

    In our everyday lives it is easy to think that corruption is not serious -not deeply damaging to us, our families and the people we care about in the wider community.

    It is always easier to think the comfortable rather than the unthinkable.
    The wake up call came (or should have done!) when Health Minister Syvret and then the police broke the beginnings of the child abuse disaster.
    The child abuse disaster was the first inescapable and widely known result of Jersey's systemic judicial and political corruption and incompetence.

    In normal places the media provides some sort of safety net to inform the population.

    In the UK the TIMES has saved many hundreds of lives -probably thousands.
    Like all media outlets it has owners/controllers so there are some stories it will not print but it did grasp the nettle and print this one:

    https://youtu.be/FdPSAweX85I

    And it kept investigating and printing until all but the witless and the politically possessed were able to accept that there was a problem and also the most basic issues about it's nature.

    In Jersey we don't have the TIMES but only the JEPeado etc so we may as well lube ourselves up.

    Jersey corruption will continue and so will child abuse and the protection of well connected abusers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the video posted @16:08 Andrew Norfolk said that 2 days after the Times blew the story Jack Straw went on Newsnight to say that he was well aware of the problem. This begs the question as to why he did not deal with the issue in the years or decades before.
      This should not surprise us as he was the Home Secretary who ignored and rejected Stuart Syvret's damming evidence on Jersey corruption leaving the Jersey population at risk for further decades.

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBJS3yIXZVk

      He cant even identify the problem correctly. The statistically significant factor is not racial as Jack Straw states -it is religious/cultural not racial.

      Delete
    2. I think this gentleman has come somewhat a little late to the party. The late Marlene Guest was championing the cause of these poor girls a lot earlier.

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
    3. Thank you @19:26
      Regret that I am not familiar with Marlene Guest

      It should be observed the
      the phenomenon of gang grooming could send normal concerned people to the right or even the to the "far right"

      Lack of self control and intellectual rigour cause some identitarians brand conservatives like Mogg and even centrists like May as "far right"
      The far right certainly exists but is a tiny and insignificant portion of the population. Marlene Guest may have done good work but is she out of my comfort zone. A brief google brings up "BNP". Do you have information or a link you can recommend reading?

      Stupidity, callousness, fear and cowardice caused by domination by elements of the "far left" appears to have left victims unprotected and perhaps allowed the gang grooming phenomenon to reach near endemic proportions in some areas.

      This inaction and resultant growth is amongst the stupidity and self absorption of the left that will act as a recruiting beacon of the real far right if the left do not put their house in order and do it fast. Decent people do not tolerate the abuse and rape of children.
      Politically possessed lost causes will rant and deny these basic set of facts.

      Identity politics led to the election of Trump in the US. It can do fat worse this side of the pond.

      Delete
    4. Anon @10:20

      I am afraid to say that I do not have any 'suitable' links with regards to the late Marlene which may not offend one's sensitivities, but please remember that one should put aside any thoughts of concern as to who the messenger is and actually listen to the message being said.

      Marlene first identified the established Rotherham Grooming Scandal as far back as 2004. The even more worrying point is as to how far back this was going on before hand...

      Perhaps this safe link to the Guardian with it's healthy debate in the comments section may be of interest: Guardian 14 Aug 2014

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
    5. Thank you "Beano"
      I think you misjudge me. I am a liberal -a real liberal who believes in free speech, not an identitarian (with a small "i" -identity politics victim of either the left OR the right).
      "Safe spaces" are for children and the subnormal. Incitement to violence is already illegal and any other "hate-speech" or "bad-speech" can be combatted with better-speech imo.
      Rotherham (& the other towns) is just the tip of the iceberg. These are tragedies in themselves but the political danger of allowing these situations to arise and take root is that a good deal of the "bad-speech" is actually correct.

      The established left wing identitarian reaction of shouting "racist" to any discussion is what has caused the tragedy and a justification for good people to move to the right. The right is just a balance for the left but the more that "wacist" is shouted in situations like this the further to the right people will be driven.

      With the exception of Jersey, most western countries have wandered towards the dangerous side of the Left. The consequence of maintaining this path (and particularly it's PC cr@p) will be populations moving into the danger zone of the right. The far left and the far right both include hateful ideologies. The hate of the far left is wrapped in perceived compassion but it is there in equally with the highest piles of dead bodies to the hateful vitriol of it's keyboard warriors

      Marlene Guest does not seem to have a wiki page. I wanted a link which provides balanced information on her and what she has done.

      I agree that one should put aside any thoughts of concern as to who the messenger is and actually listen to the message being said. You will recall the dogpiling and potty-mouthed insults I enjoyed for mentioning that Tommy Robinson claimed to be an early highlighter of Islamic gang grooming due to having a cousin who was a victim.

      Any link (almost) is safe for me to read. The question is -are they safe for you to post?
      Rather; is it safe for VFC's blog? Like myself you are in little actual danger but VFC's threads should imo primarily stay on subject or on child protection rather than too far into off island politics.

      Delete
    6. To my educated friend at 12:23,

      Marlene lost her life to asbestosis in 2015, and as such due to her leaving the Liberal Democratic Party and joining the nameless party who cause offence with just their name, mainstream commentators seem to overlook her life.
      And to get even further into the lesser commentated news, it was Nick Griffin and Simon Darby's attempts in trying to raise the issue of children being abused and thus being threatened with jail that caused Marlene to 'cross the house' as she saw that they were the only ones who appeared to be trying to do something.

      I am afraid, you will have to search on the words "Grooming" and "Rotherham" but in the meantime, I have come across a Dr Angela Heal who looks as though she predates Marlene who was bemused as to why no-one was acting upon her information: BBC South Yorkshire

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
    7. omg Beano, that is shocking. .....I am always grateful for more education -Thank you

      The "no holds barred" 2003 Dr Heal report
      "went not only to police and local government but to safeguarding boards and the national government."

      But 2003 is not as far back as it goes:

      www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer

      "In 2002, when she [Ann Cryer] was Labour MP for Keighley, Cryer became the first public figure in Britain to talk out about allegations of "young Asian lads" grooming underage white girls in the West Yorkshire town. As a result, she was shunned by elements of her party, a panic button was installed in her house and Nick Griffin stood against her for the far-right British National party (BNP), claiming that she was not doing enough to protect young white girls."

      "Ann Cryer wept when she heard the news [August 2014]". "It reduced me to tears, reading all that went on in Rotherham,"

      "The really sad aspect of it is that many of these girls could have been spared. ……….. I simply thought it was a purely local issue that emanated from Keighley … If I'd known, I could have said, 'We need a national policy on this.' I was on the Labour party's national executive at the time, so I would have been in a good position to press for that. But no one talked about it."

      "When Ann Cryer tried to bring abusers in her Yorkshire seat to justice [in 2002], she was shunned by police, social services and imams"

      Delete
    8. Can anyone comprehend the power being wielded under the cover of political correctness (AKA the fake virtue of fake compassion)

      "a panic button was installed in her house"
      This is a Labour MP on the national executive FFS

      I just played the video/audio off your www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-32586558 link

      Reports daily gang rape, threats and torture but the child has to endure it for two years! How did she survive?

      Delete
    9. I read the full article at
      www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer

      [The article includes some interesting snippets. e.g:]
      "Last week, Denis MacShane, the former MP for Rotherham, admitted he might have not done enough about child sexual exploitation by Asian men in his constituency because he was a "Guardian-reading liberal leftie". "

      [and errrr….. "journalism":]

      "Yet that's exactly what happened to Cryer [being branded a racist], an insult compounded when Griffin decided to contest her seat in the 2005 general election for the BNP. "His reason for challenging me: 'She didn't do enough to protect those white girls'," remembered Cryer. "That was nonsense. I'd almost killed myself trying to protect them." Griffin lost, polling just 9.2% of the votes to Cryer's 44.7%, but police were worried enough about Cryer's safety to install a panic button with a direct line to Shipley police station."

      [Now the Gardian-mindset is identified as a causal facet to inaction in 2003 but reading the 2014 paragraph above you would get the impression that Ann Cryer needed protecting from BNP neo-fascists, whereas ........
      www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-region/west-yorkshire-and-the-dales/bradford/heartbreak-of-mp-s-lone-battle-to-tackle-sex-abuse-in-bradford-1-8285026
      ...…..local reporting suggests that the danger of neo-fascist behaviour was from the left:

      " Ridiculed, branded a racist, a liar and a fantasist, the then-Keighley MP was forced to install a panic button in her own home as she became a target herself."
      [So the PC Guardian is still misreporting in 2014. -wasn't the actual danger from far-left-neo-fascism or islamo-fascism?

      This is the paper which famously concluded that the solution for areas feeling cultural strain due to high immigration was in fact (by it's analysis of the data) errr …….more immigration!

      It could be such a good paper but many of it's readers have no defence against the more dangerous side of the uber PC ideology it pedals.

      Delete
  44. The laughably claimed 'centre' such as Blair, Cameron represented and the inept, washed up Lib-Dems have some pretty unpalatable 'values' at their heart too as we should never forget. And Jersey, cover up capital of the western world prides itself on its allegedly 'centrism'. I think it is truer to say that wherever you go it really all comes down to the quality and bravery of individuals. Jersey surely shows this admirably too with the likes of Stuart, Trevor and Shona, Bob Hill and Mike Higgins etc.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Next we'll be seeing claims Jersey stalwarts Ted Heath and Jimmy Savile were secretly Guardian (interestingly in a recent large scale European survey the most publically trusted British newspaper) reading liberal lefties!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you @11:57 for your suggestion that Ted Heath and Jimmy Savile were Guardian readers but I don't think the idea has much merit.

      You rather miss the point.
      Political correctness and the fear of being branded a racist is one of the main things which protected the predominantly Muslem rape gangs allowing the problem to get further out of control and at least a further two generations of children to be terribly abused and damaged and in many cases done to death. There are differences of opinion but the official reports and the people on the ground state this as a fact. We should all find this fact uncomfortable and upsetting.

      These are not "claims" they are *facts* -insofar as anything deserves the name.

      I never suggested that being a Guardian readers makes a person more likely to be an abuser (or more particularly a rape gang abuser). However, as stated above, it is the Guardianesque mindset which protected the rape gang s and left their victims unprotected.

      Speaking of leaving these children unprotected the Guardian deserves a particular mention -In her write up on her 2003 whistleblowing Ann Cryer details the "help" she received from the Guardian:
      "At last, people were listening. It got an investigation into the mothers’ claims started, and I then worked with the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, on legislation that would make grooming a specific offence.
      Support was not forthcoming from all quarters. I couldn’t get The Guardian interested. Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness."

      The Guardian would be quite a good paper if it did not allow itself to fall into the unreal rabbit holes of Political Correctness and Identity Politics.

      The entire press is generally awful in the quality and balance of it's reporting but few can compare to our JEPeado which is balls deep in complicity and cover up.

      Delete
    2. By general standards, and accepting your principle points, the Guardian is an excellent newspaper, at least in comparison to the likes of the Daily Mail and Jersey's finest the JEP cover-up. So I see both of your points. Personally I prefer the Morning Star and Daily Worker. No big advertisers to appease.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your civil reply @11.11
      I think one of the Daily Mail's most shameful moments was when it allowed career paedophile apologist David Rose to undermine the Harper / Power child abuse investigation.
      It was later revealed that this PR hatchet-job was in association with Jersey's "rent-boy" policeman Mick Gradwell.

      The Daily Mail's high point is probably it's 1997 front page which took an unprecedented risk by naming the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence.
      Ironically the Mail's bravery on that story was perhaps instrumental in the fallout 'flipping the script' and potentially allowing 'protected groups' to engage in actions without consequences (consequences for themselves, not the victims)

      Law and justice must apply to all the same. PC blinkering has got gang grooming to where it is now and it will take years (decades possibly) of concerted action to stamp it out.
      The toleration of Sharia enclaves is the thin end of the next divisive wedge.

      Interestingly the previous Ann Cryer quote
      "At last, people were listening. It got an investigation into the mothers’ claims started, and I then worked with the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, on legislation that would make grooming a specific offence.
      Support was not forthcoming from all quarters. I couldn’t get The Guardian interested. Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness."
      actually came form her own article in the Mail:
      www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4780326/Branded-racist-trying-save-girls-vile-abusers.html

      I detect a wicked sense of humour in that lady. What I call the Hard Left, she refers to as the Floppy Left.
      What does she know hat I don't?

      For it's faults the Daily Mail is probably something of a (albeit often rather non-cerebral) balancing force to the excesses of what is wrongly called liberalism.

      Free expression is the liberty on which all other liberties are based.

      Feel free to reference us any great articles by the Morning Star and the Daily Worker.
      (I'm serious)

      Delete
    4. It comes to something when the supposed big circulation guardians of truth and justice media have to be waded through with wellies and a bucket trying to sift truth from shite. A few years back I recall an excellent article turning up in the Big Issue In The North mag set up to help the struggling and homeless. Much to my surprise, I was in that neck of the woods buying a consignment of pool tables for any interested in trivia,this article did a very good take on the shocking court abuse of the Pitmans. If marginally resourced journals like that can carry out important investigative journalism you really don't have to ask why most MSM don't.

      Delete
  46. Anonymous @ 11.33

    I would include Voice in that list. He has kept the pot on the boil and has consistently offered others a fair, and sometimes overgenerous, platform which is denied them by the so-called MSM.

    What he does requires a lot of dedication and effort and is not without its dangers to him personally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite agree. I was just thinking of Jersey politicians. Team Voice are brilliant beyond doubt, likewise Power and Harper.

      Delete
  47. Can anyone explain why Bailiff William Bailhache has not/is not being investigated for his now provenly fake statements about Mr K having always had very positive supervision reports? Why ever would our local mainstream media not report this hugely important and disturbing story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Questions (not asked by MSM) still remain regarding William Bailhache.

      Delete
    2. Anon 12.11 - Because he is untouchable and runs the police with the AG .....hope that helps. The Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff are never subject to criminal investigations , and never will be , thats why they act the way they do.

      Delete
  48. Funny how this Government says its putting Children first from now on, whilst Schools put emergency contingency plans into place for Teacher Assistant Strikes on Friday.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Interesting, and thought provoking Blog from TOM GRUCHY.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Getting close to home for some. Queen's chauffeur

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Buckingham Palace refused to comment"

      Delete
    2. In spite of the corruption, spite of the decades of state sponsored child abuse, spite of the illegality the office of the monarch mounted first one Bailhache on us, and then mounted the other Bailhache upon us.
      Criminal appointments via the Monarch's Letters Patent.

      Thank you ma'am, but why have you soiled yourself in this way?

      Will her slack jawed, adulterous son be any better?

      He can't fail his subjects any worse.

      Delete
  51. Happy Christmas to all at the Voice. Hopefully we might get a new post after Christmas? What about asking something like "why don't States Member lodge propositions anymore in line with what they told us at the election?"

    ReplyDelete
  52. A belated Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year to you and yours. Thank you for your posts and continued dedication for your excellent blog.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Excellent revealing Blog Posting from Polo HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Excellent question to the Rag from Polo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 17:09

      Assume this is what you mean:

      Link

      Couldn't resist it.

      Delete
  55. It has to be indicative of just what a catastrophic screw up your attempted public inquiry was, when even Jersey lawyers-Jersey Layers!!!-write in a formal paper that it was wrong to prevent Syvret from giving evidence by failing to provide him with legal representation.

    The paper was drawn to my attention a few days ago by a City friend and colleague. As she wryly observed of the authors, 'that's their cards marked. Unless of course the rest of the Jersey Bar have at last woken up and realised the maintenance of their industry is of greater importance than the illegal shielding of criminals and idiots.'

    ReplyDelete
  56. Stuart Syvret made some very cryptic remarks in a tweet the other day. He wrote that 'The Jersey child-abuse "public-inquiry" was - plainly - a criminal enterprise, in-and-of-itself. Operation Kraken long ago had enough knowledge to bait Jersey's UK mafia "shield". It did so on 3rd July 2017. Sure enough, the trap was sprung, 25th July 2017. Boom. No hiding place'.

    Most of that is self explanatory. But does anyone know what he's referring to in those 2 dates, and 'trap'? I'm not trolling or anything I'm genuinely interested. If it means we might one day get Jersey's corruption cleaned up I'm all for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too noted that tweet, and as observed, whilst we are all aware of most of what it describes already, some of it is a little cryptic. However, for what it's worth I would speculate that it is something to do with your public inquiry, as the inquiry report was published on 3rd July 2017. As to the second date, I cannot think of anything of significance yet in the public domain. All I can suggest is that, as Syvret is a strategic player of 'the long game', it will involve something significant and long term.

      Delete
  57. Stuart Syvret is very much. Waiting in the wings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I strongly suspect that Syvret is not 'waiting'. Rather, he and allies are working on various issues behind the scenes. I am not certain that your establishment, even now, fully appreciate the gravity of their situation. I have clients who use Jersey and I have long been aghast at the stupidity and incompetence of your authorities. I am 'this close' to advising my clients, many of who have certain sensitivities and requirements of discretion, that I should move their business elsewhere. Should I do so it will not be because Syvret is 'the problem' rather it will be because the island has failed to protect itself from the corrupt, the incompetent and the conflicted. The farcical manner in which your public inquiry was run was just astonishing. Astonishing. I do not know what the lawyers who wrote the paper-reforming lawyers I imagine-expect to achieve, but as a seasoned observer of events I most strongly suspect it's going to take something a good deal more resolute towards finally dealing with the criminals and incompetents than a patronising pat on the head for Stuart Syvret. And who could reasonably expect him to be pacified in such manner? Clearly, nothing less than 'red meat' is going to sate this man. The Jersey establishment have very little time left, if any, to bring about the requisite slaughter.

      Delete
    2. I commented on 14th November 2018 at 15.04 on the apparent and perplexing failure of the Jersey authorities, establishment if you will, to employ and act upon widely available social psychological/personal psychological, sociological expertise when responding to aspects of the 'Jersey Situation'. On that occasion I wrote of the dangers and risks posed to organisations by 'sunk cost fallacy' thinking, and the huge generation and amplification of risk factors faced by organisations which fail to defend themselves from the dangers of failed and irrational decision making by individuals who are personally 'invested' in a policy which has already proven disastrous.

      On the available evidence, that is, observing the responses and conducts of the Jersey authorities and their supporters over some years (this is the core of my PhD work) they have simply not taken the necessary sociological / psychosocial advice, of if they have done, they have chosen to ignore its main recommendations.

      No competent organization, no competent company answerable to shareholders would have acted as erroneously as the Jersey establishment has done and continues to. If we were considering a competent organisation, dealing with a major controversy which broke out in July 2007 as the Jersey child abuse scandal did, the controversy would have been effectively 'over' with maybe the odd few bits of dust waiting to settle, within 2 years, at the most. So things would have been dealt with by July 2009. Well managed organisations would have ensured that outcome by assessing the events, assessing the sociopsychological aspects of key involved figures and the nature of their respective 'invested' circumstances. The competent organization would have responded appropriately to that expert assessment with the relevant tranches of early retirements, sackings, prosecutions, and in the case of the obvious 'good' players, promotions or some other appropriate reward. The organization would have demonstrated it ability and willingness to deal with problems, and would have rid itself of the risks posed by the toxic misfeasant or malfeasant individuals.

      Fascinatingly the Jersey authorities continue to do the opposite, and thus remain mired in a carcinogenic scandal which grows & grows.

      This is why I am so very curious to see how this plays out? At the moment I genuinely cannot see a way in which Jersey survives this (in its present incarnation). The situation it has placed itself in really is 'that bad', but even yet there's no sign of the necessary reversal of policy. You are still wrongly marginalising and harassing the good and competent people, people who acted honestly, and still attempting to maintain the reputations, careers, and in some cases liberty, of people who are inadequate and who are massive and damaging burdens for your 'organization' to carry and to protect. Absolutely no large, competent organization would act as Jersey has done. None.

      I study this stuff. It is my expertise. Colleagues I discuss it with are in agreement with me. Assessing Syvret for example, the man is an empath, a belligerent, and a deep thinker. Syvret is obviously a man of formidable qualities and character. By way of contrast, several of your main establishment people??? I won't make difficulties for VFC by naming them, but to describe the obvious players as personally inadequate, weak, sociopathic, incompetent, ignorant and archetypal 'toxics', pretty much guaranteed to bring chaos and harm to any organisation they work in, is an understatement.

      My academic wager? Jersey continues to sink for as long as it continues to defy what are the industry-standard established & effective methodologies of socio-psychological management.

      Delete
    3. @15:13
      Thank you for your rather specialist observations. I trust that you will be forwarding your work to VFC, Stuart etc. when your PHD is completed. Rest assured that your observations do not go over the heads of readers on this site.

      From your 14 November comment:
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2018/11/stuart-syvret-and-vfc-discuss-jersey.html?showComment=1542207897988#c4952229495744043359

      "On viewing the Jersey situation we also see another classic theory confirmed, in that the near complete absence of 'personal responsibility' (direct risk of 'losses' on the actual individual decision makers) greatly amplifies sunk cost fallacy behaviour. It is far easier to carry on with an wholly irrational and failed decision making path if it isn't you, personally, running the risks and taking the 'losses'."

      This is one of your more basic observations but it may be one of the more important. In private practice these idiots would have been flushed out over a decade ago (as you also observe) and either put out to grass or prosecuted.
      The difference being that the "Jersey Situation" idiots include those at the very top of the real government which operates behind and above Jersey's supposedly elected government.
      (The lack of separation of powers ensures that this continues)
      These upper echelon idiots cannot be ousted and continue to control and affect all below them while being able to errr…… 'invest', or rather squander the entire resources of a small but rich state. -virtually bottomless access to other people' money.
      It is the inmates Jersey's orphanages who are physically abused and raped, but every man woman and child of the island will continue to be screwed by these people. Many do not even realise but the Rohypnol is slowly being flushed out of Jersey's taxpayers by events such as the multi million £ costs of the family X case.

      I digress.
      What I was really wanting to ask you @15:13 is the overlap between the "Jersey Situation" and the "UK Situation".
      Over the last decade or more the UK has been made aware of the Jersey Situation in it's starkest known details but has proceeded to continue the succession by err...… Jersey's Royle Family and other failed and compromised individuals
      -when a rational oversight would have brought in new and untainted management of the City of London's back orifice.

      To what extent could the UK's failure to rescue Jersey be due to your 'sunk cost fallacy' ?
      Why has Jersey's madness infected the UK

      My disturbing suspicion is that it might have more to do with badness madness.

      I fear that the UK's ongoing failure to protect Jersey's people cannot be attributed significantly to the 'sunk cost fallacy'. There has been a deal of trafficking of children between UK and Jersey and also some paedo sex-tourism to the island by allegedly high ranking UK individuals.

      The "logic" of the UK's support for Jersey cover up may be "MAD"
      MAD …...as in Mutually Assured Destruction.

      In short, the Jersey abusers and shysters have state shaking dirt on some of the UK's high ranking people and institutions.

      What would it take?
      An ex prime minister, or a couple of mid or high ranking royals?

      There must be an explanation for the UK's support for the "Jersey Situation".

      Delete
  58. What odds on Deputies Only 9 Nominations Wickenden and Tango Raymond being let off Scot free after breaking election laws? What a difference this would be if they were called Pitman or Syvret! And who is the third offender?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anybody heard from Trevor Pitman and is he standing in the by-election?

      Delete
    2. Think Big Trev and Shona are still illegally barred following their stitch up by the Birt/Jurat Le Breton court rigging that allowed the Old Boys Network to steal their seats. Weren't Labey's PPC meant to be righting this travesty regardless? Wickenden and Raymond are pants.

      Delete
    3. Under the law if the two Deputies are found guilty they must lose their seats. That won't happen and which point the Pitman's should sue.

      Delete
  59. Trev may not be standing but sources tell me Andy Pandy Lewis is considering a come back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In No 3/4 surely? That snake would not get in in No 1.

      Delete
  60. The lawyers comments to JEP on behalf of Wick and 'Our island' about their outrage at fair elections being denied are jaw-dropping. Couple of useless poodles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both are certainly useless and in Wickenden's case he has history of a total disregard for election law. Luckily for him his being an Establishment poodle the judiciary have already also disregarded the law following his first election to let him keep his seat. The court will do so again.

      Delete
  61. The original story seems to have run its course. Not surprising given how long it has been up. If nothing new is in the pipeline how about a post on this latest example of the Jersey Way? It seems readers are predicting a bending of the law to ensure the two Deputies retain their seats regardless. Perhaps a good line of debate for Voice to instigate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would support the above.

      According to the Filthy Rag the Advocate representing Raymand and Wickenden is stressing what he calls the 'disproportionate' penalty of the two losing their seats if found guilty.

      What I would like to know and hope some brave States Member will ask is why did I lose my best St Helier district two Deputy, Shona Pitman, just because she and her husband were made bankrupt and in the most dubious of circumstances?

      Delete
    2. Bored of politics 20197 January 2019 at 11:18

      An on-line debate as to why non-ministerial propositions seem to have all but vanished with this States and their one morning sittings would be another good topic.

      Delete
  62. Don't have any faith in any of the bunch putting themselves forward for the St. Helier 3 &4 by-election. No disrespect either to Anthonh Lewis but given his unfortunate condition how could he adequately represent people in debate or meetings? Most of our politicians currently can barely make a coherent speech. For the undoubtedly resilient Mr Lewis this would be impossible surely. How would the system accommodate him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you ever listened to a Gerrient Jennings "speech"?

      Delete
  63. Because of the quite inarguable clarity of the election rules on expenses (rightly or wrongly) Jersey's Royal Court should find themselves in a right pickle here.

    They should beyond dispute now have to remove two of their boys from office.

    Fortunately this reality is negated by the truth that without fear of UK intervention the Royal Court can, and has on Manu oçcassion, simply make up the 'law' as and when it suits.

    The most damning aspect of all I would venture is that no one of any official prominence will day a dicky bird against such legal manipulation.

    At least going on the Pitmans debacle and the use of Data Protection Law against Syvret this is what one must conclude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reviewing the relevant law, I notice that there appears to be one potential avenue for the avoidance of liability: the declaration must be provided “on a form supplied by the Greffier”. This may well imply a duty on the Greffier to have supplied the form at the time of, or shortly after the election. It is doubtful whether the Greffier could prove he supplied forms to those allegedly in contravention of this provision of law. Article 15 provides the defence of a “reasonable excuse”.

      Delete
    2. ‘JUDGES’-LIFEBELTS’ AND ‘JUDGES’-RESCUE-HELICOPTERS’

      Part 1

      Reading the comment at 23:52 we can see we're being 'softened-up' for the inevitable exculpation of the two Jersey oligarchy deputies. The argument advanced at 23:52 represents a classic manoeuvre by lawyers who understand the politics of the judiciary, and who know that judges are not referees, impartial, neutral, but rather goalkeepers, for the team of power & money. 90% of British judges will always want to find for the establishment side. Especially in politically sensitive cases. But the more brazen their bias, the bias of the court, the more intensely the judge needs, absolutely needs, the pro-establishment side to offer-up something the judge can cling to. The judge must be given a fig-leaf. The more political the expectation on their shoulders, the more desperately they need to be thrown a life-belt. Lawyers who appear on the side of establishment interests, or big money, know they are always pushing at an open door. The only meaningful task of such lawyers is to deliver to the judge a faintly credible set of facts and legal arguments which the judge can then cite as the reason for finding for their client. So biased and structurally political are the judiciary in Jersey it actually takes an effort of will to cock this up and fail to provide the expected 'cover' for the judge's partiality. Let me put it this way, this case is still being debated here as though the decision as to the case’s outcome was not already determined. It is. Or will be before the court hearing. No serious legal case, particularly in Jersey, especially those with political implications, goes to final trial without the eventual outcome already having been thrashed-out and negotiated by the parties behind the scenes, and agreed by judicial Greffe staff (the people who actually write 95% of Royal Court rulings, which are then handed to the judge to sign. You didn't seriously think judges actually write their own findings and reasonings did you?) The events which happen in public in the court-room itself are mere pantomime; an act of theatre.

      The argument offered at 23:52 is a useful transient example of 'judges-lifebelt', through which we can develop a better understanding of the politics of the judiciary.

      The outcome foreshadowed by the 23:52 comment has almost certainly been placed here by lawyers or spin-doctors for the establishment side. (As an aside, there's very little demarcation in truth between lawyers and spin-doctors when mobilized by money and power. In major cases, they always work together. Spin-doctors will advise the lawyers on what outcome their client needs, the lawyers sketch to what extent publicly credible 'judges-lifebelts' can be delivered to the court and the judge thus reassured the findings they sign won't be held up to public ridicule, or worse.) There are three components to the comment. The first is the citing of the 'judge's-lifebelt' - the fig-leaf of 'on a form provided by the Greffier'. This can now be written-up by Judicial Greffe clerks and safely be given to the judge to sign. The second component, and it is frankly incompetent of those who were briefed to 'prepare' public acceptance of the inevitable, is where the extraordinary and wholly implausible suggestion is made that 'it is doubtful whether the Greffier could prove he supplied the forms to those allegedly in contravention of this provision of law.'

      Why is it 'doubtful'?.......

      ....continued below....

      Delete
    3. ‘JUDGES’-LIFEBELTS’ AND ‘JUDGES’-RESCUE-HELICOPTERS’

      Part 2

      ....continued from above....

      It is not 'doubtful'. On the contrary, it would be extraordinary and astonishing if the Greffier did not have a record of the issuing of the relevant notices and forms to the candidates. These will almost certainly have been e-mailed (and probably backed-up by paper posted documents.) This suggestion reveals the establishment side to be desperately clutching at straws. If this argument ends up prevailing in the findings, then the most serious suspicions will fall upon the Greffier.

      The third really interesting component in the comment, and in many ways it is the most significant, is the citing of the Article 15 defence of 'reasonable excuse'. That provision, many variants of which appear in different legislation, is an example of what happens when your polity becomes run by large law firms, and your 'democracy' is merely an empty cosmetic thing. Because the political and corrupt decisions of your courts long-since became literally 'incredible' and even though you have an obedient media and legislature, none of which will ever scrutinise obviously absurd 'judgments' - no matter how pitiful and obvious the 'judge's-lifebelt' involved - the legal syndicates which run Jersey majorly invest in 'judge's-rescue-helicopter' clauses, such as 'reasonable excuse'.

      There we have it. The power and freedom of your judges to enjoy the ultimate flexibility to sign findings for their preferred side, the side of money and power, without even having to be thrown a case & fact specific judge's lifebelt!

      'My toaster caught fire'. 'The post office was shut'. 'My wife wasn't feeling well'. 'The dog ate my homework'.

      ‘Oh you poor chap. I find ‘reasonable excuse’. Here, have your expensive lawyers’ £150,000 fees awarded as costs against the public.’

      A comment below suggests that Jersey’s judiciary is the most political and corrupt to be found in any Western democracy. Sadly that appears to be the case. The inclusion of ‘magic-wand’ provisions such as ‘reasonable excuse’ by which a judge can basically sign whatever ‘finding’ is most desired by the forces of power and money – no matter that the mobilising and citing of such clause fundamentally equates to a sabotage of the primary purpose of the legislation – could have been expressly designed in order to foster the corruption of judicial processes.

      Any legislation which conveys a plain and obvious meaning and purpose on its face – but which then has a discrete ‘off-switch’ built into it – an ‘off-switch’ which will obviously only ever be available to, and granted to, the side of money and power – is designed to co-opt and mobilise judicial processes and transform them into a negotiable and tradable commodity in political economy.

      And indeed, as events on Jersey so clearly evidence, that is indeed what has happened. The abundance of ‘judge’s-lifebelts’ and legislative ‘judge’s-rescue-helicopters’ renders the concept of impartial, functioning law on Jersey a chimera. Your courts and your legislation are transparently the deep product of an entrenched all-powerful narrow establishment who want the ‘respectability’ of laws – but which also want that ultimate confidence that they themselves have an ‘escape-hatch’ available to them and theirs; the existence of the judge’s-rescue-helicopter – by which ultimate insurance-policy they can always wriggle out from under the laws by which they control everyone else.

      Delete
  64. Time for a new post if one has the time. Clearly lots to discus in our lovely island!

    ReplyDelete
  65. If not a single States Member lodges a question about both this for next week and the wider issue should these lazy, contemptuous Deputies get let off - not least why were the Pitmans deprived of their seats on the basis of a dodgy court ruling wholly outside of political relevance - then we really should shut the States down and become an official dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I wish Stuart could stand for election in one of these coming by-elections. But I know that he's 'legally' barred just like Trevor and Shona. This island likes to portray itself in some kind of 'heroic' light for having suffered Nazi occupation. But how come in 2019 I can't vote for the people I want to vote for? How come the only 3 serious elected opponents of the Jersey establishment have been driven out of politics and off our list of democratic choices? How come we don't have a right to vote for the only 3 elected members who seriously fought against the years and years of child abuse cover up by our 'bosses'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you have no faith in Senator Sam Mezec then.

      Delete
    2. No, I don't have any faith in Sam Mezec actually. I can think of loads of serious political issues which he should have been raising in the States but he hasn't done. His career seems a bit tokenistic, a bit anything for a quiet life tbh. But that question is irrelevant. The fact is I want to be able to vote for who I want to vote for. I'm not settling for the establishment to say 'you cant vote for the Pitmans or for Syvret, but look, instead we have an amiable token lefty who doesn't make noise or rock the boat and he has our approval unlike those troublemakers. You can vote for Sam instead.'

      GTFOOH!

      Delete
  67. After all the things the Pitmans and Stuart Syvret have said about our constitution, how could they ever stand and then swear the Oath of Office?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Today at 10.40 a.m. 'The original story seems to have run its course. Not surprising given how long it has been up. If nothing new is in the pipeline how about a post on this latest example of the Jersey Way?'

    Jersey mafia spin doctors still being as transparent and incompetent as ever I see.

    This interview is not a 'story'. 'Story' is an obsolete trope of mainstream media. What this post is, is living current history. We are experiencing an era of an entirely changed social dialogue and historiography. Simple 'stories', the product of heritage media, were obsolete in the 20th century, never mind now. That 'here today gone tomorrow' ephemera which was the usual pulp of the press, is worse than redundant now. But naturally the hacks and the spindoctors and their paymasters want to divert and distract us.

    Any comments at all, no matter on Instagram, Snapchat, Whatsapp, especially the dinosaur Facebook & even more ancient msm, which want to 'hustle' us on, and make us forget, move on move on move on, to the next shallow bullshit 'story' then the next, in the hope of diverting us from serious evidenced history, are the work of mafia thugs.

    In Jersey you are faced with what has been called 'the Jersey situation'. Which is an actual meltdown of a polity. An evidenced worse than Watergate wholesale collapse in the rule of law. In the British Isles.

    Of course, of course, their spivs would like you to gloat, be diverted, forget about the real picture, with a little schadenfreude at the misfortune of a couple of their minor sacrificial dopes. Look, as is already a widely known fact by those with access to 'strategic planning advice', let's call it that, certain infamous low grade scum, agents of the Jersey mafia, are going down. We will all rightly take the expected satisfaction from those events. But they're diversionary.

    We mustn't be distracted by the occasional bread and circuses sacrifice of the worthless and disposable, low grade cheap diversions served up for us by the mafia.

    We have no objective other than the serpents' heads. And we all know who they are.

    So let us not get carried away with enthusiastic speculations concerning the possibility that your court might finally and at last feel compelled to stop shielding a few of their petty criminal allies.

    Instead, let's focus on the evidenced and immutable fact that, no matter what its decision, your judicial system is structurally incapable, in any lawful manner, of adjudicating on the question. Your judiciary are openly the most co-opted and criminalised in any Western jurisdiction, and as such, is a threat to the very rule of law and stability of Western democracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:40 did ring a couple of alarm bells but it is entirely possible that it was a genuine comment in good faith. Some people may fail to appreciate the big picture of the "Jersey Situation" and be content to pass the time with the minutiae. Fortunately this blog can cater for both and VFC knows better than to be pressured into "a new post", whether or not the request is genuine or nefarious.

      Whatever......

      22:39 is right to be suspicious. I would contend that 22:10 and 22:15 are from the "usual source" diversionary Paedo-Protecting nonsense:
      22:10 "So you have no faith in Senator Sam Mezec then."
      22:15 "After all the things the Pitmans and Stuart Syvret have said about our constitution, how could they ever stand and then swear the Oath of Office?"

      Oh bless! -Is that you Jon?

      Whatever...….


      One of the most dubious aspects of 10:40s comment is the assertion that the "story"...…. "seems to have run its course" -when evidently it has not, with commnets coming thick and fast and with the excellent observations of PHD researcher
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2018/11/stuart-syvret-and-vfc-discuss-jersey.html?showComment=1546614784213#c6135899092864475677
      still fresh and largely unanswered.


      So why did the UK's throw it's support behind maintaining the "Jersey Situation" when this can only damage the UK and the monarchy by virtue of it's "Royal Appointments" ?????

      Delete
  69. Interesting point about getting out of jail free by the pair blaming it on the Greffier. Crazy, laughable but could well happen. This, my friends, is Jersey.

    As to the question put about how could the Pitmans or Syvret swear the oath after saying all the things they have said about the constitution, surely telling the truth is still a good quality? At least in a normal society.

    Regardless of this as I think it wasr Pitman once said, the constitutional should be re-written anyway so people swore allegence to those who elected them - the people. Not some distant, uncaring and effectively colluding monarch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true about our great Queen. As they asked in the Life of Brian, what have the Windsors ever done for us?

      Delete
  70. VFC, can I recommend a two part comment left in answer to an earlier post? Beginning at 15.17 above, the comment is called ‘JUDGES’-LIFEBELTS’ AND ‘JUDGES’-RESCUE-HELICOPTERS’.

    It is important and some readers may miss seeing it. Can it be placed down here as a fresh comments?

    ReplyDelete
  71. You are able to copy and paste them and submit them as fresh comments if you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  72. ‘JUDGES’-LIFEBELTS’ AND ‘JUDGES’-RESCUE-HELICOPTERS’

    Part 1

    Reading the comment at 23:52 we can see we're being 'softened-up' for the inevitable exculpation of the two Jersey oligarchy deputies. The argument advanced at 23:52 represents a classic manoeuvre by lawyers who understand the politics of the judiciary, and who know that judges are not referees, impartial, neutral, but rather goalkeepers, for the team of power & money. 90% of British judges will always want to find for the establishment side. Especially in politically sensitive cases. But the more brazen their bias, the bias of the court, the more intensely the judge needs, absolutely needs, the pro-establishment side to offer-up something the judge can cling to. The judge must be given a fig-leaf. The more political the expectation on their shoulders, the more desperately they need to be thrown a life-belt. Lawyers who appear on the side of establishment interests, or big money, know they are always pushing at an open door. The only meaningful task of such lawyers is to deliver to the judge a faintly credible set of facts and legal arguments which the judge can then cite as the reason for finding for their client. So biased and structurally political are the judiciary in Jersey it actually takes an effort of will to cock this up and fail to provide the expected 'cover' for the judge's partiality. Let me put it this way, this case is still being debated here as though the decision as to the case’s outcome was not already determined. It is. Or will be before the court hearing. No serious legal case, particularly in Jersey, especially those with political implications, goes to final trial without the eventual outcome already having been thrashed-out and negotiated by the parties behind the scenes, and agreed by judicial Greffe staff (the people who actually write 95% of Royal Court rulings, which are then handed to the judge to sign. You didn't seriously think judges actually write their own findings and reasonings did you?) The events which happen in public in the court-room itself are mere pantomime; an act of theatre.

    The argument offered at 23:52 is a useful transient example of 'judges-lifebelt', through which we can develop a better understanding of the politics of the judiciary.

    The outcome foreshadowed by the 23:52 comment has almost certainly been placed here by lawyers or spin-doctors for the establishment side. (As an aside, there's very little demarcation in truth between lawyers and spin-doctors when mobilized by money and power. In major cases, they always work together. Spin-doctors will advise the lawyers on what outcome their client needs, the lawyers sketch to what extent publicly credible 'judges-lifebelts' can be delivered to the court and the judge thus reassured the findings they sign won't be held up to public ridicule, or worse.) There are three components to the comment. The first is the citing of the 'judge's-lifebelt' - the fig-leaf of 'on a form provided by the Greffier'. This can now be written-up by Judicial Greffe clerks and safely be given to the judge to sign. The second component, and it is frankly incompetent of those who were briefed to 'prepare' public acceptance of the inevitable, is where the extraordinary and wholly implausible suggestion is made that 'it is doubtful whether the Greffier could prove he supplied the forms to those allegedly in contravention of this provision of law.'

    Why is it 'doubtful'?.......

    ....continued below....

    ReplyDelete
  73. ‘JUDGES’-LIFEBELTS’ AND ‘JUDGES’-RESCUE-HELICOPTERS’

    Part 2

    ....continued from above....

    It is not 'doubtful'. On the contrary, it would be extraordinary and astonishing if the Greffier did not have a record of the issuing of the relevant notices and forms to the candidates. These will almost certainly have been e-mailed (and probably backed-up by paper posted documents.) This suggestion reveals the establishment side to be desperately clutching at straws. If this argument ends up prevailing in the findings, then the most serious suspicions will fall upon the Greffier.

    The third really interesting component in the comment, and in many ways it is the most significant, is the citing of the Article 15 defence of 'reasonable excuse'. That provision, many variants of which appear in different legislation, is an example of what happens when your polity becomes run by large law firms, and your 'democracy' is merely an empty cosmetic thing. Because the political and corrupt decisions of your courts long-since became literally 'incredible' and even though you have an obedient media and legislature, none of which will ever scrutinise obviously absurd 'judgments' - no matter how pitiful and obvious the 'judge's-lifebelt' involved - the legal syndicates which run Jersey majorly invest in 'judge's-rescue-helicopter' clauses, such as 'reasonable excuse'.

    There we have it. The power and freedom of your judges to enjoy the ultimate flexibility to sign findings for their preferred side, the side of money and power, without even having to be thrown a case & fact specific judge's lifebelt!

    'My toaster caught fire'. 'The post office was shut'. 'My wife wasn't feeling well'. 'The dog ate my homework'.

    ‘Oh you poor chap. I find ‘reasonable excuse’. Here, have your expensive lawyers’ £150,000 fees awarded as costs against the public.’

    A comment below suggests that Jersey’s judiciary is the most political and corrupt to be found in any Western democracy. Sadly that appears to be the case. The inclusion of ‘magic-wand’ provisions such as ‘reasonable excuse’ by which a judge can basically sign whatever ‘finding’ is most desired by the forces of power and money – no matter that the mobilising and citing of such clause fundamentally equates to a sabotage of the primary purpose of the legislation – could have been expressly designed in order to foster the corruption of judicial processes.

    Any legislation which conveys a plain and obvious meaning and purpose on its face – but which then has a discrete ‘off-switch’ built into it – an ‘off-switch’ which will obviously only ever be available to, and granted to, the side of money and power – is designed to co-opt and mobilise judicial processes and transform them into a negotiable and tradable commodity in political economy.

    And indeed, as events on Jersey so clearly evidence, that is indeed what has happened. The abundance of ‘judge’s-lifebelts’ and legislative ‘judge’s-rescue-helicopters’ renders the concept of impartial, functioning law on Jersey a chimera. Your courts and your legislation are transparently the deep product of an entrenched all-powerful narrow establishment who want the ‘respectability’ of laws – but which also want that ultimate confidence that they themselves have an ‘escape-hatch’ available to them and theirs; the existence of the judge’s-rescue-helicopter – by which ultimate insurance-policy they can always wriggle out from under the laws by which they control everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately the analysis presented in the above comments is all too believable in the light of the last decade+ of victimisation and intimidation of campaigners, victims and child protection activists.

      But the paedo-protecting jersey establishment is yet more proactive than that -actually searching out low lifes, "unreliable witnesses", convicted paedo-trolls and even a multiple murder suspect and flooding them with public funds to prosecute the health minister who blew the whistle on jerseys child abuse calamity!!!

      You could not make this up!

      This court case was supposed to remain secret but was revealed under UK parliamentary privilege.

      Needless to say the jersey courts found in favour of their own recruits, having ruled the health ministers defence case to be "inadmissible".

      The notion that we can move on because jerseys children are now safe is laughable.

      Delete
    2. 'The notion that we can move on because jerseys children are now safe is laughable.'

      Not sure what the writer intended to convey with those words. The idea that its ridiculous to imagine that Jersey's children are now safe? Or that Jersey's children are now safe, but all of the other corruption and crimes still exists?

      Whatever, I'm in a position to say that children in Jersey are not safe. As much as the politicians and some of my seniors in the organisation I work for claim that 'children in Jersey are safe now', no they're not. There are very serious child abusers walking free in Jersey now. The authorities know who they are. They are protected from prosecution by dark forces at the heart of power in Jersey. Some of the island's powerful, these are evil people, would have protected them anyway. In fact they did. That's why it went on for so many years. But the rest of the establishment that protects the abusers today got trapped, no, that's not right, they trapped themselves into having to protect these men because they stupidly sided with them and not the whistle-blowers and victims when it all started to come out. They're not ethical, that's obvious, so covering bad stuff up was their habit anyway, so it came naturally to them to fall for the frightening cunning of one of the abusers when he went to colleagues and to the establishment demanding 'protection' from Social Services Minister Syvret. He knew straight away that it wouldn't be difficult to flip the script and get the establishment mobilized against Syvret because they always hated him. They were very stupid never pausing to think the man whose side they were taking might really be a child abuser and the implications of that. I don't think any of them paused to think on the possibility there might be lots of child abuse and the consequences of covering it up and that it could get to be a massive scandal. But when that happened their hands were tied. They had taken steps to protect that child abuser and others so they couldn't bring him to justice without shaming themselves and admitting their mistake. And that's just the ones I know about. There will be others for sure.

      So there are child abusers free in Jersey who the authorities know about, but they refuse to prosecute them. That's a real danger to children. Perhaps establishment men like William Bailhache and the rest clean their conscience by thinking these man are under observation and wouldn't dare offend again. That shows they don't understand the psychology of men who abuse children. Even if these individuals never offend again there's still the problem that others like them see that they've got off by having establishment contacts and support so why not them too? They can do the same. They see how certain child abusers have worked the system into protecting them. That thought, that its not too difficult to get away with it in Jersey if you 'play your cards right' so to speak is an amplified additional risk factor for children in Jersey. So its not possible for Jersey's government to make children safe until this man and the others are prosecuted. But they won't do that for selfish political reasons.

      Delete
  74. Now, that's a comment worth quoting. This shows the operating level of international scrutiny and analyses the Jersey establishment have inflicted on themselves as a result of years and years of undisguised corruption and stupidity. Especially the latter. Here's the quote.

    'Any legislation which conveys a plain and obvious meaning and purpose on its face – but which then has a discrete ‘off-switch’ built into it – an ‘off-switch’ which will obviously only ever be available to, and granted to, the side of money and power – is designed to co-opt and mobilise judicial processes and transform them into a negotiable and tradable commodity in political economy.'

    ReplyDelete
  75. I have had an opportunity to read the legal paper titled, ‘“The Jersey Way”- moving on’, by Iselin Jones and Phil Palmer, as published by the Jersey Law Society. There has been some discussion here and elsewhere of this report.

    I commend the paper. It deserves reading more than once. It is a skilfully subtle piece of work. For in addition to the black & white text, it is also to be read 'between the lines', if one understands my meaning. However, I fear its target audience, Jersey establishment figures, for want of a clearer designation, will not read the document, may be influenced by mere précis or interpretations of it provided to them by staff, or, should they read it themselves, will fail to grasp the seriousness of its sub-text. After all, these are not a group of people who have hitherto exhibited great interpretive and strategic intelligence, much to the inconvenience of those in other places.

    The paper is not the work of some political radicals or subversives. Rather, it is the work of Jersey lawyers and has been published by the Jersey Law Society. Here too is meaning.

    Whilst they are late to the fray, far too late in truth, the awakening of Jersey's legal profession to the seriousness of these issues is to be welcomed.

    I have previously pointed out that Jersey's authorities made a most serious error in failing to establish lines of communication with the former Health & Social Services Minister. In particular, the failure to ensure he received legal representation was perplexing and a source of some considerable concern to those observing from other places.

    Because of such serious mistakes, it is not entirely clear what, if anything, can be done to rectify the number of consequent difficulties. But rectified they must be.

    It is to be most earnestly hoped that some wise heads in Jersey build upon the initiative of the legal paper and apply themselves to these issues. May I suggest as an obvious starting point someone might be tasked to go and speak with the former Minister with a view to assessing his current concerns and what might be done to address them.

    I think it readily understood that a degree of urgency is attached to events.

    ReplyDelete
  76. BREAKING NEWS

    Frantic meeting at the Royal Court: how can the law demanding two lazy, arrogant Deputies be removed from the States for not bothering to complete expenses declarations NOT be the law so as it can be ignored? Muttered curses overheard: "But oh shit, people will say if we can choose not to enforce this why did we insist the Pitmans were deprived of their seats when their court case was nothing to do with politics?"

    "Sir William!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will probably adjourn the case untill 2022!

      Delete
  77. Is anyone half-credible and progressive standing in the by-election to replace Mr Rondel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If anyone answers Ann Southern I for one will scream. Don't want Andrew Lewis back either thank you very much.

      Delete
    2. Hey, think about it, having Andrew Lewis back on the scene would good, good for the ultimate fight for the real rule of law. The continuing presence in any kind of electoral context of Andrew Lewis can never be anything other than catastrophically problematic and potentially disastrous to the Jersey establishment. The few clever establishment figures know this. It's only their dopes and thugs who support his candidacy. I hope Andrew Lewis does run. Hell, I really hope he gets in! He will forever be a compromising ticking time-bomb, potentially terminal to Jersey's fake 'respectability' :D

      Delete
  78. Chief Minister Le Fondre using the Maybot's 'there's no magic money tree' line to insult nurses and other public sector workers over their plummeting living standards. Disgraceful.

    But what will Jersey folk impacted do about the ever-uncreasing gap between most and the taxdodgers at the top?

    Nothing, that is what. Most are all beaten down, scared or plain apathetic. This is why whatever their faults people would still vote for a Trevor or Shona Pitman and Stuart Syvret.

    They possessed guts to go with their brains and morals and did not back down no matter what the intimidation.

    Ok I know the Pitmans can't stand but wasn't St. Helier District 3/4 Stuart's old seat? Why not call the olds boys bluff and put himself forward?

    If they do the same to him as the Pitmans then with this expenses lark in the news at least it is even more evidence to the need for Crown intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Voice.

    In the magistrate's court today I could not believe my ears to hear the Defence for Deputies Wickenden and Raymand not only report not guilty claims for the pair. But unbelievably use the excuse that prosecuting the pair and ousting them would cost too much money in times of austerity!

    As our only reliable, honest news outlet you really must do a post revealing the staggering hypocrisy at play here. Just how much I ask did it cost setting by-elections in place so they could drive out the Pitmans?

    Truly priceless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This can't be true? Even by Jersey double standards it would be uncredible. Can anyone verify the above?

      Delete
    2. Don't believe this either. Supporters of the bolshy Pitmans would have every ground to go ape if it was. Think somebody is having a leg pull.

      Delete
    3. Bugger me but true it is! Radio 103 even has a bit about it on its news website!

      Delete
  80. Been through all the news sites and what tells me something hugely untoward is happening here is that not one of our allegedly big three media organisations have it inline. Maybe we should start a new #? #justiceforthepitmans

    ReplyDelete
  81. According to the JEP a newspaper that did everything in its power to undermine the Graham Power and Lenny Harper abuse investigation the Sttorney General stresses it is Jersey's Jurats who must and will decide on any sentences handed out.

    How unfortunate then that as we now know Jersey's police wanted to prosecute a long serving Jersey Jurat for trying to undermine, even bullying a victim of abuse into silence while College Vice-Principle. They were prevented from doing so by a former Attorney General and Bailiff.

    The real Jersey for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Is that (S)Attorney General as in SSSSSlimeeeeeeeey?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Regarding the Deputies and their undeclarered expenses I note that the information on the laughable times of austerity defence has quickly vanished from Radio 103's website.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ousting Establishment Deputies in 'times of public austerity not in the public interest'!!!!!!!

    Nor it seems is stripping the ranks of Jurats who abused children state bullied them in to silence.

    Ever wonder if all of your and so many other people's brave efforts on justice was worth the strain and struggle?

    The Pitmans must be sick. The Jersey Way juggernaut rolls on and on. Is there any way we can stop it Stuart?

    ReplyDelete
  85. BBC and ITV not even covering on line. Close ranks. Nothing to see here. But why not email us your favourite photo of a kitten?

    ReplyDelete
  86. The worst aspect is that, no doubt on the advice of the lawyer, they are denying the offence. Surely earlier the lawyer was saying that the pair not returning their expenses forms was just an admin oversight? Can't have it both ways. The pair ought to be hammered for costing the taxpayer unnecessary thousands.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Don't want to distract from would be a great story to enlarge upon with a full post but with teachers, harbour staff and even nurses lining up to strike could the downtrodden Jersey worm be finally about to turn?

    ReplyDelete
  88. "In the magistrate's court today I could not believe my ears to hear the Defence for Deputies Wickenden and Raymand not only report not guilty claims for the pair. But unbelievably use the excuse that prosecuting the pair and ousting them would cost too much money in times of austerity!"

    "This can't be true? Even by Jersey double standards it would be uncredible. Can anyone verify the above?"

    "Don't believe this either. Supporters of the bolshy Pitmans would have every ground to go ape if it was. Think somebody is having a leg pull."

    "Bugger me but true it is! Radio 103 even has a bit about it on its news website!"

    This is funny. I'm not sure - even now - if so much as one of these establishment clowns realises how incredible - laughably inept - the Jersey oligarchy seems, in the eyes of its now global audience?

    We might think the following comment was sarcastically funny: -

    'My toaster caught fire'. 'The post office was shut'. 'My wife wasn't feeling well'. 'The dog ate my homework'.

    But - in true "The-Jersey-Way" style - you just Couldn't Make It Up.

    "M'Lud - it will cost too much to prosecute these fine reliable loyal Deputies."

    You see, they don't even need to play the "Reasonable Excuse" Joker.

    [Judge, whispers to Clerk: "I say, are these fellows 'ours' or 'theirs'? Oh, 'ours, M'Lud. 'Oh, jolly good'. Judge addresses court: "Bringing these charges was a total waste of public money! Enforcing laws against our people is 'not in the public interest'. The case is dismissed! I will now hear the Defence Advocate on what, I'm sure, must have been deeply resource-heavy defence case, involving dozens of staff and hundreds of bookable hours.]

    Actually - to readers in the UK and elsewhere - it is - even more ridiculous than that. In Jersey, the judge wouldn't have to ask the clerk if the accused were 'ours' or 'theirs'? In Jersey, the "judges" already know any accused establishment figure. The "judiciary" lead the establishment side IN what passes for a "legislature" here. They are all already members of the de facto Jersey Establishment Party.

    By way of contrast, people like Trevor Pitman, Shona Pitman and me were the opposition.

    But, you know, 'history', boys & girls, 'history'.

    It's all being copied, written, shared - globally.

    Jersey's "judicial" processes - once again not even bothering with a disguise - instead operating openly as the mafia.

    In the 21st century - it is all - microscopically - noted, archived, adumbrated.

    No hiding place.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  89. It looks like this election expenses scandal just got a whole lot BIGGER.

    ReplyDelete
  90. So if getting shot of Wickenden and Raymand and several others too judging from your link above, why was it in the interest of necessary to force out the Pitmans?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Pitmans were de facto opposition members.

      The Jersey mafia has zero-tolerance of any - effective, real - opposition members.

      Even one, just one, real, challenging, opposition voice to the mafia's cadre is too much for these people.

      Jersey's ancient mafia are not democrats. They are not intellectuals, They are not competent.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    2. They are crypto-fascists and crooks too in my book.

      Delete
  91. Nearing 200 comments once again. This blog is as valid and important as ever.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Just watched the interview with Nick Le Cornu. A very good piece of research. Oh. dear. Looks like the Jersey system has corporately 'f**ked itself again.

    What will they do now it is clear that maybe circa 50% of Jersey election candidates were none-compliant with the law?

    Let's have a competition! Guess the excuse for not prosecuting them all, and expelling those candidates who got elected?

    Here's my go. The mafia will break-out the judges' 'magic-wand' and decide 'the law was defective in being too complex, unclear, and unhelpful to all parties by not establishing a requirement of an electoral office to work with, and help candidates comply with all the law, so we find enforcing a defective law to be not in the public interest, and we recommend the States revise the law.'

    Anyone think they'll do anything else?

    Turning to a very important point, Jersey has a massive number of journalist per head of population. Few communities anywhere which are so small have a daily newspaper, a dedicated TV channel, and two radio stations. So why, given the existence of dozens and dozens of establishment employed journalists, did not so much as one of them think to go and do the really obvious investigative journalism step of going to read the publicly available records?

    It seems to me that once again Jersey's independent citizen journalists have utterly trounced and shamed the island's mainstream media.

    ReplyDelete
  93. In Jersey we don't have "journalists." We have "reporters" who report (or don't) things they are told. Doing the obvious thing, as Nick Le Cornu seems to have done, and looked at publicly available records is not what they do.

    Now that a Citizen journalist has broken the story it might shame the "professional journalists" into "reporting it?"

    ReplyDelete
  94. Looks like the States could soon be inquorate serially? LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  95. 'M'lud, don't be distracted by talk of the Pitmans. They were 'orrible, lefty malcontents banging on about nonsense like accountability and openess. The Deputies Wickenden and Raymand by contrast are decent, head-nodding, smiley fellows who understand that the Bailiff's word is Gospel. We must, M'lud keep them at all costs'

    ReplyDelete
  96. This question is asked above: -

    "Ok I know the Pitmans can't stand but wasn't St. Helier District 3/4 Stuart's old seat? Why not call the olds boys bluff and put himself forward?"

    There are a number of obstacles.

    However, to consider just one. I live in Jersey under highly credible - highly specific - threats of death.

    If I were to get re-elected - or even be a candidate - these people will murder me.

    They may well murder me anyway. However, for as long as I remain alive I am the greatest threat to the Jersey mafia and the international mafia syndicates which control the place. It seems sensible that we maintain that status for as long as we can.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely just as safe or unsafe in the States as out? Go for it.

      Delete
    2. What a stupid comment. 'Go for it'. The man has serious threats to his life. I think he's already been braver than most people could even begin to imagine just for staying in the fight. I trust his judgment. I deplore our island for coming to this. Not able to vote for the person I want, because they might be murdered for their opposition to the powerful.

      Delete
    3. A number of serious people in Jersey and elsewhere read what is published on this site. I know that to be so. These are intelligent and well-informed people. However, not unnaturally, the idea that a prominent figure and activist such as Mr Syvret might be under credible threats of death will come as startling to some.

      Let me say to those people, it is entirely credible. Very much so. If it does not at first seem explicable to you, may I respectfully suggest that that is because you have failed to understand what Jersey is and the nature of the international business it does. You may wish to reflect upon the global value of that business, the likely origins of most of it, and the nature of the clients and the service providers. Consider the culture of that business which has shaped Jersey for some decades, to the point it operates the jurisdiction. Reflect upon the foregoing, and you might then develop an understanding of the nature and scope of the 'stakes' at play.

      I do not believe it requires an over-taxing feat of the imagination.

      In that light, one will understand that in most jurisdictions people are routinely murdered for being a good deal less of a threat to serious organised crime than Mr. Syvret.

      Be under no illusions. Jersey is in the middle of what these days is termed a 'black swan' event. With international implications. It is to be hoped your brightest and your best will understand this and do what may be done to rectify matters.

      Delete
  97. When this blog gets to 200 comments readers need to click on the more comments button to read them.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Well well, here's a curious thing. I'm endeavouring to understand the thinking behind prosecuting these three candidates, but not all the others who would appear to be in similar breach themselves? Oh I can well understand a little tokenism on the part of your deeply political prosecution system. After all, your various election laws have been abused multiple times against anti-establishment candidates over the years, so maybe your Crown Officers were under pressure to sacrifice one or two token establishment candidates, for appearances sake, one understands, but at a safe moment when your establishment have a massive majority in any case? (Correct me if I missed others, but I'm not aware of any more than one (1) member of your present house who could be described as serious and regularly active in challenging the executive? As I write that down, I'm struck by how astonishing that is.) So yes, sacrificing one or two of theirs in a weak attempt to pretend to the real world that law is applied objectively in Jersey could well have been the motive. But the three accused were always going to cry foul if they appear to be being discriminated against. Why were these three chosen for prosecution as opposed to any of the others?

    Now, the obvious first thought here is 'the establishment were very incompetent, as they always are, and had failed to ask themselves that obvious question at the get-go. 'What if there are dozens of breaches?'' The reason they didn’t think first about the consequences of having to prosecute 50% of candidates, is simply because they were, pardon my French, too f**king stupid to have studied the returns of all the candidates before charging those three, so were not aware of the many many other breaches?

    But surely not? Not even Jersey's 'finest' legal minds are THAT stupid. Are they?

    No, no-one is THAT stupid. I think there must be something else going on here. I think there must be some other calculation at play. Perhaps they saw how minimally the law had been complied with, and consequently perhaps that an actual majority of the membership of your legislature could be considered to be illegitimate. They saw they had a potential disaster on their hands, so decided a couple of token prosecutions would be mounted, to act as a 'vehicle' for securing a judgment which condemned the law and ruled it 'unworkable' or 'unenforceable' or 'too difficult to comply with', or some such confection. Bingo. No need to prosecute and expel the majority of non-compliant States members. The court has ruled 'the legislation doesn't work'.

    I must say, I think that 'remedy' could be a hard-swallow, even for Jersey's rhinoceros-hided protectors. So what might the alternative be?

    .....(continued below)....

    ReplyDelete
  99. ...continued from above....

    Do not rule-out a fresh general election. I know, I know, this would be crazy crazy stuff. But if it happens, remember you read it here first. Why would Jersey's court order a fresh general election? Because if it is found the election expenses law was unworkable in some way, was defective, too complex, not human rights compliant, etc etc, so wasn't going to be enforced on the majority of members, the inescapable up-shot of that is people will rightly say that the previous election had no effective resource-level-playing-field regulation, so must now be considered unsafe in its results.

    I suspect this is being done with something of that triangulation behind it. After all, what is an election in the Jersey context, but a mere bagatelle for your establishment? They control the courts, the prosecutors, the police, the executive, the legislature, the media, the money, everything. There is no other jurisdiction to be found anywhere in the established democratic world under such an iron grip of unchallengeable oligarchy as Jersey.

    As I remarked earlier, there is what, one, members in your legislature who seriously challenges and actively changes power? That's most unlikely to change, not even in two-dozen Jersey establishment run elections. Serious opponents have almost zero realistic chance in the Jersey context. And that's without taking into account additionally the climate of fear deterring good honest candidates who see the fact of lawless state oppression and suppression of people like Mr Syvret and the Pitmans. Indeed, add to that the credible prospect of being murdered if one opposes the serious organised crime prevalent in Jersey.

    No, your establishment have nothing, nothing at all to fear from elections. So don't be surprised if they do find a sudden liking for the cosmetic benefits of 'elections'. Nothing is easier for spin-doctors to sell than a bit of shiny - albeit ultimately fake - 'democracy'.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I think Nick le Cornu should be arrested and charged, Soviet style, with revealing a State secret.

    After all, the Pitmans were prosecuted for helping a potential voter to REGISTER to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Blogger glitch: If this blog posting stays current for much longer, the number of comments will exceed 200.

    When it passes 200, readers will only see those first 200 comments unless on arrival/refresh they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread.

    NB. later replies, even those amongst the first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that *Load more* link is clicked (several times if it reappears).

    Readers who wish to read the whole thread without omissions need to click "Load more..." (right at the bottom) until it disappears, and then read from the beginning.

    ReplyDelete