On Thursday May 29 2019 Team Voice and Tom Gruchy appeared as witnesses at the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) REVIEW PANEL "PUBLIC" Hearing. We "New Media" (formerly known as "Social Media") were invited to sit alongside members of the "Old Media" (formerly known as Mainstream Media) to discuss a number of subjects/bullet-points. (below)
Unfortunately we only got the subjects/bullet-points the night before the Hearing which was nowhere near enough time to do adequate research but nonetheless, in the extremely short time we were given for the hearing (approximately an hour), we were able to hold our own.
Regular readers will know that the Panel went back on its word (pretended it didn't) and refused any media recording of all the "PUBLIC" Hearings as exclusively reported by VFC HERE. WE (New Media) were the only media to challenge this absurd decision as reported on in the above link. The Old media were compliant. So unfortunately were are unable to publish any video footage for the Blog. Which was our intention before the Panel went back on its word.
With the very limited time we had at the hearing, and the number of subjects to be discussed, it was an impossible, and unrealistic task and we should have been allocated at least a two hour slot and that's not counting the DAYS we would have needed if we were allowed to discuss the Old Media's role pre-2017.
ITV/CTV
Out of the Old Media it was only the Bailiwick Express and the Jersey Evening Post who had the courage to turn up. ITV/CTV and The BBC lacked that courage so credit to the two who did show up. Of course the Bailiwick Express was not around during the Rectangle Era, so had little, or nothing, to answer for. The JEP, and indeed ITV/CTV and The BBC were around and do have plenty to answer for so most credit should go to Andy Sibcy (Editor JEP). Sibcy wasn't the Editor around the time (Rectangle) the paper was doing its best to trash the Survivors/Abusees and those who tried to get them so-called "justice." We believe the Paper as come along way, for the better, under the Editorship of Sibcy.
The paper (alongside BBC, ITV/CTV) was relentless in attempting to discredit the Victims/Abusees, Lenny Haper, Graham Power QPM, Stuart Syvret and the Bloggers and should have been held to account for this at the (not so) Public Hearing.
However, The Panel was adamant the old media was not going to answer for its reporting before and during Operation Rectangle. At the very start of the Hearing the Chair, Francis Oldham QC, threatened to walk out if that line was going to be taken. Which begs the question "if we are going to ignore the "mistakes" of the past, are we not doomed to repeat them?" It would appear that the Old Media have (like a vast number of abusers) been let off the hook for its past crimes. It was the old "Jersey Way" war cry "let's not dwell on the past, and let's look to the future." So many crimes have been brushed under the carpet with that slogan and it looks like the IJCI Panel have adopted it also which is concerning.
Fellow Team Voice Member RICO SORDA, at the very start of the hearing said words to the effect: "The entire local MSM owe the Victims and Survivors an apology for its reporting during the Child Abuse cover-up." He is of course right. We cannot forget the further abuse Survivors/abusees were subjected to by the Old Media during the Rectangle Era. But, as mentioned above, Francis Oldham QC was having none of it and threatened to walk out (with the Panel) if we attempted to discuss anything that pre-dated the Panel's Report of 2017.
We should also point out that the Old Media, according to the latest SOCIAL SURVEY, only enjoys the confidence of 33% of islanders. It has a mountain to climb in order to win any trust back and by not dealing with its past failings it is difficult to see how this could happen. Bloggers, on the other hand, have earned the trust of Survivors/Abusees and whistleblowers through the years and continue to enjoy that trust. We (unlike to Old Media) can hold our heads high knowing we are on the right side of history and have spoken up for the truth.
BBC
Despite the almost impossible, and fruitless task, in holding the Old Media to account at the hearing, the Panel should be congratulated for attempting to get the Old and New Media round the table. There has always been a "them and us" attitude created by the Old Media and, although BBC/ITV didn't have the courage to turn up, we believe some bridges might have been built with those who did turn up and those who didn't have no intention of building bridges. The irony is that BBC and ITV/CTV could have got some much needed credibility just by showing up as Bailiwick Express and JEP did (from me anyway). And of course the Bloggers don't need to gain credibility from those who matter as we already have it.
We are pleased to say that the discussion around the table, at the hearing, was, on the whole, pretty amicable. We had an opportunity (albeit very limited) to discuss our differences and indeed similarities with the Old Media and it wasn't a completely useless exercise for which we thank the IJCI Panel for getting at least some of the Old and New media together. This is something the Old Media has resisted for years and still resisted by BBC and ITV/CTV.
Below (in an e-mail received from the Panel the night before the hearing) are the eight subjects expected to be discussed in an hour by up to 7 or eight witnesses.
IJCI Panel
"Hello
We are looking forward to welcoming you to Thursday’s session in St Paul’s at 9.45 am.
Our sessions have been lasting 50-60 minutes. We aim to keep to time as we have a full schedule.
Our focus is on the period 2017-present with a view to identifying what is new and emerging in that period. As with other issues we are reviewing, we are not discussing matters in the period before or during the Inquiry or matters dealt with during the Inquiry.
In honing down the topics for the session we have drawn on our meetings with over 150 people in the last 10 days, including three more sessions with care experienced young people tonight.
The questions that will help us most are:
.What have you seen that is different in the last two years in services affecting children and families
.Key areas in the last two years for media reporting on child care issues.
.What media campaigns / reporting in the last two years have had an impact?
.The public response through media/social media to the Inquiry report and child care issues
Have there been any barriers to reporting child care issues since July 2017?
.Whether people in Jersey have tended in the last two years to use media rather than official processes to highlight complaints
.What is role of journalists in holding public sector agencies to account?
.Changing the tone of some debate and commentary to encourage more participation
In a climate of global concern about false and manufactured news and commentary, what safeguards are necessary to ensure accurate reporting?
.Changing the tone of some debate and commentary to encourage more participation
In a climate of global concern about false and manufactured news and commentary, what safeguards are necessary to ensure accurate reporting?
Finally and importantly,
In one of Wednesday morning’s public sessions, we heard very powerful pleas from (name redacted), a Jersey careleaver, cautioning against the media sensationalising complex issues and asking for more reporting of, and pride in, the positive developments in Jersey's child care services. On her behalf we want to ask: how can the media help with this?"(END)
Needless to say hardly any of the subjects were discussed but as mentioned above it wasn't a completely fruitless task and the IJCI Panel should be congratulated for getting the New and (some of) the Old Media round a table and we look forward to building bridges with those (of the Old Media) who look for the same.
We will look to publish the transcript of the Hearing as soon as it becomes available.
In the meantime readers might want to discuss/answer the questions set (above) by the Panel? Or do readers agree the hearing/subjects should have included the Old Media's reporting (or not) during the Operation Rectangle Era?
In one of Wednesday morning’s public sessions, we heard very powerful pleas from (name redacted), a Jersey careleaver, cautioning against the media sensationalising complex issues and asking for more reporting of, and pride in, the positive developments in Jersey's child care services. On her behalf we want to ask: how can the media help with this?"(END)
Needless to say hardly any of the subjects were discussed but as mentioned above it wasn't a completely fruitless task and the IJCI Panel should be congratulated for getting the New and (some of) the Old Media round a table and we look forward to building bridges with those (of the Old Media) who look for the same.
We will look to publish the transcript of the Hearing as soon as it becomes available.
In the meantime readers might want to discuss/answer the questions set (above) by the Panel? Or do readers agree the hearing/subjects should have included the Old Media's reporting (or not) during the Operation Rectangle Era?
VFC, you are too generous to these three former members of a supposed "public-inquiry".
ReplyDeleteThe conduct they have displayed - in the present frankly mystifying incarnation, as well as when the "public-inquiry" was in existence - has been unmitigatedly dreadful. Utterly incompetent and structurally ultra vires are merely two of the more charitable verdicts.
Just for example, you quote the three now wealthy individuals as saying the following: -
"In one of Wednesday morning’s public sessions, we heard very powerful pleas from (name redacted), a Jersey careleaver, cautioning against the media sensationalising complex issues and asking for more reporting of, and pride in, the positive developments in Jersey's child care services. On her behalf we want to ask: how can the media help with this?"
Amazing.
Why did they make no comment on the Les Chenes survivor they refused to hear, and to who they were appallingly discourteous?
Why have they never - to this day - expressed any concern - even lasting recognition that she once existed - towards one the core witness survivors Danny Jarman - who mysteriously and unexpectedly died - after giving evidence and testimony to them?
http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/dannie-jarman-in-memory-tribute/
Why - after thanking me for contacting them - and for offering to be a witness - and being acknowledged by them as being a core witness - did the three slap so many survivors in the face by then going on to constructively excluding me by refusing to give me legal representation?
Be aware of Stockholm Syndrome.
We owe these people less-than-zero.
Stuart Syvret.
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
My opening gambit was to say that the JEP should apologize to all victims of abuse for their reporting during operation Rectangle and beyond. When Oldham couldn’t shut me up she threatened to walk out. If only the victims had that choice.
ReplyDeleteFrances Oldham is in a very – peculiar – position in the eyes of history.
DeleteAs the evidence shows, Frances Oldham was invoked by name by the then Home Secretary Theresa May when announcing in 2014, the launching of the UK public-inquiry into the decades of concealed child-abuse.
Theresa May cited to the Commons, what she referred to as “the Oldham review” – and cited “the Oldham review” as an excuse as to why the mainland child-abuse public-inquiry would not deal with events related to the Jersey child-abuse atrocities. Instead, May said, the “findings” of “the Oldham review” would be incorporated into the broader national public-inquires.
As we in Jersey know, and fortunately as many activists around the world understand more and more – Jersey is not a real democracy, and does not enjoy the real, objective rule-of-law. Rather, we are a kind of historically aberrant mafia “turf” – the control over which is worth billions annually – and that the mob-syndicates which control us have their power-base in the City of London.
There has been – for centuries – let alone before the child-abuse atrocities – a mutually beneficial “understanding” between the establishment of Jersey and the establishment in London – that an artificial firewall had to be maintained between the two jurisdictions. And all kinds of arcane bullshit have been routinely cited to justify this fantasy.
But from 2007 – and the plain fact decades of serious child-abuse had been covered-up on Jersey – suddenly the fiction that Jersey was a law-abiding place – with effective checks & balances and the real administration of justice - was threatened – and along with that the very very lucrative status quo – so essential to the “big-boys” in the City of London.
And – of course – the logical destination of a non-biased, effective child-abuse investigation on Jersey, underway in 2008 – looked at with fear by London – was with Jimmy Savile, a child-molesting psychopath – and Ted Heath, who we now know faced sufficient credible accusations of abuse that, were he still living, he would have been interviewed by police under caution.
Thus we know – as the history shows – UK institutions helped and supported the Jersey establishment in illegally suspending Police Chief Graham Power in November 2008. Then, the Police force, captured by a set of de facto mafia syndicates with a power-base largely in the City of London - set about the banana-republic oppression and suppression of me.
So it is – that the British establishment – Whitehall, and the City of London – set about sabotaging the only investigations which had the possibility of bringing the then still living Savile to justice. Of course, they never expected Savile, or Heath to be exposed. Back then (2008) the British establishment was supremely confident in their continuing cover-ups.
So – given that profound – and utterly central – fact – how on Earth – and why on Earth – would any respectable UK government minister strive so hard and so perversely to artificially exclude inquiries into its own conduct in sabotaging the 2007/2008 Jersey child-abuse investigations?
Theresa May’s husband is Philip May.
He is a widely known – very high-level stock adviser and general mover & shaker in the City of London.
That fact renders him – and his wife Theresa May hopelessly and terminally conflicted in any matter which might have had a negative bearing on the City of London. As the massive and evidenced propensity for the Jersey establishment to cover-up child-abuse - and other serious crimes - most certainly did – and does.
Theresa May’s exclusion of events on Jersey from the UK child-abuse investigations – in favour of what she referred to as “the Oldham review” – was – and is – structurally unlawful because of the financial conflicts of interest she and her City of London husband have.
Stuart Syvret
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
Your frustration is palpable and you have my sympathy.
ReplyDeleteThe Panel cannot afford to let any matter pre-dating their report be discussed as it would ultimately open up a can of worms, which would show up the sloppiness (and collusion) of their original work. All of that has been documented and, from recollection, former-Deputy Wimberley's questions to them were never answered nor did they ever reply to any of my criticisms. Good Lord, we couldn't have all that opened up again. We'd be here till Christmas.
This is clearly all on their terms as it was during the inquiry period.
Their present mission appears to be to put a positive gloss on developments since their report. This in turn will vindicate their work and the report. Revisiting their original work would certainly not.
Polo.
DeleteI think you mean THESE QUESTIONS from former Deputy Daniel Wimberley?
One of the many poignant (unanswered) questions:
"Including the Lewis case, does the Report address the conflict of interest between the AG’s role in Jersey as lawyer for the government (and therefore, of Ministers) and the AG’s role as public prosecutor? What steps do they suggest to deal with this, and are they adequate?"
With staying on topic of this Posting it also demonstrates the lack of any real journalism on the Island as I'm not sure ANY of the local Old Media has asked ANY questions of the COI other than how much something cost.
There is a clear conflict of interest with the many hatted Attorney General. For instance the then Solicitor General, who went on to become AG and now Deputy Bailiff Tim Le Cocq, was advising Andrew Lewis before, during, and after the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former Police Chief Graham Power QPM.
How could the AG's office then bring charges against Andrew Lewis when it was the AG's/SG's/LOD's office Andrew Lewis claimed to be following the advice of?
That's exactly right.
DeleteWhich is why the supposed "public-inquiry" chose to duck that very important part of their legislative instruction to subject the prosecution decisions to public-inquiry.
Instead of doing what they were required to do by law - examine the prosecution decisions in an inquisitorial setting - they simply paid a private business man for his opinion. 'He who pays the piper calls the tune', so he gave the inquiry what they wanted, a bit of paper with words written on it to the effect, "This all fine. Nothing to see here. Move on."
Manifest rubbish, of course.
Of all the structurally unlawful,- and broken - and corrupted - components of the Jersey polity - what passes for a "prosecution" function is comically non-functional.
It just doesn't work.
Obviously.
That fact alone damns the purported "public-inquiry"; that they can seriously attempt to pretend everything is "OK" with the prosecution function on Jersey - when everyone and their dog can see what a mafia operation it is.
Stuart Syvret
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
The meeting was a bit like a Senatorial election so far as time for each to speak was concerned and the very limited audience indicated the lack of public interest. It was a pity that video recording was not allowed but it would not have raised public interest much if at all. I don't want to make friends of/with the commercial media anymore than I want to make friends with a butcher in the market. My interests and views are just not the same as their's. I see what they sell and that is enough. The public is not very interested in what I publish. If they were I would probably not feel it necessary to publish much of it.
ReplyDeleteHere is a possible link to part of today's output. https://youtu.be/NtgB--aNoYo
Tom Gruchy.
ReplyDeleteLINK.
Another poignant, and on topic question from former Deputy Daniel Wimberley:
ReplyDeleteQuestion 16:
Does the Inquiry report analyse how the media in Jersey reported on the abuse which occurred, the investigation by the Police, the political dimension and so on? There are academic teams who do content analysis of media – did the Inquiry commission research?
Were the media objective and unbiassed? Were they challenging? Does the Inquiry report consider both traditional and internet? Has the Report described the impact media had on politics and society in the area of child sexual abuse in the past and has the Inquiry report made robust and useful recommendations about the role that the media could play in the future to help bring about a society free from child abuse
Does the Inquiry report explain why they called no editor or journalist as a witness?(END)
It is well known that the local Old Media turned public opinion against Lenny Harper, Stuart Syvret, Graham Power and the Survivors/Abusees during, and after, Operation Rectangle. This in itself prevented witnesses coming forward to the Police investigation (Rectangle).
The IJCI Panel is well aware of this but we weren't allowed to mention it at our hearing and none of it was mentioned during the public hearings in 2015/17
QUESTIONS.
I don't know if you or Jersey's many survivors, whistle-blowers and other victims of crime are conscious of this fact which is rather obvious to those of us who view events on Jersey through a legal prism, but is it commonly recognised that a number of serious prima facie criminal charges are apparent against Jersey's established media? Certainly the 'effective economic owners' (whoever they may be!) of the JEP's parent company The Guiton Group would be subject to detailed criminal investigation if these events had unfolded on the mainland.
DeleteI won't spell out 'why', because that could cause you difficulties, but I'm sure you and your regular readers will understand the salient facts without having to tax your imaginations.
Indeed, indeed. As a fellow journeyman in one of the four lowest trades on Earth (never quite certain where we appear in the league of opprobrium alongside estate agents, journalists, & politicians) but 'conspiracy to pervert justice' has been screaming at me since 2008.
DeleteFurther to my comment at 20.31 funnily enough a colleague called me this evening and we happened to get chatting about our perspectives on the Jersey situation. They mentioned to me a lecture given by a former Commissioner (now there's a curious title. Etymology friends, etymology!) of Jersey's Royal Court. Rather deliciously this former Jersey Royal Court Commissioner apparently delivered a scathing verdict on the reality behind the scenes in the Jersey Court. I'm awaiting the email!
DeleteAfter this my colleague and I got to speculating about whether Jersey's system of permanent lay-jurors, jurats I think they're called, could be regarded as credible. We both thought not, as one of them was appointed to the position after resigning over a child abuse cover up at your major private school. We then spoke of the hypothetical circumstances which could arise re the 'jurats' generally.
We laughed, my colleague and I, she saying to me, 'just imagine, if one of these 'jurats' was, say, married to a serial rapist?' 'Yes', I laughed, 'that would crush at a stroke the credibility of the judicial system on the Crown Dependency! Well, thank God nothing that crazy can happen eh?'
Jersey, Jersey, it's so so fascinating.
Further to my comment above, I received the email today. Attached was the lecture by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. Wow. Oh wow.
DeleteI think the significance of it might pass over the heads of those not possessed of a fundamental understanding of how the administration of justice is supposed to work. We're presently busying ourselves along with like minded colleagues trying to find an equivalent 'inside' condemnation of the administration of Justice in modern Britain. We're drawing a blank so far! We're not certain which is worse, the startling description of judicial corruption on Jersey, or the fact the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a party to it?!
Ah well, you see, if only these people had employed a good lawyer they wouldn't now be facing the UK's Watergate. So frustrating. For a fraction of the money these lunatics have burned I would have given them sound advice, and they wouldn't now be here. My rates are very reasonable all things considered. Indeed I'm not adverse to undertaking pro bono work. Perhaps that time has come?
The Judicial Committee of Privy Council certainly is party to judicial corruption on Jersey, though it is not clear whether it is an active party or simply unwilling to intervene in Jersey’s judicial affairs. A well documented instance of judicial corruption that exists, almost in its entirety, in the unreported judgments of the Royal Court of Jersey and the Court of Appeal can be seen in an application for leave to apply for judicial review brought against the Jersey Police Complaints Authority a few years ago. This line of cases clearly show, to the extent the judges have been prepared to expose the true facts, that the Police and the judiciary are prepared to overlook serious evidence-backed allegations when it is convenient to “the family” for them to do so.
Delete"The Judicial Committee of Privy Council certainly is party to judicial corruption on Jersey, though it is not clear whether it is an active party or simply unwilling to intervene in Jersey’s judicial affairs."
DeleteThe Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is an active party to the judicial corruption on Jersey.
An active party.
Steadily, over the growing crises of The Jersey Situation, evidence for British judicial corruption has grown.
Accumulated and amplified, rather than 'fading-away' - fading-away as the establishment used to be able to rely upon, back in the dark age of the 20th century.
The evidence has been identified and managed by international archivists. In the age of the internet, none of it was ever going away.
It's all filed.
40 decades - at least - of extraordinary and unrestrained gangster feasting upon the "businesses" of the planet's mafias - on a micro-jurisdiction with zero effective or real rule-of-law, such as Jersey?
There's nothing surprising about this.
The British Watergate.
It was an historic inevitability.
Stuart Syvret.
Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.
The train is certainly coming down the track for both the Care Inquiry and Jersey's disgraced Old and jaundiced media. Even I can see that keeping a weather eye on your island from the comfort of my sofa over here in London. How much longer will you people put up with it?
ReplyDeleteThe conduct of Jersey's customary feudal establishment represents, to quote a relevant party, 'a clear and present existential threat to the reputation and standing of the British state.'
ReplyDeleteWhatever one's political tastes might be concerning the person who made that observation the fact is he is correct. He is correct in that blunt and innocent manner which might be referred to in our times as characteristic of being 'on the spectrum'. Not only is he correct, as is the way with such people he is pure in his motives and implacable. Failing to establish lines of communication with him and still attempting to marginalise him after all these years is not and never was a viable strategy. He and others have run rings around the 'official' processes and revealed those processes to be ridiculous. Witness the insupportable counterfeit process Jersey produced instead of the necessary public inquiry. Every regular reader of this blog knows full well that the Jersey systems are fully beholden to external agencies for their protection and that the Jersey public inquiry has no credibility.
Events have arrived here because of the refusal of the Jersey fellows to accept there is unavoidably a price to be paid for so many years of corrupt conduct. A few of them have to be brought to justice. Time is running out. They will quickly face reality and put their house in order. If not, control of events leaves their hands. Then events are in the lap of the gods.
From the bullet points issued by the CoI Flannel ….sorry Panel:
ReplyDelete"Have there been any barriers to reporting child care issues since July 2017?"
errrrr.....are there ongoing super-injunction(s) on the Health Minister who identified and announced the structural dysfunction in Jersey's child protection and legal systems ?
Now that WOULD qualify as a "barrier to reporting child care issues".....
Indeed, notwithstanding the Super-injunction imposed on the former Health Minister in a secret court case. We also have P.19/2016 and to quote Deputy Russell Labey:
DeleteIt is legislation that people might expect to find in "totalitarian states like North Korea."
From HERE.
If we didn't have such a politicised, and corrupt, "justice" system that legislation could do the job it is supposed to do. But we know, because of JUDGE MADE LAW, that the judiciary bend and twist the living daylights out of the law(s) passed by the legislator to the point they are unrecognisable.
We witnessed this with the Data Protection Law that inevitably produced the Super-injunction against former Health Minister and whistle-blower Stuart Syvret.
Concerning the Data Protection Law (ab)used against former Health Minister and Whistle-blower, Stuart Syvret to silence him and free speech as a whole.
ReplyDeleteTo quote Stuart:
"The use of the Data Protection Law in this matter is simply illegal. This is an abusive and grotesque unlawful application of the Data Protection Law."
Recorded by New Media HERE.
That the case against Stuart was paid for with taxpayers' money on the order of the Judicary is disgraceful. If the four wanted to pursue Stuart they should have had the balls and honesty to use the defamation law as the Pitmans did.
DeleteThe old, and always long entrenched, peasant-hating Right-wing media always lie to us. Just look across the pond to today. Lies, smears and abuse by the shedload to try and make sure Labour lost and would lose badly. Yet lose they did not. People just have to read between the lines and use commonsense.
ReplyDeleteAnd from the same long entrenched, peasant-hating media
Deletewww.politicalite.com/melanie-shaw/exclusive-melanie-shaw-banned-from-talking-about-alleged-child-murder/
Stuart Syvret mentioned Theresa May in his first comment on this blog. Interestingly it was allegedly Theresa May who had abuse victim and whistleblower Melanie Shaw isolated in a mental institution.
And don't forget this dubious exercise got Stuart's blog taken down.
ReplyDeletePolo.
DeleteAs exclusively (because the Old Media were covering it up) reported by New Media HERE.
It must be significant that the Pope has approved a revision of the Lord's prayer.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if this amounts to an example of the "new media" but now "and lead us not into temptation" has been changed to "and do not let us fall into temptation."
Presumably the Vatican lawyers have been considering the ever increasing pay-outs and disgrace arising from the Catholic Church's institutional and international abuse of children by its priests.
Any suggestion that god and his agents have been leading priests into temptation might be misunderstood by the world's courts and so the responsibility has now been transferred to the individual self who might fall into temptation without any suggestion of being pushed.
I draw reader's attention to a couple of new comments mid thread (6 June 2019 at 19:14)
ReplyDeletehttp://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2019/06/new-and-some-old-media-appear-at-child.html?showComment=1559844847556#c6318129102204019588
these new comments relate of the experience and observations of Sir Geoffrey Nice QC
The contents of the lecture by Sir Geoffrey Nice may have been touched on in Rico Sorda's blog posting:
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/05/professor-sir-geoffrey-nice-qc-this-is.html
…...from which I lift (with modifications) a comment by Elle:
"In Sir Geoffrey, you've found a veritable goldmine of relevance to your concerns with the rule of law in Jersey. This posting includes so many useful quotes, I am reposting a few:
"And, in another case concerning Jersey the Privy Council itself observed that the written transcript of a trial - the only actual evidence to which the Council turned - is not necessarily something to be relied on."
"I [Geoffrey Nice] was detested for having put the law above short term exigency. Such is the reality of working in frontier legal systems that are neither accountable nor regulated."
"And what if a top tier court makes a decision in law because of local political pressure? Should the rest of the world’s jurisprudence be affected by the local interest?"
"Being a barrister – any form of advocate – is to have the enormous privilege of representing another human being at a point of distress. It is a privilege shared with doctors and priests. It is a privilege that should reflect – by the conduct of the professionals and by the regulation to which the profession may have to be subject – that lawyers and judges work in the service of the citizen, not the other way round."
Senator (remind me how this farce ever happened?) Kristina Moore bangs a gong bitching about the Council of Ministers (yes, they are crap but) and how she wasn't wanted by old Price of Biscuits Le Fondre in the Filthy Rag. Just how pathetic is this rarely attending States Member?
ReplyDeleteMoore was a shockingly ineffective and often downright crap Home Affairs Minister so where does she get the nerve from to attack others no worse than she was? Personally I blame the idiots who voted for her last year instead of voting her out.
It is intriguing how it is always the most naff candidates who do well in the Senators elections and then add insult to injury by becoming ministers more often than not.
DeleteAny update on Trevor Pitman's Blog?
ReplyDeleteWas just discussing this very topic with him. Hopefully it will be up and running early/middle of July.
DeleteMy sister bumped in to Trevor Pitman in a cafe in Port-Aven in Brittany, this is a beautiful little town in Brittany famous for the work of the artist Guaguin for those who don't know, a couple of months back. According to her he said his return to blogging will probably be around late July. Either way I will be one of those looking forward to it hugely. The more quality New media the better.
DeleteWas Big Ian there by any chance?
DeletePerhaps a revolution is finally brewing, a force being gathered to finally liberate us?
We can always hope!
Sharpen the pitch-forks and make sure your homemade gunpowder is dry and ready for when D Day 2019 begins.
On the 7th a reader said this concerning the bullet points issued by the three former members of the Jersey public inquiry, 'From the bullet points issued by the CoI Flannel ….sorry Panel:
ReplyDelete"Have there been any barriers to reporting child care issues since July 2017?"
errrrr.....are there ongoing super-injunction(s) on the Health Minister who identified and announced the structural dysfunction in Jersey's child protection and legal systems ?
Now that WOULD qualify as a "barrier to reporting child care issues".....'.
Is it not more obvious and fundamental than that? Everyone knows about and can speak about the judicially corrupt and politically suppressive 'super injunction' issued by Jersey's mob judiciary against the whistle-blower Stuart Syvret, with the sole exception of Mr Syvret himself because the crooks would imprison him again if he spoke of it. But that fact is known to your former public inquiry. So why did they themselves increase that 'barrier to reporting child-care issues' by refusing the key witness Stuart Syvret legal representation?
Clearly we're talking of not only a 'barrier' since 2017, we are faced with an added and permanent 'barrier to reporting child-care issues' which was created in 2014 by your public inquiry itself, by failing to give Mr Syvret legal representation. They even failed to make any reference at all to the existence of the super injunction, the most infamous and notorious 'barrier to reporting child-care issues' in the Jersey scandal.
Forget about 2017, that 'barrier to reporting child-care issues' has now been established, and will exist permanently and indefinitely on into the future, thanks to the witness suppression engaged in by the Jersey public inquiry itself.
Others are correct when they describe the Jersey child abuse public inquiry as deeply stupid and in a disastrous mess.
It seems obvious from our external perspective that the great downfall on the part of your local elites is class-war. That would appear to be the error of their allies in London also. These people are compounding their mistakes and fostering their sea of troubles because none of them ever thought that resourcesless ordinary plebeians would have the abilities and smarts to outwit and outmaneuver them. Let us be blunt, the natural members of the British establishment, for example the members and advisers of the Jersey child-abuse pubic-inquiry, could be poster children for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Idiots essentially, devoid of awareness that they might well be idiots.
ReplyDeleteAny results yet from the three mysteriously commissioned former members of your former public inquiry which was a transparently counterfeit exercise undertaken as a foolishly desperate attempt to cover up the preexisting scandalous history of cover ups tottering upon other cover ups?
ReplyDeleteSome obvious questions occur. What status exactly does the work of these three attract? They're not a public inquiry anymore, so what the hell are they doing? Why should anyone give any regard to these people? Where is the money coming from? Were the significant resources they're using just 'left over' from the misused £24 million? If so, in which bank account and under which control is this money held? How much of it is left?
If in fact they had any visible legal status today, which they don't, their conduct as your public inquiry was disgraceful. They forfeited any credibility and claim to be taken seriously back then. We're struck by other comments made here which raised the question of 'why' and 'what' the purpose of the three reconvening was? On the face of it it seems pretty clear that there's no possible 'good' outcome for them or the Jersey establishment in revisiting what was a shamefully inadequate process. The best thing for all these people would be if they'd kept their heads down and buggered off! One cannot but agree with a previous comment which said words to the effect 'we know what they're going to say, 'some improvements made, some things still going wrong' but so what? It's a lose lose situation for them.' It's very interesting that the Jersey establishment and their tame public inquiry have strategically check mated themselves. They've lost and there's no good move left available to them. The prediction among our informal group of Jersey situation aficionados? This current exercise is already another train wreck!
Why ignore the big question? What positive purpose has this 24 million pound inquiry served, aside from getting evidence and happenings recorded? Not even all of this has survived intact of course so was it really worth it? Answers on a postcard please.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I advise readers here that they need to stop speaking obliquely. Others around the world are fighting on your side. Things are coming to a head. Merely questioning what good the £24 million achieved is too weak. The time to speak truth to power has arrived. The £24 million of public money was embezzled.
DeleteIt's another of the crimes the Jersey & London mafia will ultimately be brought to account for.
Unless substantiated the following is hearsay off another website and I am pasting it here in case other readers can confirm the claims or details:
ReplyDeleteThere was a Parliamentary Enquiry back around 2013/2014 that was querying the extent of infiltration of organised criminal gangs in the City of London. The report was so utterly damning that it disappeared, never to be seen again. Essentially, everything from courts to police to law firms to financial firms and everything in between is either owned or run by international and home grown organised crime.
Yes, that's right. Britain has a mafia problem. A big big mafia problem. It isn't even as though the British mafia problem was containably British. The nature of the peculiar powers and immunities embodied in the City of London Corporation was always a gift to international high level organised crime. The various major City entities, Appleby Global for example, are obviously the 'front of house' operations of international mafia syndicates. It doesn't take a great deal of insight to recognise this fact. It is literally obvious that in the post WWII years the world's mafias understandably were smart enough and well advised enough to ensure the fruits of their global 'businesses' were conducted through conveniently small and manageable jurisdictions, in which they could very easily 'own' the local potentates. Jersey in particular was their magical get-out-of-jail-free card. Add to that constitutionally vague powers of the City of London commune, and that entity's power over the Crown, and the 'respectability' association with the Crown confers on this mafia apparatus, and you have the 'perfect storm'. Some people on here have likened the Jersey situation to Watergate. That's a mistake. As is obvious to any person familiar with the evidence. The Jersey situation is far far worse than Watergate. Really. It seriously is. The Jersey situation is nothing less than evidenced internationally compromised mafia thugs securing and exercising control over the very apparatus at the heart of the British state.
DeleteThe alarming thing is that the British state appears to be so captured and compromised it itself cannot free itself from mafia contamination. It is a testimony to the effectiveness, power, cunning and strategy of the international mafia syndicates that they've been able to manipulate the highest of state powers in Britain into a position in which the reputation of those state powers is tied inextricably to the interests of the mafia syndicates. They both now have a common purpose in concealing the corruption.
But that of course is standard mafia methodology. Nothing faintly surprising about that. What is surprising is how shockingly defenceless the apparatus of the British state has been to this capture.
If a few local independent journalists and activists have recognised and recorded all this, the British state can be very certain the security services of other nations have. The degree to which Jersey has been allowed to imperil the security and standing of the British state is astonishing.
Perhaps it's a sign that after so many centuries the British establishment has finally succumbed to decadence? The Jersey situation is that dramatic. Actually, more so. As anyone familiar with the facts knows, a handful of deeply compromised mafia bosses in Jersey have brought the bodies of the British state into a gutter lower than Watergate. And no one in authority in Britain appears to care or even be aware.
This could be the end of the British state as a respectable, credible entity. That the cancer should have erupted on Jersey is not surprising really. You combine absolute power, unchallenged power, with no checks & balances, into the hands of a few hick town feudal potentates and you combine that situation with frankly unlimited billions of dollars in international 'business' and it would be remarkable if utter corruption had not resulted.
I come back to the observation that it's astonishing how the apparatus at the heart of the British state has turned out to be so vulnerable to capture by international high level organised crime.
The term "The Jersey situation" has been referred to in a number of comments above.
ReplyDeleteReaders should CLICK HERE to get a good understanding of its meaning.
Roberto Saviano is one of the world’s most important anti-mafia experts and activists. He has written such renowned books as Gomorra, and Zero Zero Zero. When Saviano speaks, the law-enforcement agencies of respectable nations listen. The following link is to a short excerpt from an interview with Saviano.
ReplyDeleteHere is what he says of concerning Jersey: -
https://www.euronews.com/2017/04/03/the-uk-is-the-most-corrupt-country-in-the-world-anti-mafia-journalists-saviano
“The UK is the most corrupt country on earth, using Gibraltar, Jersey and other territories to funnel dirty cash ”.
The world’s international anti-mafia experts have long regarded Jersey as centrally important to global mafia-syndicate activity. This is not a fact you will ever find discussed on the island.
It will come as a surprise to most people that Jersey is a core instrument in global mafia activity. But it should not be surprising. In many ways Jersey is the perfect territory for serious international organised crime. The real established and successful mafia syndicates place a very high store on two things which Jersey offers: neat ‘control’ - and ‘discretion’. Jersey is perfect in being a tiny self-governing territory, so no national law-enforcement agencies to worry about, total control over the place was very easily achieved by mafia syndicate transnational ‘law-firms’ via ‘ownership’ of a few key local bosses. And on Jersey the most disgusting of criminals and organised crime entities can hide their activity in plain sight under the cloak of respectability brought by association with the UK, City of London and the Crown.
With your neatly manicured lawns and ornamental cows, the world’s mafia bosses love you, Jersey. They couldn’t have dreamed of a place more suited to hiding in plain sight the global hub of their activity.
Here is the link to the full Roberto Saviano interview: -
https://www.euronews.com/2017/04/04/mafia-expert-roberto-saviano-european-leaders-won-t-admit-to-mafia
The disguise worn by Jersey and its controlling mafia syndicates has been seen through. There is growing global scrutiny and understanding. It is no accident that Stuart Syvret has for some time described himself principally as an ‘international anti-mafia activist’.
Things are going to get tough. But international civil society will win this war.
See that Bacon pervert has been charged again.
ReplyDeleteBacon is clearly not a Freemason then?
DeleteIf he is - he was clearly not well in with the police force or civil servants who worked in the area of his profession! Not what you know but who you know.
DeleteSo now we have a £40.000.000 black hole. Again. Thought it disappeared under the brilliant Ringbinder MaClean? Am I the only person who would like some real politicians back in the States? This new Council of Ministers have delivered bugger all in more than a year.
ReplyDeleteAnd the struggle for the Iron Throne begins.
ReplyDeleteGone a bit quiet now. New post soon? Must also say that I am really looking forward to this interview with Trevor Pitman wheneever it should eventually appear.
ReplyDeleteHope to have a new posting up tomorrow. Reporting on more Fake News from BBC.
DeleteGreat stuff. Look forward it. Please keep us posted on the Mr TF interview as well if it is really going to happen.
DeleteI also note you have said you are in contact with Trevor Pitman. Are he and Shona alright?
I won't ask where they are as maybe they have had enough of the Jersey stalkers? Maybe they don't even care for the fact so many of us would love to see them back?
Speaking for myself I just hope they are both well after all of the Jersey Way bullshit they have suffered for standing up for what is right.
If you speak again please let them know that there really are so many people who will vote for them if they ever see fit to return. We are a democratic wasteland these days.
Am I the only Bean sick of this crap about the possible hospital site? FGS sort it out will you! How much more of our money must these prats waste squabling? I thought the last States was the worst ever but the in-action of this bunch might be even worse.
ReplyDeleteJersey's controlling mafia syndicates obviously had it too good, too easy, for too long. Competent organised crime syndicates avoid overreach, incompetence, and indiscretion. Especially indiscretion. The conduct of the mob on Jersey and in London has been so indiscreet events on Jersey are less defensible and more incompatible with the rule of law and of democracy than the conduct of Vladimir Putin. For example, name a court case in which Putin himself was a centrally conflicted actor with professional and financial direct interest in a case, in which Putin himself openly made the prosecution decisions, and in which Putin himself personally chose and appointed the judges? Yet that is what Philip and William Bailhache and Appleby Global did on Jersey against Stuart Syvret. Moreover they did so after being involved in engineering the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.
ReplyDeleteWhen mafia syndicates are carelessly displaying in plain sight their suppression of opposition politicians and the jailing of political dissidents, in modern Britain, they have given up on discretion. More obviously they have lost all touch with basic competence.
An easy way to understand the Jersey situation is to watch the film Casino. It is a remarkably accurate analogue for Jersey and the City of London, with the film's fact-based depiction of Las Vegas, it's 'juiced-in' local family mafia bosses, and external mafia syndicates taking their cut of the action. The only significant difference between the events depicted in the film and the Jersey & City of London situation is that ultimately the mafia syndicates with a financial interest in Las Vegas had the competence and discipline to recognise that some of their own elements had 'gone rogue' and placed in peril their entire operation. The Jersey and City of London mafia syndicates became so incompetent and in thrall to a handful of invested rogue individuals they lost that ability and now are tied to maintaining an all-out assault on the rule of law and of democracy more stark and less discrete than the conduct of Putin's Russia.
New Blog Posting.
ReplyDeleteFake News from THE BBC.