tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post5449711848456940242..comments2024-03-07T08:25:48.882+00:00Comments on voiceforchildren: Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Carries On “The Jersey Way.”voiceforchildrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comBlogger223125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-4338111730608509682015-11-12T10:25:41.332+00:002015-11-12T10:25:41.332+00:00@UK
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/0...@UK<br /><br />http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/stuart-syvret-on-csainquiry.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-76835881543823613302015-11-12T09:31:04.405+00:002015-11-12T09:31:04.405+00:00Do not tread on any worms. They are creatures too....Do not tread on any worms. They are creatures too.<br /><br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH2zaqfy0FQ&feature=related<br /><br />http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/needless-and-avoidable-suffering-of.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-21297898292864310002015-11-12T08:18:56.901+00:002015-11-12T08:18:56.901+00:00Be they ever so high .......
....hang them ever s...Be they ever so high .......<br /><br />....hang them ever so highAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-5046213661313296362015-11-12T00:11:07.592+00:002015-11-12T00:11:07.592+00:00Spot on comments above imo. This was always a game...Spot on comments above imo. This was always a game of chess. Stuart always had a clear vision of 'lookahead'.<br /> The misconduct of the CoI is paralysed. They have to decide which pieces to sacrifice or admit they set up a rigged game without all the pieces on the board.<br /><br />VFC has an investment here and we should respect his position. I think his focus is on the welfare and closure for the victims of the past.<br />Stuart's position is focused on preventing more victims in the future for which the rule of law is a prerequisite.<br /><br />We are not all privy to the same information and neither position is wrong. it is just a matter of focus and priority. For some there are deep emotions involved.<br />I am with Stuart's assumed position on this but to alternative views I am happy to "agree to disagree". <br />We shall have our cake and eat it.<br /><br />My strong suspicion is that Stuart wants to be subpoenaed. <br /><br />It would of course be yet another gross breach of Stuart's rights to subpoena him to this unlawful CoI<br /><br />Also there are the death threats .......Forget the local drunken losers. A lot of dirty money has passed through this island in the past, and probably some still does.<br /><br />What would the response be is Stuart was murdered or "mysteriously took his own life"?<br />One suggestion would be to hang some people from the lampposts ......by their b@lls .......until very very unhappy<br />But Stuart has ensured that he would haunt the shysters from beyond the graveClick HEREhttp://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2015/11/independent-jersey-care-inquiry-16-5.html?showComment=1446973560497#c6607300210525191991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-86263576214742026172015-11-11T21:30:57.485+00:002015-11-11T21:30:57.485+00:00Sorry to disappoint but the truth is that there is...Sorry to disappoint but the truth is that there is no appetite for that fight.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-56209629449168866112015-11-11T21:20:59.228+00:002015-11-11T21:20:59.228+00:00I have to say I find your answer surprising. I wou...I have to say I find your answer surprising. I would have expected more interest on your side in seeing that a key whistleblower got legal representation. Not least because it would be a win win for Jersey campaigners. You would get his evidence, he would get a lawyer. I'm just amazed that the Jersey campaigners aren't following such obvious steps. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-27796022909230694632015-11-11T21:06:58.462+00:002015-11-11T21:06:58.462+00:00There is no time for a re-think and just as little...There is no time for a re-think and just as little inclination. This Inquiry is going ahead. It is up to Stuart and the Inquiry to sort out their differences. There are only so many fights that people can take on especially with little, or no, resources.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-64895253082380051362015-11-11T20:58:49.398+00:002015-11-11T20:58:49.398+00:00With respect VFC, I think your argument and reason...With respect VFC, I think your argument and reasoning is faulty. Firstly, if the inquiry subpoenaed Stuart Syvret, that is compel him to become involved in its processes, they'd then have to give him unconditional legal representation funding. They would have forced him to become involved, without him having voluntarily signed up to their protocols and surrendered any of his rights. So why would your side instead adopt a position that gives you all the worst of both worlds? At present, you don't get Syvret's testimony to support the cause, and he doesn't get legal representation. I don't find your argument to be logical. And turning to the issues of cost, that's even less convincing. The budget is made over. It's been agreed and spent already. There's no factor involved in these calculations that can save Jersey tax payers a penny. If Eversheds are forced to fund a lawyer for Syvret, that simply means a few £100,000 less into the bonuses and pockets of Evershed London's Partners and their lawyers on the case team. Don't you understand that? The less money Eversheds are forced to spend, only means bigger profits for Eversheds. Who would you rather benefited from that money? Eversheds' bosses, or Stuart Syvret? I do believe your side really needs to rethink its position here. At the moment you're supporting a scenario that perpetuates the denial of legal representation to your key whistle blower and instead gives that money into the back accounts you establishment's lawyers. Time for a rethink. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-53595466631587485102015-11-11T20:12:03.145+00:002015-11-11T20:12:03.145+00:00'On the face of things I can see no remotely l...'On the face of things I can see no remotely lawful ground on which this public inquiry would or could refuse to summon an indisputably key witness.' Ha, ha, yes, there's the rub.....'lawful' ground. <br /><br />Apart from imagining the Jersey legal establishment have regard to anything so quaint as 'lawful grounds', I do agree with your analysis. <br /><br />I don't, incidentally, think the explanation by our host at 19:28 is especially well thought out. It's a too simplistic consideration of the game afoot. Look, what's taking place here is a long and complex chess match. Syvret is smart enough to have seen that a long time ago. He's playing moves, and so are your establishment and their lawyers. I'd say from events the opening gambit of the lawyers and whoever their mysterious and obscured real client is, was a self-inflicted disaster. That gambit being the fatal move of once again underestimating the determination and intelligence of the campaign they seek to neutralize. In spite of everything they thought they could, again, get away with another piece of empty theatre. Having embarked on a public inquiry, this time it had to be real. They were never going to get away with anything less. But they thought they could.<br /><br />The result is they face a self-inflicted zugzwang. All of their positional play since their fatal gambit has been based on the hope that their opponent would not spot their vulnerabilities and force the resultant end-game. <br /><br />I don't have time at the moment, but I think it would be useful for us to run through, as it were, the possible moves and responses of the 'players'. I think if we did that we'd see over the horizon the waiting check-mate. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-81093345679176702522015-11-11T19:28:06.550+00:002015-11-11T19:28:06.550+00:00I don’t want to go in depth of how I, and others, ...I don’t want to go in depth of how I, and others, have attempted to broker some kind of a deal that would enable Stuart to give evidence to this Inquiry safely.<br /><br />The big problem is that Stuart has made it clear that he would not comply with a subpoena. This means that if the Inquiry did issue a subpoena, then Stuart didn’t comply with it, the State could, and probably would, have him put in prison.<br /><br />The Inquiry has a timetable and budget that it has to comply with. Issuing a subpoena (that won’t be complied with) would be a total waste of time and money. Stuart would end up in prison, won’t be a witness, and thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of £’s of the Inquiry’s budget would have been sent on sending him to prison. Not a good use of the budget (taxpayers money)<br />voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-51850211158296918572015-11-11T19:16:04.747+00:002015-11-11T19:16:04.747+00:00I haven't contacted the public inquiry and ask...I haven't contacted the public inquiry and asked that Syvret be subpoenaed because I have no locus, no 'standing', to do so. I have no direct particular 'interest' in the legal sense in the Jersey child-abuse issues and I'm not even a resident of the island. Were I to write to the inquiry making such a request they'd refuse on those grounds. However, any person who can show a reasonable 'interest' in the subject matter of the inquiry, for example individual survivors, survivor representative organisations, involved whistle-blowers, campaigners who can demonstrate a genuine long-term involvement in the subject, etc will have the necessary 'interest' and 'locus' to ask that Syvret be summonsed. And the same is true for criminals, the culpable. They too have the right to require any key witness be summoned. I'm assuming no one has asked the public inquiry to subpoena Syvret as I imagine there'd be publicity if they had? It would be reported in the media, or at least on the blogs? Syvret himself I imagine would have something to say about it. Let me also put it this way, if a person or group with the necessary 'standing' has in fact asked the public inquiry to subpoena Syvret, and the inquiry has refused to do so, then it's vitally important for your case that that fact be made public. You should ensure the correspondence get's published on your blog. Documents like the e-mail or letter of request, and the corresponding written refusal from the public inquiry. If such a process and exchange has taken place, then what 'reasoned explanation' has been given, if any, for the decision to refuse to subpoena Syvret? As I say, I'm assuming that process has not yet taken place. But if it has and the panel has refused to summon Syvret, then that itself would be damning and very necessarily material which should be made public. On the face of things I can see no remotely lawful ground on which this public inquiry would or could refuse to summon an indisputably key witness. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-46934033907604684272015-11-11T18:47:14.813+00:002015-11-11T18:47:14.813+00:00Could I pose the same question to you? Why haven’t...Could I pose the same question to you? Why haven’t you contacted the Inquiry and insist they subpoena Stuart? Also how do you know none of us have? <br /><br />You seem very keen for anybody else to get active, so how active have you been?<br />voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-1532144018815114882015-11-11T18:41:33.849+00:002015-11-11T18:41:33.849+00:00No one has answered directly the question I asked ...No one has answered directly the question I asked above. Why haven't people on your side required of the public inquiry panel that they summons Stuart Syvret? I understand now his reasons for not wanting to engage with the public inquiry, but that's not really the question I was asking. I'm asking why don't you people just have him summoned? You have the right and the power to do that. In fact, I put it more strongly, thinking about it, you are duty bound to ask that he be subpoenaed to the inquiry. How can you let pass by what might be the only chance ever you have to have a vital witness who's very much on your side and would say things vital to your cause? Even if Syvret didn't like it, I just can't see that you've got any choice in the matter. You realise, presumably that your establishment and the child-abusers and cover-up villains they've shielded are praying that it all passes off without Syvret giving evidence? So what are you doing about that? Are you going to just sit back and let them win that battle? Your survivor group can demand of Eversheds and the panel that Syvret get subpoenaed. It's troubling that the survivors' lawyers haven't already done this. I ask the question again, 'why hasn't your side exercised its right to have the public inquiry subpoena Syvret?' We need answers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-21125546639132252922015-11-11T18:40:43.744+00:002015-11-11T18:40:43.744+00:00I was wondering if it was Faudemer as he was due t...I was wondering if it was Faudemer as he was due to give evidence at the last batch of hearings along with Andre Bonjour. Friday was cancelled, and now with the new timetable Bonjour is there but Faudemer isn't.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-69258867205450195982015-11-11T18:35:37.508+00:002015-11-11T18:35:37.508+00:00Wonder if Gradwell volunteered?
Wonder if To Be Co...Wonder if Gradwell volunteered?<br />Wonder if To Be Confirmed is Warcup? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-88026265744712914312015-11-11T18:11:22.070+00:002015-11-11T18:11:22.070+00:00Gradwell to give evidence !!!Gradwell to give evidence !!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-51096376135328317792015-11-11T16:52:57.979+00:002015-11-11T16:52:57.979+00:00Re Anonymous: "I am quite proud of this Vogon...Re Anonymous: "I am quite proud of this Vogon piece though"<br /><br />Oh, so you are that person! I always wondered who you were.Rob Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04019654918054950571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-27635600809589556792015-11-11T09:04:48.518+00:002015-11-11T09:04:48.518+00:00******************************
To load the rest o...******************************<br /><br />To load the rest of the comments Click above title or else on the text link "Load more..." right at the bottom of this blog<br /><br />******************************This Blog has over 200 comments ....Click HERE to load comments over 200 ..............................................................................................................................................http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/10/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-carries-on.html?showComment=1447189872048#c9036774292597489954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-3359328993538287002015-11-11T08:38:06.444+00:002015-11-11T08:38:06.444+00:00Link.Link.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-12721178115647057232015-11-11T08:37:39.489+00:002015-11-11T08:37:39.489+00:00Lint to COI TIMETABLE.Lint to COI <a href="http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/inquiry-timetable" rel="nofollow">TIMETABLE.</a>voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-57559011708435254322015-11-11T08:36:28.722+00:002015-11-11T08:36:28.722+00:00I believe it is right to say that once Graham Powe...I believe it is right to say that once Graham Power had retired no further arrests were made and Operation Rectangle was closed down leaving more <a href="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/12/operation-rectanglecase-closed.html" rel="nofollow">QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS.</a>voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-20281184248735872015-11-11T01:30:49.448+00:002015-11-11T01:30:49.448+00:00Mick Gradwell will be appearing before the inquiry...Mick Gradwell will be appearing before the inquiry on 20th November 2015 at 9am<br /><br /><a href="http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/inquiry-timetable" rel="nofollow">http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/inquiry-timetable</a><br /><br />VFC, you've got a good memory and excellent record keeping skills. Remind me, is it correct to say that all successful Operation Rectangle convictions were for suspects who were arrested on Lenny Harper's watch?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-76821984464353095492015-11-10T22:38:31.447+00:002015-11-10T22:38:31.447+00:00To load the rest of the comments Click above title...To load the rest of the comments Click above title or else on "Load more..." at the bottom of this blog<br /><br />Thank you "London Lawyer"This Blog has reached 200 comments ....Click HERE to load the over 200 commentshttp://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/10/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-carries-on.html?showComment=1447189872048#c9036774292597489954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-39095533344703280102015-11-10T22:16:27.722+00:002015-11-10T22:16:27.722+00:00@19:54 "......this doesn't appear to make...@19:54 "......this doesn't appear to make sense"<br /><br />Ah, you spotted that did you? Welcome to Jersey, the British Isle which legal justice forgot!<br /><br />Perhaps you are also perplexed by a CoI which refuses to investigate the unlawful suspension of the good chief of police?<br /><br />The inescapable conclusion is that there are some truths which the CoI is specifically not wanting to find.<br /><br />This CoI is doughnut shaped ........there is a big (witness shaped) hole in the middle<br /><br />Apparently legal representation was conditional on witnesses like Stuart signing up beforehand to the CoI's "protocols". These protocols were apparently a breach of human rights and would restrict the Ex Health Minister from campaigning effectively in the future. Stuart is holding out for a proper, fit for purpose CoI (which will probably have to be UK based eventually)<br /><br />Mr Syvret has been subject to death threats. Perhaps these have been more credible than those from "Mr. Worthless" and his fairy friends.<br /><br />The CoI could subpoena Stuart if it wanted his evidence, if it wanted to find the truth.<br /><br />Have you read<br />http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/<br /><br />P.S Thanks for good answer above from "London Lawyer" above.<br />Except Eversheds would probably claim that they were doing as asked by the client and maybe even have a secret letter to prove it ?signed by the the Queen's Feudal Barron?<br />and <br />"....if comprising people of sufficient calibre and the right political determination...." ....Oh Cr@p, we're done for!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-90367742925974899542015-11-10T21:11:12.048+00:002015-11-10T21:11:12.048+00:00My understanding of the Syvret position is that he...My understanding of the Syvret position is that he was concerned with the legal consequences of a number of the protocols draw up by Eversheds and rubber-stamped by the 3 member panel. One the things he needed legal advice for was to answer his concerns about those protocols. Basicly, his suspicion about the protocols was shown to be correct by the instant refusal by Eversheds to let him have legal funding with which he could question the protocols. As usual, he hit target. <br /><br />Looking at the resultant stand-off Eversheds, very unwisely, decided to press on regardless without engaging Syvret even though he's a core witness, on the gamble that he'd eventually cave-in and engage with the inquiry anyway. Good luck with that. <br /><br />The consequence is that Eversheds took a punt at the beginning of this process and gambled that they could doubly satisfy their clients by avoiding the messy business of primary engagement with stakeholders by ignoring part (e) of the decision of your legislature, and keep their fingers crossed and hope no-one noticed. But if anyone did get stroppy about it, they had in reserve the insurance-policy that they had the resources to just brazen it out, and no-one on the side of the good guys would have the resources to challenge them. Unfortunately for Eversheds and their clients, into that 'clever-clever' plan stepped Syvret. The result is they're running a public inquiry which is obviously and on numerous grounds unlawful, and which, far from delivering the 'line under the controversy' sought by Evershed's paymasters, they've instead delivered just another layer of obvious corruption, another example of attempted child-abuse cover-up, which is now in the mix as a part of the culture of concealment that Britain's authorities are unavoidably going to have to come to terms with. <br /><br />As a professional I'm very confident that, in the fulness of time, once you have a better legislature, your government will be able to recover every penny of fees that have been paid to Eversheds on the plain and evidenced grounds of gross professional incompetence. Look, Jersey tax-payers have spent their millions on this public inquiry, in the expectation that what they're getting for that payment is a public inquiry that meets the basic competencies, and satisfies the basic requirements of vires. They haven't got that. Instead they've been ripped-off by Eversheds with a process so incompetent it imagined it could go on its merry way whilst constructively excluding the key whistleblower witness. <br /><br />Note my advice. Your government, if comprising people of sufficient calibre and the right political determination, can recover your money from Eversheds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com