tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post7546219195251432882..comments2024-03-20T11:09:50.796+00:00Comments on voiceforchildren: Lenny Harper Responds.voiceforchildrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-19448285633651326542016-06-09T20:59:19.927+01:002016-06-09T20:59:19.927+01:00to Daniel
Just hours after VFC publish this post,...to Daniel<br /><br />Just hours after VFC publish this post, the missing Days appear on the website.<br /><br />This and other much bigger issues with the website are the subject of a letter to the COI which I am in the process of writing.<br /><br />Put simply it is not fit for purpose as it stands and I am asking them to make it so.<br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-42445528052764702352016-06-09T20:51:03.626+01:002016-06-09T20:51:03.626+01:00to Daniel
It was not 14 days but 21 days which we...to Daniel<br /><br />It was not 14 days but 21 days which went by Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-6761712830948063072016-06-09T07:11:56.816+01:002016-06-09T07:11:56.816+01:00LINK.<a href="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html" rel="nofollow">LINK.</a>voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-10592631018806616022016-06-09T03:56:55.687+01:002016-06-09T03:56:55.687+01:00On the 24th May at 19.19 I wrote to the Inquiry an...On the 24th May at 19.19 I wrote to the Inquiry and asked: "where are the transcripts for days 145 and 146?" Those were the days of the closing statements, including that of the SOJP and the JCLA<br /><br />I pointed out that the hearings had taken place on May 18th and 19th, 5 and 6 days previously.<br /><br />On June 1st at 06.05 I got this reply from a member of the legal team:<br /><br />"Thank you for your e-mail. I am currently awaiting instructions from the Inquiry Panel and hope to shortly be in a position to provide an update."<br /><br />The transcripts of Days 145 and 146 are still not up on the website, I have just checked. 21 days days have now gone by.Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-59182044517126638902016-06-09T03:32:54.717+01:002016-06-09T03:32:54.717+01:00I did not appear either and I gave an explanation....I did not appear either and I gave an explanation. Or rather, my explanation is on the record. <br /><br />As VFC blogged on July 21st 2014, I wrote to the Inquiry for a second time in that month (I had written before in April) quizzing them about the way they were proceeding.<br /><br />The blog quoted my press statement about the letter I wrote: <br /><br />Campaigner Daniel Wimberley has put 13 questions to the inquiry chairman, Frances Oldham and her panel.<br />.................<br />In his letter to the Panel Mr. Wimberley says that his giving evidence depends on getting satisfactory answers.<br />.................<br />“The concerns of the public and stakeholders are even more understandable when one recalls that the first inquiries at Hillsborough and in North Wales both failed and had to be repeated for the truth to at last come out. We do not want the same to happen in Jersey.”<br /><br />I did not receive satisfactory answers. In fact I received no formal answer at all, which meant that as they had not made a ruling, neither my letter nor their reply was published on their website.<br /><br />And as they did not answer my questions or give me any reassurance at all that they were the real deal, I did not give evidence. <br /><br />Just in case some do not get this, giving evidence is not a picnic, I would have taken weeks possibly months preparing, writing and giving oral evidence. I was not prepared to do this as I did not think the COI would be a serious affair and would skate over what I consider to be the key questions.<br /><br />Readers can see my press statement in full and also my letter and judge for themselves at VFC's blog on this: (sorry no link, can someone do this?)<br /><br />http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html<br /><br /><br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-75073585846146616632016-06-09T02:30:37.766+01:002016-06-09T02:30:37.766+01:00On the 24th may at 19.19 I wrote to the Inquiry an...On the 24th may at 19.19 I wrote to the Inquiry and asked: "where are the transcripts for days 145 and 146?" Those were the days of the closing statements, including that of the SOJP. <br /><br />I pointed out that the hearings had taken place on May 18th and 19th, 5 and 6 days previously.<br /><br />On June 1st at 06.05 I got this reply from a member of the legal team:<br /><br />"Thank you for your e-mail. I am currently awaiting instructions from the Inquiry Panel and hope to shortly be in a position to provide an update."<br /><br />The transcripts of Days 145 and 146 are still not up on the website, I have just checked. 14 days have now gone by.<br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-64836359498755768712016-05-29T08:43:57.651+01:002016-05-29T08:43:57.651+01:00Hear hear Tom Gruchy. I have been so incensed by w...Hear hear Tom Gruchy. I have been so incensed by what I learnt when I returned from holiday that I have been loathe to comment. I echo every word you say, and am amazed that the victims/survivors of abuse appear to have taken back stage in the final statements apart from the JCLA.<br /><br />Truly appalling.Jill Graciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12827733777338858628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-64716683864367200302016-05-28T12:12:42.526+01:002016-05-28T12:12:42.526+01:00It was a tragic spectacle to witness the States of...It was a tragic spectacle to witness the States of Jersey, The Law Officers and the SOJ Police queuing up to rubbish the whole Independent Inquiry which is costing us - the public - £25 millions. Clearly they want it to fail to report independently at all but rather to swallow the same official line that has suppressed the multitude of abuses for decades. This was a blatant attempt to smear the validity of so much testimony honestly given by genuine people with experiences of the repeated failures of the entire Jersey way. It was especially tragic that our Chief Minister Gorst, the Chief of Police and the Attorney General did not deliver the final statements themselves but rather evaded their personal and public responsibilities by hiding behind "professionals" to utter their words for them. As always the record will not reveal their ultimate and failed duty of care anymore than the decades of neglect were recognised at the time . There has been no acknowledgment of official responsibility for the abuse and the failures to act in response and there is still after all this time,a coordinated plan to bury the evidence, cover up the enormity of the scandal and the totally failed system of government and administration of justice. A few expressions of regret and limp apologies do not even touch the matter. This Inquiry has heard all the evidence and the members of the Panel will hopefully see through this disgraceful last minute attempt at truth distortion and distraction. Its just like Hillsborough. This is how governments really do behave when their corruption is revealed.Tom Gruchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01384387998228996741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-4732387323819346102016-05-26T21:09:56.008+01:002016-05-26T21:09:56.008+01:00I think it was Jersey's most famous La Moye gu...I think it was Jersey's most famous La Moye guest, Curtis Warren, who pointed out that if the Royal Court is as bent as the criminals we really are stuffed. Perhaps another opportunity for Mike Dun to remind us about the relevance of developing this 'Reform' day in honour of the events of 28 September 1769? We can't really claim things have improved in those nearly 250 years, can we?Nobby's Nutsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-37814033039111665922016-05-26T18:57:33.890+01:002016-05-26T18:57:33.890+01:00Anonymous at 08:44, 'So why hasn't anybody...Anonymous at 08:44, 'So why hasn't anybody else including potential abusers avoided giving evidence with this excuse?'<br /><br />As this blog specialises in important facts we won't find in Jersey's establishment media, lets respond to that trolling with a few facts.<br /><br />Firstly, the premise of the comment is obviously false. In fact there are a lot of other, very obvious, missing witnesses. We don't known what their reasons are for not giving evidence, because none of them have issued a public explanation. <br /><br />Secondly, and as mentioned above, in fact a large number of obvious and centrally involved core witness have not appeared before the COI. What distinguishes Stuart Syvret from people like Pollard, and Pollard, Chapman, Martins, Baker, Le Feuvre, Pitchers, McColl, Cougan, De La Haye, etc, etc, etc, is that Syvret is the only one of the missing witnesses to have had the integrity to state his case re appearance before the COI publicly. <br /><br />Of all the missing witnesses, Syvret is the only one of them to have given a public explanation. In his case we know why he hasn't appeared. In the case of the all of the rest, we don't have an explanation. We're still facing the culture of secrecy with the rest.<br /><br />Thirdly, Stuart Syvret is the only person to have already been subjected to illegal, police-state suppression. So his expectation that his human rights re effective legal representation get met are obviously justified. <br /><br />You see? This blog is not the JEP. Here we like the truth, and can trust facts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-36099128785762999002016-05-26T18:11:54.538+01:002016-05-26T18:11:54.538+01:00Drop this obsession with the Pitmans. Smacks of tr...Drop this obsession with the Pitmans. Smacks of trying to drag the thread off tack. <br /><br />I followed the Pitman's case like so many others and whatever else I think of their decision to risk the Jersey Way three things are undeniable. They are also what anyone referring to the case should focus on.<br /><br />1 They were libeled beyond question and proved it. 4 x the salary,Darling the advert claimed. Yet Mr Pitman demonstrated he took a pay cut of what I believe was several grand. Added to 4 x not being what you could get from banks for a mortgage back then this pair of facts should have seen the Filthy Rag and their estate agent chums hammered.<br /><br />In a proper court of law.<br /><br />2 As we saw confirmed during this COI unbeknown to the Pitmans the Bailiff's office had set them up with a Jurat who should have been in prison for helping cover up child abuse at Vic College.<br /><br />Now that is something to make you cringe.<br /><br />3 All of this shocking abuse of the Jersey courts is absolutely central to what unerlies the need to have a COI at all. Our courts are still corrupt and brave people like Stuart, the Pitmans and Lenny will continue to get shafted unless we all find the back bone to protest.<br /><br />Come on, who wants to pretend a place is as it should be when a poster can say somebody shouldn't stand up against bullies like the Rag and it's clent just because the court isn't honest?<br /><br />Madness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-40013308289150409172016-05-26T13:15:17.844+01:002016-05-26T13:15:17.844+01:00imo the Pitmans made the mistake of not thinking t...imo the Pitmans made the mistake of not thinking the unthinkable. They could not bring themselves to accept that they were living in a place without the rule of law.<br /><br />This island is a company town. They own the sheriffs and the courthouses. The Pitmans had no chance, the outcome was decided beforehand.<br /><br />Riding a 'troublemaker' out of town has the equivalent of "there's a boat in the morning"<br />Or a plane in HG's case.<br /><br />With hindsight the Pitmans probably realise that they were being reeled in.HIDShttp://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-12310907409766497992016-05-26T12:53:49.730+01:002016-05-26T12:53:49.730+01:00Glad you like my Avatar. I don't claim to be ...Glad you like my Avatar. I don't claim to be a mastermind but the handle Simple Simon is an attempt at self deprecation for self amusement and that of others.<br /><br />I absolutely agree re the Pitman's and cringed for them when they went down, in my opinion, this fool hardy route. They would have been much better taking it on the chin as part of the normal cut and thrust of political life. Playing the long game is always a much better strategy in my experience and they would have been well advised to do that.<br /><br />Well as a "non lawyer" you may or may not sometimes be inclined to be sloppy in your choice of words, such as perhaps using manage when you mean guide. Sorry but I think the meaning, tone and context are perfectly clear, and are coming from someone who should know the importance of using precise wording. The words Managed and Managing are collectively used three times. If you don't mean managed you mean guided then why use that word three times?<br /><br />"A lot of clients are too emotionally involved in their case to objectively consider points of view" I agree this is true in some cases, but I am also aware from experience that many intelligent people are quite often perfectly capable of rationalizing this to the points of law and reaching a considered decision, in the way that Stuart is inclined to do. In order to do that though they need the full advice on the legal points in question. My point above is that experience shows me that in legal aid cases, that may not be forthcoming. <br /> <br /><br /> Simple Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027401346689214312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-38983207319251832162016-05-26T12:08:31.707+01:002016-05-26T12:08:31.707+01:00Simple Simon... at least you chose an appropriate ...Simple Simon... at least you chose an appropriate avatar. As a non lawyer I completely understand what the commenter meant when he talked about managing a client. A lot of clients are too emotionally involved in their case to objectively consider points of view other than the potentially disastrous one they have chosen. A good lawyer will indeed manage such a client and try to persuade them that an alternative course of action might be better. A bad lawyer will just take their money and watch them fail.<br /><br />I'll give you a classic recent example in Jersey: the Pitmans suing the JEP and Broadlands for libel. I have no idea what advice they were given, and how they reacted to it, but in my view the best advice a lawyer could have given them is to grow a thicker skin and let the matter go. Whether they were actually libelled is not the point. The point is that libel cases are notoriously unpredictable, very expensive, and they were up against wealthy and powerful corporate opponents and a probably hostile court.<br /><br />Whatever, they were advised, they went ahead with their action and it has literalĺy ruined them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-50936494186852454002016-05-26T11:58:51.855+01:002016-05-26T11:58:51.855+01:00Nothing wrong with being a tosser if that's wh...Nothing wrong with being a tosser if that's what you want to be!<br /><br />I do actually appreciate lawyer @00:12 pro bono thoughts but I don't agree with some of them or indeed consider my "arrogance" comments inappropriate. Indeed I find your response quite frankly continuing in the same vein. <br /><br />You lawyers are ones for being very precise with your words but come on, really? Did I mention the word business, no! If you are implying I mean that then say so. Managing has a very clear definition, look it up if you need to. You are the one trying to soften it and justify it by suggesting it should read guide or advise. I think the wording and intention is however perfectly clear.<br /><br />My most recent experience of legal aid is seeing a friend receiving very poor advice and almost complete lack of attention and interest under that system. Stepping in and part funding proper advice ended in a result that the legal aid lawyer said would not be possible. So you are right you get what you pay for, but absolute attention to the legal points and correct advice on those is not a "lucky" option but an obligation IMHO. Legal aid is intended to provide legal advise to people who cannot afford it for whatever reason, and I don't believe anywhere in the legal aid scheme does it advise lawyers to "do only what you have to because you are not getting paid for it" or in other words ""you get what you pay for" *IF YOU ARE LUCKY*". Please correct me if I am wrong. <br /><br />Also please don't try to assume what I can or cant afford and don't assume that I would need "managing" on this point. Like I said, "in a similar vein" <br /><br />Glad you posted the links to Philip Sinel posts, I was thinking of him when I wrote the comment earlier but in the positive. Yes a little difficult and argumentative at times, but a fearless champion of good causes he truly believes in I feel.Simple Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027401346689214312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-74664811495957774732016-05-26T11:48:42.500+01:002016-05-26T11:48:42.500+01:00OK, I have re-read London Law's comment, and w...OK, I have re-read London Law's comment, and while his or her comment is more ambiguous than the section you quote, let's accept he or she specifically meant the the police have the righht to require the COI to issue a subpoena. In practice, this amounts to exactly the same thing, and so I would ask what is effectively the same question: what law gives the police have the right to require the COI to subpoena a witness?<br /><br />London Law is presumably a lawyer; I am not, but I frankly do not believe that the police could have any authority to direct the COI in such a way. The Jersey police presumably have no special status before the COI: police officers who apear as witnesses presumably do so in an individual capacity, and the force can presumably make representations to the COI in the same way as any other interested party. But require the COI to do something? I don't think so.<br /><br />So the question to London Law stands: what law gives the police this power?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-7098558398510271782016-05-26T10:17:32.584+01:002016-05-26T10:17:32.584+01:00Please read what "London Law" actually w...Please read what "London Law" actually wrote, IMO they have already answered your question:<br /><br />"Think about it: a core 'witness', and directly involved 'interested-party' itself - your actual Police Force - has just launched the most extraordinary and biased personal attack against the witness, Syvret, but has failed to exercise its right to have Syvret subpoenaed - even though it has the right, has the resources, and has the power to have required the public-inquiry to subpoena him."<br /><br />NOTE: "and has the power to have REQUIRED the PUBLIC-INQUITY to subpoena him."<br /><br />that is how public inquiries work outside of Jersey's legal La-La Land!<br /><br />So no, I don't think "....the police could [themselves] issue a subpoena to require....."<br /><br /><br />A more interesting question is that surely a functioning police force would give serious consideration to arresting members of the CoI team?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-32359069843411413162016-05-26T09:43:32.105+01:002016-05-26T09:43:32.105+01:00@ Sewermouthed Simon
You misjudge "fellow pra...@ Sewermouthed Simon<br />You misjudge "fellow practitioner" @00:12<br /><br />Sigh!<br />I think you will find that you are insulting a gentleman with a functioning brain and moral compass who does not deserve his(?) pro bono efforts slinging back in his face.<br /><br />In the real world you mention a legal practise is a business and businesses are run to their own ends. In this real world, the most you can expect from a business is value for money -not charity. <br />I know the legal aid you mention is not charity, but another real world adage is "you get what you pay for" *IF YOU ARE LUCKY*<br /><br />I for one appreciate fellow practitioner's advice and straight talking ......telling us his take on how it is.<br /><br />Yes Syvret would likely get a fresh faced boy or girl out of college with less to lose and keen to make a name for themselves but despite their best intentions it is unlikely they would be up to the job.<br /><br />You don't like the word "manage"? Fine, substitute the words guide, advise etc.<br />Even the best professional cuts the cloth according to the client's budget. You would likely need "managing" on this point. It is unlikely that you or * I * could afford the full and immaculate service you demand.<br /><br />I left the comment 20:33 <br />"On reading the excellent comments on this thread I have this hunch that in their final report this CoI will join the establishment and blame Syvret (whom they did not subpoena)<br />Get that! in this lawyer infested island the whistleblowers get the blame while the culprits skulk off scot-free?"<br /><br />Lawyer @00:12 does not take umbrage at being likened to an infestation. <br />Rather he agrees and adds further observations on the shortcomings of his profession and the depth and breadth of undemocratic state power.<br /><br />get over yourself and recognise when you ate talking to a "good un".<br /><br />Some lawyers are prepared to rock the boat:<br />http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-1.html<br />http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-2.html<br /><br />P.S. what's wrong with being a tosser btw?HIDShttp://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-1.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-14682464591722013642016-05-26T08:44:19.238+01:002016-05-26T08:44:19.238+01:00'I'm sure that's given them 2yrs of sl...'I'm sure that's given them 2yrs of sleepless nights.'<br /><br />So why hasn't anybody else including potential abusers avoided giving evidence with this excuse?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-79169163392745565112016-05-26T07:28:28.330+01:002016-05-26T07:28:28.330+01:00Oh and another thing.
"Syvret going to the U...Oh and another thing.<br /><br />"Syvret going to the UK legal market, and being unable to find any lawyers willing to take on the British establishment, which is what the brief requires and demands. Nothing less."<br /><br />I would hope that there are a few truly diligent, honest, and fearless lawyers out there who would recognize the complexities of the case and be prepared to support the case in the interests of true justice. It seems to me 00:12 that you really don't give a toss about real justice, only your big fat fee and an easy life.<br /><br />Simple Simon Simple Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027401346689214312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-42833275561013685642016-05-26T07:18:17.463+01:002016-05-26T07:18:17.463+01:00You arrogant p£@*k! If I engage you as a lawyer, ...You arrogant p£@*k! If I engage you as a lawyer, and you accept the engagement, then I expect nothing less than total commitment to giving me the full understanding of the legal position, and all possible scenarios for me to make the decision on how my case proceeds. I do not want "managing" whilst you bulldoze the case in your chosen direction, possibly even one selected in some dodgy back room meeting between you and the opposing lawyer. <br /><br />"Even if you sincerely WISH to do your very best for such a client, serving them is going to make you sweat and require of you the highest standards of performance." <br /><br />Fu$%^*g unbelievable. I don't give a fig about your wishes, its your duty to advise me to the best of your abilities and fight for my best interests. anything less makes you nothing better than a common whore touting for business and faking it. I expect you to sweat and I expect the highest standards. <br /><br />I've seen the way you lawyers work, particularly on legal aid cases where your duties and responsibilities to your client remain the same, but your service is usually at less than the bare minimum. The quicker you get a legal aid client to accept whatever deal the other side offers the quicker you can get back to the bar for a G&T and a "civilized conversation with like minded intellectuals". For "intellectuals" read "tossers" in the real world language. Your attitude stinks. Simple Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027401346689214312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-20846692803356931492016-05-26T00:12:13.287+01:002016-05-26T00:12:13.287+01:00The direction of these recent comments is interest...The direction of these recent comments is interesting. To me, as a long-standing observer of the British Isles constitutional situation, so as a follower of 'events' in Jersey, I'll agree with the enthusiasm of the person at 20:33.<br /><br />But if I may offer some assistance towards a deeper understanding of the modalities of power to be seen in the sub-text of 'events', I have to take issue with a fellow external observer, 'London Law', who's seen the target, taken aim, but has missed it. <br /><br />The diagnosis is wrong in the following sense. If the authorities' way out of this was as simple as giving Syvret a lawyer, they would have done so. As one practitioner to another, you will know most clients can be 'managed'. And in fairness to our profession, most clients need 'managing', for their own, often emotionally clouded & non-expert benefit. But on the other hand, there are clients who have a 'problematically' accurate and challenging understanding of their own circumstances and case. With such clients, 'managing' them can be a demanding, professionally taxing task. Especially if their understanding of their case and the relevant and extant law is correct. Even if you sincerely wish to do your very best for such a client, serving them is going to make you sweat and require of you the highest standards of performance. <br /><br />It is mainly corporate law in which we see such demanding standards. Not least because of the involvement of other kinds of professionals who will know from their own, expert perspectives, what it is which needs to be achieved on behalf of their employers. The descriptor is 'intelligent client' when referring to such a contract. It's a rare thing for an individual, especially one in the most unusual circumstances of Syvret, to constitute an 'intelligent client', but that's the case. Meeting this particular client's requirements could very easily be the most taxing contract of one's entire career. Not least because at the heart of the case is the explosion of the state-shaming British child-abuse cover-up scandal and his role as a key whistleblower in this era, and such attendant dramas as the actual unlawful suspension of a Police Chief to enable the state suppression of the client, who only happened to also be the leading opposition member of a legislature at the time. <br /><br />My hunch, for what it's worth, is that one of the main considerations behind the very high-risk decision to refuse to give Syvret legal representation funding, is that even if such funding had been given to him, no lawyers would take on the brief. The reason being he'd rightly require of them they tackle the most shocking and basic abuses of his and his former constituents' human rights; abuses which are the responsibility of the government (UK government, that is) and are which plainly so severe as to have constitutional implications.<br /><br />Whilst I think 'London Law' has it right, as far as they go, I think they fail to see the power of their own analysis. So high-risk is the decision to refuse to give Syvret legal funding, it has to have a deeper explanation than only the discomfiture of the Jersey authorities which would, certainly, have arisen from his lawyer placing questions via the public-inquiry to the establishment witnesses. I think the scenario the COI (and their instructing clients, obviously, who I think you'll find are closer to Westminster than Jersey) really feared, was Syvret going to the UK legal market, and being unable to find any lawyers willing to take on the British establishment, which is what the brief requires and demands. Nothing less. <br /><br />I believe that 'tumbleweed-and-silence' scenario, in the British legal marketplace, and what it would say of the rule of law in this nation given the dramatic factual background, is what the authorities have most feared. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-39571233119277430732016-05-25T23:45:08.629+01:002016-05-25T23:45:08.629+01:00Is it really the case that the police could issue ...Is it really the case that the police could issue a subpoena to require a person to appear before the COI as a witness? This seems incredibly unlikely: surely the COI is the only body capable of issuing such a subpoena?<br /><br />I wonder if London Law could explain where in law this power is vested in the police?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-81874390865972306002016-05-25T22:45:12.564+01:002016-05-25T22:45:12.564+01:00What was stuart going to say that he hadn't al...What was stuart going to say that he hadn't already said on his blog and been to prison for? Is there a hidden bunker buster out there? <br /><br />"It was an immense gamble for them. They appear to have been convinced Syvret would cave-in and agree to engage with a process which was just another abuse of his human rights. They were wrong, and the error of judgment is of dramatic impact. It means that the Jersey public-inquiry proccess has no vires, that is, no legal validity."<br /><br />I'm sure that's given them 2yrs of sleepless nights. <br /><br />It is what it is. <br /><br />rico sordahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09370637157786202673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-68515151420416582812016-05-25T20:33:42.071+01:002016-05-25T20:33:42.071+01:00On reading the excellent comments on this thread I...On reading the excellent comments on this thread I have this hunch that in their final report this CoI will join the establishment an blame Syvret (whom they did not subpoena)<br /><br />Get that! in this lawyer infested island the whistleblowers get the blame while the culprits skulk off scot-free?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com