Friday, 25 July 2014

Stuart Syvret Court Case State Media Interview (uncut)





Former Jersey Senator, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, was once more appearing in Jersey's Royal Court today in a case brought by the Treasury Minister, Senator Philip Ozouf, who's claiming £68,000 supposed Court costs arising out of Mr. Syvret's various attempts to defend himself against the same system that has oppressed and failed so many VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN JERSEY.

Those who have followed the performance of Jersey's so-called  corrupt, politicised and non ARTICLE SIX HUMAN RIGHT COMPLIANT  courts and specifically followers of the "legal" actions consistently brought against Mr. Syvret and in one case "secretly" brought against him, will be aware that the oppressions by Jersey's establishment have left him penniless and without assets.  This does not deter the State from relentlessly pursuing him in court chasing vast amounts of money that they, and everybody else knows, he doesn't have.

It is quite clear, to any reasonable observer, (and the judiciary) that Mr. Syvret has no way of paying these supposed  "costs" arising from his attempts to defend himself against the State,  and the motives behind the pursuance of these monies, and the continuing court actions are highly questionable. Not least, the apparent, non article six Human Right compliant tribunal he was in front of this morning (mentioned in video below).

Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) attended the Hearing, as did some local State Media (BBC and ITV/CTV). The latter interviewed Mr. Syvret which we filmed in its entirety and offer it to our readers/viewers unedited. Viewers will note that Mr. Syvret had a question of his own for ITV/CTV which has still not been adequately answered.

Regular readers of this Blog will be aware that the State Media published/broadcast a prosecution case (the Wiltshire Report) against (illegally?) suspended former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

The "prosecution case" against the Police Chief, which was  broadcast and printed by Jersey State media, was commissioned by the disgraced Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who ultimately dropped  the disciplinary case and in the words of Mr. Power "chickened out of a FAIR FIGHT."

Mr. Power had compiled a 94 page, 62,000 word, interim defence case against the failed and abandoned, politically motivated, disciplinary action. A copy of Mr Power's 94 page report was leaked (by Stuart Syvret) to the discredited, and disgraced BBC (on the 22nd of November 2011) which, despite reporting what was ultimately a failed and abandoned disciplinary case against the Police Chief, the BBC has BURIED MR. POWER'S STATEMENT.

A little known fact is that well over a year ago, Mr. Syvret furnished CTV/ITV, the ITN news franchise in the Channel Island's, with the same document he leaked to the BBC. ITV/CTV also reported on the "prosecution case" against Mr. Power, but just like the BBC has buried the interim defence case and Mr. Syvret, in the interview below, questions CTV/ITV as to when it will be reporting on the many public interest issues revealed in Mr Power's statement and indeed adding balance to the prosecution case it has reported on.

244 comments:

  1. Get Ted Vibert back to flatten Ozouf properly this time!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, now...

      Not in my name.

      No violence please.

      Stuart

      Delete
    2. Is this the same Ted Vibert who turned against him like a rabid dog in the by-election a few years back?

      Delete
  2. I don't think the rule of law is much to ask for. Of course, if Jersey operated under a proper rule of law, Stuart wouldn't need to be doing this, the victims would have received justice and 'make it up as you go along Bailhache' and his friends would be history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If he owes money to the Treasury then they have a duty to claim it.
    All this rambling about Graham Power and the Bailhaches holds no relevance whatsoever and I imagine the Judge told him that this morning?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Graham Power etc. etc. etc."

      The shyster states of Jersey have more Achilles heels than a centipede

      but the illegal suspension of the chief of police is a big one!

      Delete
    2. A bit like the Chinese government sending relatives a bill for the bullets after executing a political dissident by firing squad, eh?

      Even if your argument about relevance wasn't so obviously complete bollocks, how is the treasury going to exercise their "duty to claim it", when Stuart clearly doesn't have any "it"? Maybe they should force Stuart to sell his organs to pay the protection money they claim he owes. March him down to the General Hospital in handcuffs. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

      Delete
  4. Channel TV have the evidence in the statement they were given which provide answers to the questions they asked of Stuart Syvret?

    The money owed to the treasury is a direct result of a conflicted judiciary. Extremely relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just because he supports vulnerable persons does not give him licence to act above the law.
    Once again Voice for Children you promote a one sided, almost anarchist approach towards the Jersey Justice System, though you know, as well as anybody else that these moans and groans will be in vein.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what if the island' legal system was a hijacked fake?

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-1.html
      &
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-2.html

      Delete
    2. You are quite correct. In Jersey, only paedophiles and those who protect them are above the law. What was VOC thinking?

      p.s. The word you are looking for is "vain"; I think you might have put something else in your vein.

      Delete
  6. When's round 3?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice one. She's hopeless isn't she? You're never going to get anything from her, she's just doing a job and doesn't care.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No she dropped ITV Channel right in it …….. deep. You see, everyone under the eyes of the law can and should defend himself or herself. Graham Power tried to with a statement answering his critics and putting the record straight. After the appalling mauling by CTV focusing on Warcup trying to trash the investigation ( as it was then ) they were given a copy of G. Powers statement by Syvret, but never did the decent thing and published it.

    This shows the true nature of the organisation.

    The point being they never admitted having a copy until today. In answering Syvret's final question when will you publish it ?, she said at the Committee of inquiry. Nice one Stuart and VFC, an admission that they cannot be trusted to give a balanced report. This should have published, for the sake of fairness and professionalism years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. Well done, Stuart. In admitting they have Graham Power's statement, the State Media outlet has opened itself up to questions about it. Outside questions about Jersey's msm should be on their horizon anyway, so they can expect increasingly uncomfortable scrutiny. Getting the Power Statement out in open examination and official comment could be the game changer for all those who haven't had to answer to anyone but the oligarchy before now.

      Elle

      Delete
    2. Yes, Leah Ferguson captured on film blatantly admitting that the Jersey Evening Post have withheld Graham Power's statement from the people of Jersey.

      The JEP has been well and truly caught out with this one, it will be interesting to see what the COI do with this evidence!

      The JEP's silence on Wilfred Krichefsky, and all the other "well-connected" paedophiles who have so far escaped justice most remarkable, do we have no real investigative journalist working for the JEP?

      You are most definitely a force for good Mr Syvret that this islands politicised judiciary have so far been unable to silence.

      The sooner you get back into Jersey politics the better!

      Delete
  9. Good that you have put this up, Team Voice. Shame that I could not be there but fair play to Stuart for once again spelling it out just as it is. The Jersey 'justice' system is wholly unfit for purpose. Eventually the UK will have to step in as is their responsibility - no matter how long it takes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Rags editorial the other evening nearly made me vomit, there they were spouting on about 'the truth must come out' as if they have been the vanguard for the defence of the abused when in fact they have done all within there power to bury the truth. Perhaps this 'change of tack' can best be explained by the fact that the COI may well start looking at their record of bias. After all that has and is happening in the UK over the celebrity pedophiles and Theresa Mays statement to expose all, perhaps there are now many here in Jersey who are seriously wondering when the knock on the door will come. One thing that the JEP editorial seemed to say was that there has been decades of abuse here in the Island, so that said we come back to Stuarts comments in the States Chamber when asked if he had faith in Jerseys child protection facilities. We all know very well the answer he gave and how the usual Pygmies behaved toward him, but the fact is HE WAS RIGHT. So when will the government be making a public apology to Stuart over there assassination of him and all that has followed? was that a flying pig I just saw land on the States Chamber.

    ReplyDelete
  11. VFC why do you think Stuart Syvret should have his debts waived, and what do you think the Public would think with him being an ex States Member if they did make a special allowance in this case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything they have done to persecute Stuart, from cutting off his microphone to creating new laws, to deliberately misusing old ones, is a 'special' case. That's why he has these debts. Without oligarchy oppression, he wouldn't 'owe' anything.

      Elle

      Delete
    2. Is Syvret the 2nd coming to you or something?

      Delete
    3. Yes Elle they already seem to have already made a very "special allowance" for Ex Health Minister Syvret.

      In fact they have made a whole series of "special allowances" for Syvret

      The real cost to the public of these "special allowances" to silence the Health Minister is FAR HIGHER than "Ozouf's £68,000" and now probably totals about £3 million. Some of this will have been invisibly syphoned from the secretive "Criminal Confiscation Fund". This is the establishment's slush fund which is usually kept under wraps, only being recently publicly raided to buy Plemont headland at the behest of Mr. Bailhache.

      The developer had offered to donate 2/3 of the site for FREE. It is unbelievable what the minions will vote for.when cutbacks are rife.

      Utterly shameless !

      Delete
  12. A lot of people me included had high hopes for Leah Ferg. Just shows how quickly cowards turn native. Now she is just like any other State media boot kisser. Look at how she treated the Pitmans. Come back please Adam Fowler all is forgiven.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is vintage Syvret.
    Its getting a little weary though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Further to the detailed discussions on Daniel Wimberley's submission to the CoI
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

    One of the best ways of ensuing that the inquiry does it's job properly is to ensure that their work will be externally scrutinised. It concentrates the mind as well as that elusive lawyer-for-hire conscience.

    www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/theresa-may-home-secretary-include-jersey-channel-islands-in-the-historic-csa-inquiry
    Please sign this petition to ensure the Jersey inquiry do the best possible job, not the worst that they think they can get away with, as is beginning to look likely with their non-consultation, non-answers and evaporating ToRs

    The future safety of Jersey and UK children depends on these things being done properly.
    :
    www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041035/Birmingham-council-illegally-sent-children-care-Jersey-MP-report-reveals.html

    How many children other UK councils sent to Jersey is anyone's guess (including the Nick Rabet/Peter Righton paedophile ring homes in Islington ! )


    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9620223/Jimmy-Savile-He-was-the-tip-of-the-iceberg.html
    “Savile chose his victims with great care; vulnerable and often troubled youngsters many in care homes. If they complained they were labelled troublemakers, or brutally put down. We know from court cases and statements made to my team [during the 2008 inquiry] that children in Jersey care homes were 'loaned out’ to members of the yachting fraternity and other prominent citizens on the pretence of recreational trips but during which they were savagely abused and often raped.

    “When these children complained they were beaten and locked in cellars [at Haut de la Garenne], which the Jersey authorities denied existed in 2008, but which can still be seen on YouTube footage. What chance did they have? This would have been the perfect hunting ground for Savile. The great and good of Jersey fawn over anyone with even loose connections to British royalty. Saville would have been a VIP to them and children would not have stood a dog’s chance of complaining about him. It would have been so easy for him.”

    Rumours about abuse at Haut de la Garenne had been rife for years but, according to Harper, junior police officers who tried to help those making allegations were “thwarted by corrupt seniors”


    This is the result of our quasi-feudal rule by crown appointed lawyer-barons
    Are children significantly safer now? ........probably not as long as shysterism rules

    ReplyDelete
  15. The disappearing Sharp Report26 July 2014 at 09:20

    The link to the Sharp Report has been mysteriously erased from
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_College,_Jersey

    Where is it now available?

    Is the Sharp Report still missing the page relating to the "particular slant" that the JEP wanted to put on the story?
    ....maybe to further tighten their grip on the pubes of government ......you scratch my back [/crotch] etc......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here you go (make sure you keep copies, before these are also pulled off the net).

      http://www.no2abuse.com/images/articles/sharp_report-jersey.pdf

      http://www.no2abuse.com/images/articles/the_sharp_report_jersey2.pdf

      http://www.no2abuse.com/images/articles/the_sharp_report_jersey3.pdf

      http://www.no2abuse.com/images/articles/the_sharp_report_jersey4.pdf

      http://www.no2abuse.com/images/articles/the_sharp_report_jersey_5.pdf

      Delete
  16. When John Wilkes MP was expelled from Parliament in 1768 many thousands of people demonstrated and several were killed by government force. Its all part of our heritage just like Guy Fawkes, Walter Raleigh "the traitors" etc etc. Unfortunately Jersey's own history is much more secret and the never ceasing obsession with just 5 years of Occupation is a convenient diversion now. It is so much easier to dwell on the "enemy" in a critical way of they are "foreign" but much more difficult if the "enemies" are of Jersey origin or an embedded part of the Jersey establishment. As we should know - but choose to forget - Jersey's "revolution" against corrupt government on 28 September 1769 has been airbrushed from Jersey history because it does not suit the official view - then or now. That several hundred people should have marched a few weeks ago in support of "gay marriage" and against the official government view is a healthy sign but the lack of similar demonstrations following the removal of Deputies Pitman and Stuart Syvret's continuing campaigning raises many uncomfortable questions about the public role now in 2104. Have we just gone politically soft? Does Reform sound good but, in reality, mean very little? Do we genuinely want to change things and the way that we ALL live or do we just want those few selfish gains that suit us personally?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom Gruchy.

      Fear is what stops people demonstrating against the corrupt, and politicised, judiciary and the overt child abuse cover up and related matters.

      The Establishment has sent out a very clear message to those who seek to hold them to account. It did this most infamously with the (illegal?) suspension of the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. The Establishment sent the message out that it has the ability to exterminate the Chief of police so anybody else who rocks the boat does not stand a hope in hell.

      This was touched upon by Mr. Power himself where he wrote;

      "And if, reader, you consider this all very amusing and distant from your own concerns, then remember what has been said by many from the very beginning of this saga. If they can do this to a Chief Police Officer and get away with it...............think what they could do to you. Then it might not be so funny."

      After witnessing what the corrupt, and politicised, courts have done to Mr. Power, Stuart Syvret, Trevor and Shona Pitman the Establishments message has been received by the public that dissenters will be subject to a kangaroo court and destroyed.

      That's why, in my opinion, people are reluctant to demonstrate against the political, and judicial corruption, this Island is now so (in)famous for.

      Delete
    2. The Kangaroo court is the Crown's Kangaroo court.

      It is the Crown which has allowed these "well connected" paedophiles to escape justice.

      Delete
  17. Here are some thoughts:
    Why don't you do a march for justice?
    Why are there so few Jersey cases on privy council listings over the years if the injustice is so bad?
    Why not start a Justice for Jersey petition? If enough people have suffered, anough will support it.
    We've got to act, not just fume.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many will attend?
      If it's anything like yesterday outside the Royal Court, what 3?

      Delete
  18. who's with me on the petition?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBdat4QeEr8

    ReplyDelete
  19. At some point people have to decide if there really is a problem or not.
    The gay rights march was huge.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A comment has been submitted, which I believe to be well intentioned, however I read a paragraph in it as an attack on the victims. If that part could be taken out it will be published. Any attacks on victims/survivors should be submitted to the State Media who will happily publish them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It wasn't me, I was trying to work out if people will stand up to the percieved injustice or sit and grumble, no-one as yet has said they will support a petition.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As nice as to think it could be a tipping point, this isn't a popularist subject so it's unlikely that a march / petition will gain the support and momentum to turn it into a popularist subject. Indeed, such action may even be detrimental to the cause. It needs dedicated, clear thinking individuals (such as, but not exclusively Jersey bloggers) who are prepared to keep working until wrongs are righted. Keep up the good work VFC, Rico, Stuart and others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but years have gone by and has anything changed? Of course the bloggers are doing great work, their words are eternal. But when and how will things change? When does it get to a point when the Jersey bloggers are heard and things change?

      Delete
    2. This is a power war. The establishment aren't intending to give up their power easily, despite the fact that Stuart isn't seeking anything extraordinary- just the proper rule of law with effective checks and balances so that no matter WHO commits WHAT crime in Jersey, justice is served fairly and proportionally. Sadly this isn't what happens in Jersey as Stuart and others frequenlty evidence. So this war is likely to continue for a very long time until.................. a black swan moment occurs and Jersey's society in its socio-political sense, matures. If it happens soon, we can expect many Jersey residents to be saying "ah yes, I supported Syvret all along." If it happens later, then this current struggle is at least cronicled for the historical record.

      Delete
    3. yeah, but there must be a way of bringing it out into the open.

      Delete
  23. The female CTV journalist, L Ferguson said it all at the very end of the uncensored interview, when S Syvret asked her if she would be taking G Power's aferdavid more seriously in the near future. She said in reply "I expect when it arises in the enquiry". This proves she has read it and this proves she knows it is a serious piece of work....
    Which now only needs the CoI to dare take it seriously.
    Because realisitically the real reason for the suspension of Jerseys Chief of Police needs to be taken seriously!?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Treasurer of the States, Laura Rowley, has resigned; so who at the States Treasury is now acting on behalf of the Treasurer to instruct the Royal Court to claim back legal costs of £68,000?

    Who at the Treasury, and Why now?

    Is the Treasury Minister, Philip Ozouf involved in this? Is the timing politically motivated to prevent Stuart Syvret from re-entering Jersey politics via the St Helier seats?

    Is this a Politically motivated move by the establishment, re-using the feudal mace of politicised judiciary to stop Stuart Syvret from entering Jersey politics at a time of intense scrutiny by the COI, is this the same political-tool that was used by the establishment to remove the Pitman's from Jersey politics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All very good questions indeed. This matter alone should be the subject of an independent enquiry - was Philip Ozouf involved in any way in bringing this action? I hope one of our elected representatives pursues this.

      Delete
  25. BBC radio bragging about "leaked" Dean jersey document, what happened to SS document re Graham Power they were given no "bragging " rights there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason the alleged leaked document concerning the cost of the Dean's failures got to see the light of day with the BBC is because it suits the agenda of Philip Bailhache and indeed the BBC where it gets people talking about money and not the abuse.

      The leaked Graham Power document exposes alleged corruption at the highest level of Jersey's administration and this clearly doesn't suit the agenda of Philip Bailhache, the BBC and as the video in this posting demonstrates the entire local State Media.

      This is why one document gets to see the light of day and the other doesn't. It's "The Jersey Way."

      Delete
    2. There are no lengths to which the establishment running the States of Jersey will stoop to in order to protect the status quo and themselves. Wiping out of over 500 years of tradition in which Jersey has been part of the diocese of Winchester (almost overnight) without the consultation of the people of this island!

      The Dean is appointed by the Crown by means of letters patent and sworn into pseudo-political office by Jersey's feudal Royal Court.

      Not one of the Jersey Dean's, the venerable Alan Stanley Giles (1959-1971), Thomas Goss (1971-1985), Basil O'Ferall (1985-1993) and Bob Key (2005 onwards) have done anything to protect the children of Jersey from child abuse over the decades, not one has spoken out! Even when such people as Senator Wilfred Krichefski were walking among them.

      Instead, the people of this island must listen to a squabble over costs incurred in the course of our government wriggling itself out of yet another sex scandal cover-up, sickening, truly sickening!

      The Crown's feudal politicised- judiciary is pulling all the strings in the States of Jersey dictatorship puppet government!

      Stuart Syvret, and the victims of child abuse do not stand a chance of getting real justice unless Mr. Syvret gets himself re-elected back into Jersey politics!

      Delete
    3. Forgot to add the Rt Rev John Seaford (1993-2005) to the list of Jersey Dean's who have done nothing!

      Delete
    4. If you really think about the parish system in political terms, you quickly realise that this division of the population by the division of its land under the guise of religion is really another facet of feudal control by divide and rule.

      It is amazing that the people of this island still go along with a feudal parish system which keeps them politically divided, a system in which individuals can enter politics by the vote of a small parochial minority or in some cases unopposed!

      All politicians should enter the States of jersey by island-wide vote, not by the divide and rule vote of parochial minorities...


      Delete
  26. Surely, knowing full well that Stuart has not got that kind of money, therefore could never pay, should this case not have been seen as NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO PROCEED? (the AG way) for abuse victims, surely this is obvious, I like others think they have first decided to declare Stuart bankrupt to prevent him standing in the coming elections, and the greedy lawyers know that by taking such wasteful action they stand to make a tidy sum of guaranteed money from the tax payer's.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Would SS accept funds towards paying this so could stand this year PLEASE!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pointless - they would only dump another load of legal fees on him and repeat the process. There must be several million quid's worth of fees 'banked' by now.

      Delete
  28. Is it true that Syvret will be bankrupted this week?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wouldn't be in the least surprising, however, we often hear the reason for not charging paedophiles/Child Abusers etc as "not in the public interest."

      As mentioned in the main posting Stuart is penniless and has no assets how can it be "in the public interest" to bankrupt him?

      Delete
    2. That's a sick comparison.

      Delete
  29. Jersey Law? made up by Jersey lawyers to suit Jersey lawyers needs, and supported by 'The Law officers' who are accountable to whom? but the best bit about Jersey Law is that when faced with a 'problem' like were in the s...t a new Loi is simply made up to cover the 'problem'. You have to admit it really is superb (not) and what does our DUKE her majesty Queen Elizabeth II do about the abuse of her recipients of 'Letters Patent' ? nothing. Make no mistake we will be lead into independence of the UK (the process has already begun) and then the real feudal stick will be wielded. One last point, why is it that ONLY Jersey lawyers can represent here in the Island? is this not the very worst monopoly situation, but then when the Law is all in Jersey French and the law officers refuse to have the law written in English so we can all understand what the hell it means does this not make a complete farce of 'Ignorance of the law is no defence'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The judiciary ride this geriatric French law like an old Parisian prostitute "making it up" as they go along...

      Delete
    2. The Jersey judiciary are as bent as a fiddler's elbow, read through these Early Day Motions (EDMs) submitted for debate by UK MP's in the House of Commons:

      Early day motion 589

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/1996-97/589

      Early day motion 1040

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2007-08/1040

      Early day motion 2110

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2007-08/2110

      Early day motion 1059

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2007-08/1059

      Early day motion 1480

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2008-09/1480

      Early day motion 1033

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/1033

      Early day motion 745

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2004-05/745

      Early day motion 504

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/504

      Early day motion 279

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/279

      Early day motion 2370

      http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/2370

      Then start reading through other submissions to Parliament:

      http://www.parliament.uk/search/results/?q=Jersey&page=0

      Delete
    3. Anon @ 21:35 said: "Make no mistake we will be lead into independence of the UK (the process has already begun) and then the real feudal stick will be wielded."

      Anon replied: Click on the link and have a good read Anon @ 21:35.

      Crown Dependencies - Justice Committee

      Memorandum submitted by Michael Dun, Jersey

      Quote:

      "49. It is noted that Jersey Finance Ltd has already been encouraged to open overseas "Jersey offices" in such places as Hong Kong and to develop an "international identity". Since the promotion of the finance industry is inseparable from the political and economic ideology of the current Jersey government this is a part of a very worrying trend which has implications for the relationship with the UK and the declared policies and wishes of British people as a whole. If Jersey is to have its own "foreign policy"—as is now being discussed—then a clear separation from the UK must be inevitable."

      Source: www.parliament.uk

      Delete
  30. Has dan wimberley received answers to his questions yet?
    If not, have they acknowledged receipt of his letter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the Inquiry Team acknowledged his email six days after he sent it. I am also led to believe his questions remain unanswered.

      Delete
    2. Unanswered, sounds like the COI have gone native, the "Jersey Way".

      Delete
  31. Ok, this is going to be viewed as an unpopular post, and I expect I expect plenty of flak for it, but it is a question that must be asked.

    I understand people's very emotive views on the subject, and how this can be viewed as a politically motivated decision, but what do people believe is an alternative outcome to bankruptcy for Stuart's debt situation ?

    If people expect the State's to simply write off Stuart's debt because of his inability to pay, then we are asking the taxpayer to pick up the tab for Stuart's court actions.

    If, alternatively, the debt remains in place and Stuart continues to show little inclination to find gainful employment, giving him the ability to repay at least a portion of what is owed, then once again, working people are picking up the tab whilst Stuart, for whatever reason, spends his days on other pursuits (and about which he actively posts about on Twitter). And that, speaking as a taxpayer, appears equally unfair.

    So what is the equitable solution ? Do the States let the situation drag on, do they take action to either enforce their debt, and Stuart suffer the consequences, or do they write the debt off and let taxpayers pick up the bill ?

    Stuart must have been aware of the financial consequences of his actions, or did he simply assume that the very expensive court time incurred by his actions would simply be paid for by taxpayers ? Unfortunately, he has left himself in a very difficult situation, as the Treasury, even if this is a politically motivated action (which is impossible to prove), are perfectly within their rights to seek, as they would with any other individual, to enforce bankruptcy proceedings where a person can’t, or won’t, pay what they owe.

    Or is there an alternative, better, outcome that I am missing ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the first EDM for you to roll around the palate of your intellect Anon @ 09:05:

      Early day motion 589

      SENATOR SYVRET AND THE STATES OF JERSEY

      Session: 1996-97
      Date tabled: 27.02.1997
      Primary sponsor: Mitchell, Austin

      Sponsors:

      That this House, concerned that the States of Jersey have suspended Senator Stuart Syvret for drawing attention to the vested interest of former Senator Jeune, President of the Policy and Resources Committee, whose law firm Mourant du Feu and Jeune was promoting a controversial Limited Liability Partnership Bill on behalf of Price Waterhouse and Ernst and Young, and participating in a speeded up passage for it; notes with regret that the States have agreed to a proposal by Senator F H Walker, proprietor of the Jersey newspaper, to force Senator Syvret to withdraw allegations which are essentially true, and to expel him if he refuses, a draconian penalty that would never be used in similar circumstances in this House and which defies the UN Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the rights of citizens to take part in public affairs through their freely chosen representatives and the European Convention on Human Rights, specifying that all citizens are entitled to a fair and public hearing which Senator Syvret has not had; further notes that the indictment quotes extracts from Syvret's letters to the Home Office and regrets that the representative of the British Government, the Lieutenant Governor, instead of acting independently, has acted with the Jersey establishment of which he is a part in condemning Syvret; and calls on the States to act with sense, and a due regard for democratic rights by restoring Senator Syvret to full membership and on the Home Secretary to ensure good democratic governance in Jersey.

      Total number of supporting MP's signatures: 45

      Delete
  32. Anon @ 09:05, read through the EDMs listed at 08:57 above and then ask yourself the very same question again...

    ReplyDelete
  33. And if you have been following the comments on voiceforchildren Anon@09:05, you will recall to mind Senator Reg Jeune's close historic association with Senator Wilfred Krichefski both in and outside the States Chamber...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Just in case you missed it, here are two examples of Senator Reg Jeune's close historic association with Senator Wilfred Krichefski:

    Quote: September 10, 1962, The Times, ‘New Investment Trust for Jersey’:

    “The International Investment Trust Company of Jersey … Its chairman is Major Sir Henry J. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, M.P., who is chairman of the Anglo Israel Bank Ltd. … On its board are the Hon. N. C. Jacob Rothschild, of N. M. Rothschild and Sons, G. C. Karlweiss, a director of La Compagnie Financiere [de Edmond de Rothschild], Paris [and later chair of Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild], J. Pembroke, president of the Royal Trust Company, H. M. Robinow, a director of Barro Equities Ltd. and associated companies, and two Jersey company directors, Senator W. H. Krichefski, a member of the States’ Assembly, and Mr. R. R. Jeune, a sollicitator of the Royal Court.”


    Quote: July 10, 1972, The Times, Business appointments:

    “Following the acquisition by Star Investments Finance (Jersey) and Drayton Securities (Jersey) of a one-third interest each in Jersey International Bank of Commerce the board will comprise of: Senator W. H. Krichefski, Mr. C. H. Barclay … Mr. R. R. Jeune, … Mr. Philip Shelbourne [of Rothschilds, Drayton and Samuel Montagu]…”


    Krichefski was the premier business partner of the British and French Rothschilds on the island, as well as person who reportedly managed some of the queen’s investments (Shelbourne at Drayton). And both Clifford Barclay and Philip Shelbourne were Pilgrims. R. R. Jeune sounds familiar too. That’s Robert Reginald Jeune, a leading senator in the 1970s and 1980s and a good friend of Krichefski. And although Jeune wasn’t officially accused, he just happened to work at the Haut de la Garenne home where Krichefski, according to at least one victim-witness, went to rape boys. That’s not all. Jeune was a partner in Mourant du Feu & Jeune, one of the world’s largest offshore law firms with clients as Rothschilds, Warburg, Barings and other major English banks. In the 1970s he was a director of Warburg Investment Management Jersey and of S.G. Warburg & Co., headed at the time by the leading Pilgrims Society member Lord Eric Roll. Roll joined Kissinger Associates in 1984 and became Bilderberg chairman in 1985. Both the British and American branches of the Warburg family have been Pilgrims too. In other words, Krichefski and Jeune were closely tied to the liberal establishment.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The question was 'what do people believe is an alternative outcome to bankruptcy for Stuart's debt situation ?'

    Links to lots of UK EDM's are very interesting, but I don't understand quite how they answer the question posed, which is how does Stuart's debt situation get resolved ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alternative resolution? How about dropping the claim to 'recover' legal costs, which arise entirely due to unlawful and oppressive and vindictive prosecutions to which Stuart has been subjected? I'm a Jersey taxpayer too, and I frankly don't understand your point. Do you think the treasury brought this action for the benefit of the Jersey taxpayers? If you do, can you explain how, because we won't see a single extra pound in the coffers? Indeed, exactly the opposite. It will cost us yet more in legal costs. Stuart has no assets and is unable to work due to health reasons (and if you think the fact that he can go running and climbing mean he is fit to work, perhaps you can let the clinical psychologists know that mental health conditions such as stress and depression are all a fantasy, and that sufferers should "just pull themselves together" and get a job. I'm sure they would be grateful to receive your well-informed opinions).

      Stuart has given everything short of his life to the vulnerable in Jersey, exposing a catalogue of criminality among the island's so-called public servants. What have you done to improve life on this corrupt little speck of guano, other than write a snide and shitty little comment about how he should be forced to pay a few quid to satisfy your sense of entitlement as a taxpayer? Shylock would be proud!

      Delete
  36. The very same Reg Jeune who dishonestly sat on the board of a bank that he was supposed to be regulating (See "The Observer", 22 September 1996).

    and:

    http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/Jerseyclothier.html

    Quote: "Unlike other liberal democracies, there is no separation of powers between the executive, the legislature, or even the judiciary. The Bailiff, appointed by the Crown, acts as the Chief Justice, the Speaker, the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and Legislature whilst acting as a judge. As a judge he can pronounce on the very laws that have been devised by his department. In his capacity as the Speaker of the States of Jersey, the Bailiff is also perceived to be in a position to, to direct and control debate. During the debates (in 1996) on Jersey’s Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP) law, Senator Stuart Syvret queried the possible conflict of interest of the then President of the Policy and Resources Committee - Senator Reg Jeune - who was a consultant to the law firm that acted on behalf of the accountancy firms (Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young) who drafted the legislation. Rather than asking Senator Jeune to explain his conduct, the Bailiff expelled Senator Syvret from the Jersey States, for an indefinite period. The Bailiff's role has been problematised by the recent judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of McGonnell v The United Kingdom. It will probably be made untenable if the forthcoming case of Senator Stuart Syvret goes ahead."

    ReplyDelete
  37. It is Reg Jeune's close association with Wilfred Krichefski which threatens bring the establishment tumbling down, The U.K. Government, Crown, City of London Corporation and Jersey Oligarchy all want a way to settle the child abuse scandal without being accused of corruption; the pseudo-legal COI seems to be the way they are trying to manage this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh! And don't forget Prime Minister Edward Heath...

      Delete
  38. Anon@10:36 said: "The question was 'what do people believe is an alternative outcome to bankruptcy for Stuart's debt situation ?"

    Anon replied: You have read all this and still do not understand that "there is no alternative in an Island where the judiciary is bent!"

    There is no alternative...

    ReplyDelete
  39. "If people expect the State's to simply write off Stuart's debt because of his inability to pay, then we are asking the taxpayer to pick up the tab for Stuart's court actions."

    But if you continue to pursue this case which is going no where then even more of your hard earned tax revenue is going to be expended for no gain. Common sense says write it off, there is nothing to be gained unless...........da da da!......... recovering the debt is only a side issue. Come on Anon wake up and smell the roses. Who goes after a "creditor" when there is no money in the pot. No one with any commercial sense or for any commercial reason. This is political end of!

    JRCbean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is politically motivated, purely to ensure that a bankrupt Stuart Syvret is unable to enter Jersey politics ever again.

      Delete
  40. Under the Desastre Law, the creditor has to sign a statement to the effect that the creditor has assets that can be realised. If SS has no assets then the creditor cannot do this and the consequence is that the Viscount should not allow bankruptcy proceedings to continue.
    Sorry, this is Jersey - SS is not one of them and with the courts behind them they can do what they like 'cos I can't see the Viscount having the cojones to stand up to them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Imprisonment has not silenced Stuart Syvret, the establishment want him silenced quickly, and are prepared to use any contrivance to silence him once and for all, so it looks like it is going to be bankruptcy this time!

    And Stuart Syvret is powerless to defend himself against a bent judiciary that is being used to finish him off.

    "la coupe de la grâce avec une masse"

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm pretty sure that Stuart has stated he has no interest in ever entering politics again in Jersey. Government we deserve and all that. If that's the case, why would he be bothered about the strictures that bankruptcy would place on him with regards to serving in the States ?

    JCR Bean - 'But if you continue to pursue this case which is going no where then even more of your hard earned tax revenue is going to be expended for no gain' - I may be wrong, but I think the bankruptcy petition would actually be an end to the case, rather than pursuing it further. So it draws a line under it for taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Writing it off incurs no cost, just some admin overhead that's covered anyway, but pushing for bankruptcy will almost certainly incur legal costs and court costs. You don't think Stuart will come quietly do you, so they will have to have legal representation and cost.

      As for Stuart not wanting to stand again, that's entirely up to him of course, but I believe he has already indicated its not totally out of the question.

      JRCbean

      Delete
  43. To Anon@13:52 "A man of stricture and firm abstinence" (Act 1, Scene 3 - "Measure for Measure", William Shakespeare).

    The play deals with the issues of mercy, justice, and truth and their relationship to pride and humility:

    "Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall" (Act 2, scene 1).

    Yes, it is most definitely a judicial restraint placed upon the person of Stuart Syvret...

    ReplyDelete
  44. THE RACKETEERING MATRIX – PART 1

    Some of the comments above attempt to argue that the purported “debts” which the Jersey oligarchy are using to eliminate the possibility of me opposing them in a Jersey election are, somehow, “real” – and should be paid.

    One comment says - amongst other things - "So what is the equitable solution ? Do the States let the situation drag on, do they take action to either enforce their debt, and Stuart suffer the consequences, or do they write the debt off and let taxpayers pick up the bill ?"

    Well – a quick, easy – and correct – answer to that question is that the directly and improperly personally conflicted individuals who caused any tax-payers money to be spent – spent in their own interests – when it should never have been so spent – and when all potential conflicts of interest should have been declared – but were not so declared - are the people who owe the money, and who should pay it.

    Pay it – in addition to facing prosecution for misconduct in a public office – for improperly accessing public money to spend on their own behalves.

    The people who took those decisions – to spend public money in these ways – even though they themselves had direct, personal interests in the matter - were Philip Bailhache, William Bailhache, Michael Birt and Emma Martins – amongst others.

    But there’s an even clearer – more fundamental – question to be asked.

    "Do these purported "debts" actually exist?"

    For this, and the other various state-engendered purported "debts", to actually exist - they would have to be real. They would have to have legal reality - they would have to have vires. They would have to have arisen out of some lawful process or transaction.

    The purported "debts" do not meet those basic tests of lawfulness.

    Therefore - they have no legal reality.

    The purported “debts” are the result of corrupted, fraudulent activity – essentially, of racketeering.

    The "processes" that originated - that led to - that took place throughout - and continue to take place - in the alleged generation of the purported "debts" were & always will be - 'ab initio' (from the beginning) ultra vires.

    Ab initio ultra vires - in very clear – very basic - ways.

    I could cite many dozens of ways in which the ultra vires arose - and carries on arising - but I don't propose to waste time in repeat responses to diversionary trolling.

    However - for the record - let's look at a few of those grounds.

    The "supposed "debts" have their origination in the decisions of Jersey Attorney General the directly conflicted William Bailhache – with the connivance of Data Protection Commissioner the directly conflicted Emma Martins – to have me subjected to what they falsely claimed to be the “Data Protection Law” – and to subject me to massed illegal police-raids and conflicted prosecutions.

    In addition - I was then subjected to a “judiciary” initially led by William Bailhache’s brother – the directly conflicted Philip Bailhache – who then recruited the already directly conflicted prosecutor – Bridget Shaw – from William Bailhache's prosecution function – who was sworn-in to office as a magistrate in his judiciary by Philip Bailhache. Indeed - on that occasion of Philip Bailhache recruiting William Bailhache’s prosecutor Bridget Shaw – Philip Bailhache took the opportunity to actual mount a direct, political attack upon me in the speech he gave.

    Then – once Philip Bailhache had dropped the cloak of “Bailiff” – to become overtly political – and he had been replaced by Michael Birt – the directly conflicted Michael Birt assigned the directly conflicted Bridget Shaw to act as ‘magistrate’ in the purported “prosecution” against me.

    ….continued….

    ReplyDelete
  45. THE RACKETEERING MATRIX – PART 2

    ….continued……

    And – let it be noted that – in addition to Bridget Shaw – the directly conflicted Michael Birt has also selected and appointed every other “judge” – on every occasion – upon which I’ve appeared before any of Jersey’s purported “courts” – including most recently Howard Page QC.

    Here’s what Howard Page QC has to say about Philip Bailhache and Michael Birt – and the absurdity that is the post of “Bailiff”: - “I have always been struck by the quiet dignity, eloquence and courtesy with which Sir Philip Bailhache and now Mr Michal Birt QC have performed their public functions on those occasions on which I have been present.”

    Those were the a priori – prejudiced – biased - conflicting opinions of Howard Page QC – on Michael Birt and Philip Bailhache - before the conflicted Michael Birt first chose Howard Page – to hear the original super-injunction - which Page granted – in camera – and ex parte – in an attempt to stop me exposing the misfeasances of the conflicted Michael Birt & Philip Bailhache.

    So – we have these directly conflicted public officials – acting in their public capacities – making all kinds of oppressive decisions against me – in spite of the fact they and the “public authorities” they occupied were all directly and expressly conflicted – “interested” – in stopping me exposing the various failings of those “public authorities”.

    Here’s what administrative law says:

    “A body (a “public authority”) must not have a direct interest in the outcome of a decision, or show actual bias or a real possibility of bias.”

    And -

    “Automatic disqualification: Where a decision-maker is a party to the matter or has a direct interest (pecuniary or not) in its outcome in common with a party, this presumed bias is an automatic disqualification, absent waiver.”

    And that is settled administrative law – before even beginning upon the various breaches of the ECHR.

    All of the relevant Jersey authorities that took these various decisions and actions against me were directly “interested” in – were conflicted in – were “parties” to - the substantive outcomes of those decisions. That would be the case – in law – even if the conflicted personnel had been mere ‘bit-players’ in the decision-making processes – let alone the actual originators, drivers, key decision-makers and office-holders – as in these matters.

    The public bodies - the “public authorities” – were therefore fatally ultra vires conflicted – ab initio.

    Thus none of the actions, decisions, “judgments” or “debts” in these matters have any lawful validity – and are null and vitiated.

    They don’t exist.

    At least – not in any faintly lawful sense.

    QED.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  46. BC Radio Jersey says:
    "The role of Jersey's Attorney General in deciding whether to prosecute people has been highlighted in the care inquiry"
    Was it not the AG of the time who said that alleged child abuser Maguire would not be prosecuted because he was terminally ill?
    Yet he lived at least another ten year?

    ReplyDelete
  47. In THE DAILY LIAR, jep Monday 28th July 2014, an article appears regarding a car salesman defrauding Motor Mall garage of £22,00, he was found guilty and was given 18 months jail, two things stick out in this report one is a statement by the defence Advocate Lisa Springate saying" her client who has two past convictions for dishonesty,was a hardworking and TRUSTWORTHY man who now realised that what he had done was completely wrong" what a joke! secondly and this makes me think of Stuarts position,in his closing remarks Mr Bailhache says " to the accused, I do not order a compensation order because you are not able to pay it, (end) so were do they get the idea that Stuart can pay the monies they are demanding, THEY KNOW DAM WELL HE CANT THEY WANT HIM BANKRUPT, just like the PITMANS, what a load of bastards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart Syvret's only option left is to appeal directly to "our Duke" the Crown (H.M. the Queen).

      If Stuart Syvret appeals to H.M. the Queen directly, and the H.M. the Queen decides to do nothing, then we the people of this Island will have had our answer...

      These words may yet be proved wrong, and H.M. the Queen may decide to overturn the Royal Court's stricture of £68,000?

      The only way forward, is for Stuart Syvret to appeal directly to H.M. the Queen (think about it Mr. Syvret)!

      The eyes of Jersey are upon you...

      Q.E.F.

      Anon.

      Delete
  48. Anonymous29 July 2014 13:46

    Under the Desastre Law, the creditor has to sign a statement to the effect that the creditor has assets that can be realised. If SS has no assets then the creditor cannot do this and the consequence is that the Viscount should not allow bankruptcy proceedings to continue.

    If this is written in law - this means that the Viscounts have broken the law. The Jersey courts have broken the law and that Syvret has no case to answer having assets so meagre that he has no means to pay. Hello Privy Council are you there ! Look at this lot.

    ReplyDelete
  49. For the misguided souls who defend our corrupt justice system and even those who do nothing while the only brave politicians who fight to expose the cover ups get picked off one by one (think no further than Stuart and the Pitmans) what they should ask themselves is this. Why has our esteemed Data Protection Commissar Ms Martins not yet taken Channel TV and probably the Viscounts too to court for breaking the Data Protection Law in illegally publishing the Pitman's desastre details? The answer says all you need to know about our Septic Isle. Just like Sean Power and emailgate all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  50. AG at the time Bailhache let them off all charges because Maguire said he was ill, obviously Bailhache did not order proper checks. The local paid media found Jane and Alan Maguire in France ? Don't be so silly, it was BBC 1, Panorama. How can the staff at BBC Jersey, go to work on a daily basis and hold their heads up high, or indeed take payment or any credit for calling themselves reporters ? Jon Gripton and his so called journalistic staff are a disgrace.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7268734.stm

    ReplyDelete
  51. HOUSE OF COMMONS

    OFFICIAL REPORT

    PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

    (HANSARD)

    Tuesday 13 November 2012 (see page 247)

    Quote:

    "One of the worst examples of a cover up comes from
    Jersey. Children in Jersey had the chief of police,Graham
    Power, and the health Minister, Stuart Syvret, to protect
    their interests. However, in 2008, as soon as action was
    taken to investigate historical abuse, the health Minister
    was sacked and the chief of police suspended. What
    hope did those children have? It is now roughly the
    fourth anniversary of the sacking of Jersey’s chief of
    police, Graham Power, and he has put out a statement
    to coincide with it. I will not read it all because time is
    limited, but this is part of what he says:
    “I would however simply for the record, remind readers what
    has been established from a number of credible and independent
    sources and disclosures. Namely, that my suspension was based
    on falsified documents, fabricated evidence, misleading information
    provided to States Members and the public by Jersey Ministers,
    and the testimony of a number of senior individuals who have
    since been publicly discredited.
    The events relating to Jimmy Saville and other revelations have
    heightened the general awareness of the issue of Historic Child
    Abuse, and the substantial difficulties which stand in the way of
    those who attempt to bring abusers to justice.”
    This cover-up has been continued by the UK Border
    Agency, which assisted Jersey in avoiding scrutiny by
    banning a US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman,
    from Jersey. She is now applying again for a visa, and I
    hope that the Minister will expedite it."

    Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/chan69.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an excellent find; it's on page 49 of the pdf document (but as you say, it's marked as page 247)

      Delete
    2. When does data protection become a politicised tool of oppression used to bankrupt a political opponent?

      When it is deemed an offence in jersey but not in the United Kingdom.

      Read this...

      Is John Hemming MP to also be charged with data handling?

      No, of course not, Parliament would be up in arms, and the newspapers would make a banquet of it!

      The use of data-handling is a pretext to drag ex-Senator Syvret into court and under the maul of Jersey's corrupt judiciary.

      The same judiciary that is going to bankrupt Mr Syvret, purely to prevent him from re-entering Jersey politics.

      Delete
  52. Do you know, one thing that is becoming very evident, why has there been a blanket of silence from all the other ranks of the States of Jersey Police on this?

    Surely, when the Chief of Police is sacked, the serving Police (at the time) will know exactly what was going on; so why have no serving Police or retired Police supported Mr Power (or for fear of reprisals, at least spoken out anonymously)?

    Police Constable's of all ranks will have been involved, yet none have come out in support of Mr Power?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Appendix 2 – Summary of Operation Rectangle cases

    Rectangle cases

    1. Operation Rectangle commenced in September 2007. The operation was established to investigate allegations of historical child sexual abuse amid growing concerns that abuse had been prevalent in certain institutions in Jersey; primarily the former Haut de la Garenne Children’s Home and the Jersey Sea Cadets Corps. The terms of reference were to investigate serious indictable offences. Below are some headline outcomes:

    . To date, Operation Rectangle has recorded that a total of 210 victims have come forward and made allegations of 429 offences ranging from Common Assault to Rape. The offence dates range from 1947 to 2004.

    . Of the 429 allegations, 47 have an element of corroboration. 73 of the total allegations would fall into the category of serious indictable offences and 17 of those have an element of corroboration.

    . Of the 429 offences alleged, 214 were indecent acts, of which 53 would be classed as serious indictable offences.

    . The remaining 215 offences alleged were physical assaults, of which, 195 were common assaults and would not be classed as serious indictable offences. The remaining 20 allegations were of Actual Bodily Harm (18) and Grievous Bodily harm (2) and were treated as serious indictable offences.

    . The 429 allegations were made against 180 different individuals, 23 of whom are deceased. A further 26 individuals have not been identified.

    . Of the 73 allegations of serious indictable offences, 30 are alleged to have been committed by persons unknown and 11 offences by persons who are deceased.

    . In respect of the remaining 32 allegations, which relate to 35 suspects/persons of interest, investigation files have been submitted for charging advice.

    2. The current position regarding these files is as follows:

    . Crown Advocates have recommended that 21 files failed to meet the evidential test.

    . 10 files still await charging advice.

    . Four persons have been charged with offences connected to Haut de la Garenne.

    Source:

    Operation HAVEN

    An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008

    (reproduced from Pages 330-331 of the "redacted" version)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Do the contributors to this blog support anarchy or something?
    None seem to have any respect for the legal system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would anyone, apart from a politician or a priest, trust a legal system that is protecting organised child abuse? Also, does having no respect for this system make one an anarchist?

      Delete
    2. Do the contributors to this blog support anarchy or something?
      No, I suspect very few want anarchy. I suspect most simply want Jersey to operate under the proper Rule of Law. Imagine if Jersey became a 21st C. democracy with transparency, real justice, proper checks and balances, equality etc.

      None seem to have any respect for the legal system.....
      I suspect most contributors simply find the current Jersey system hypocritical and revolting and therefore they won't be able to respect the Jersey legal system. Realising it is as it is, and not saying anything, is simply immoral to people with moral compasses.

      Delete
    3. We currently have a Committee of Inquiry going on right now so why are people so negative?

      Delete
    4. In respect of a legal system that is not just; anarchy occurs when good men do nothing...

      Delete
  55. What also has to be remembered about Graham Power's Suspension/sacking was the unbelievable removal of his contract of employment from his personal safe at his place of work The Jersey Police Headquarters of all places! The supervision of this astonishing manoeuvre was handled by his replacement David Warcup. Who gave in his notice soon after.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Exhibit: X84

    Decision No. 3

    Date and Time: 30 October 2007 None time given

    Policy File: Search Policy - Book 1

    Officer making decision: HARPER

    Decision: Due to the fact that the Deputy Bailiff Mr Michael BIRT declined the request to issue a search warrant for the Jersey Sea Cadet Corps a change in tactic has been made. DCO HARPER will communicate directly with the Sea Cadets executive of Child Protection Unit at their HQ in London to garner support regarding the Jersey SCC cooperating with the investigation. Therefore a warrant will not be used to seize material

    Reasoning: None given



    Source: Appendix 3, page 365, Operation HAVEN: An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008 (Redacted version).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quote:

      The Haut de la Garenne inquiry developed when, as part of the worldwide Operation Ore, the commanding officer of the Jersey sea cadets was arrested in 2006 for downloading pornographic images of children and was subsequently convicted of child pornography offences.

      Harper discovered that allegations against sea cadet volunteers went back years. 'Some of the victims were children from Haut de la Garenne, taken sailing for a treat. The victims described being taken into international waters, where guests were invited to abuse them.

      'The allegations hadn't been investigated properly. Two senior police officers had put pressure on junior detectives not to interview the perpetrators, and were implicated in the disappearance of evidence and putting pressure on victims to retract. These officers were also members of the yachting fraternity.'

      Source: Mail Online - 18th April 2009 - The alleged victims of the Jersey child abuse inquiry cannot expect justice, reveals the detective at the centre of the case.

      URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1171744/The-alleged-victims-Jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-expect-justice-reveals-detective-centre-case.html

      Delete
    2. Lenny Harper's Affidavit


      From paragraph 64:

      “For some time, Legal Advisor Laurence O’Donnell and I had been concerned at the difficulty in prosecuting paedophiles in cases of historic abuse. This had been exacerbated by difficulties over the case of Paul Every, who was the commanding officer of the Jersey Sea Cadets and who was also a senior civil servant in the Chief Minister’s office. He was arrested as part of the national “Operation Ore” where the FBI had netted thousands of suspects who had used their credit cards to pay for Internet sites involving child pornography. He was one of a number of senior Sea Cadet officers arrested for serious sexual crimes against children. After his arrest he had not been suspended from Sea Cadet activities and because of my concerns for the safety of the children involved, I disclosed the information about his arrest to the Sea Cadet authorities. Among the sites he had searched on his computer were a number involving “naked sea cadets” and other child pornography sites. The Sea Cadet authorities in Jersey were not responsive, telling me that a man “is innocent until proven guilty.” I eventually had to go to London and threaten to stand at the gates of the Sea Cadet HQ and disclose to individual parents before they took action.”

      From paragraph 65:

      “The concerns led us in 2006 to start looking at cases which had been brought. Early on I became worried about one case where a retired senior police officer (Chief Inspector de la Haye) was implicated in passing information to paedophiles about a police investigation but did not appear to have been interviewed. It appeared that billing had been carried out on his telephones but had revealed nothing further. I was still uneasy and asked the investigating officer why de la Haye had not even been interviewed. She told me that she had been instructed not to by the then head of CID, Chief Inspector Bonjour. This was even more of a concern than it would have normally been as the Head of CID was also an officer in the Jersey Sea Cadets.”

      From paragraph 72:

      “The report was submitted to CI Bonjour who was also the officer who had prevented de la Haye from being interviewed as mentioned earlier. However, nothing ever materialised from Mr Bonjour and the officer had heard nothing. Eventually an enquiry was carried out by South Yorkshire Police into the allegations against the Head of CID but it was still pending when I retired.”


      Source: http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2011/07/jersey-cop-suspected-of-covering-up.html

      Delete
    3. Google Cache (ironically) provides some interesting reading from Stuart Syvret's original website regarding the Jersey Sea Cadets and its relevance to Michael Birt's decision to decline a search warrant for the Jersey Sea Cadet Corps.

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zU46w95ExxAJ:stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2011/06/jersey-or-palermo.html+&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

      Delete
    4. It seems that the South Yorkshire Police enquiry regarding Andre Bonjour's actions has not been made public; in fact, Bonjour was promoted.

      Montford Tadier could get no answer, one wonders if the COI will be able to obtain access to this South Yorkshire Police report...


      1240/5(7063)

      WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
      BY DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE
      ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 11th SEPTEMBER 2012

      Question

      Will the Minister agree to publish the South Yorkshire Report into the conduct of officers
      accused of frustrating enquiries into child abuse allegations and if not why not?

      Would the Minister confirm whether one of the officers concerned was subsequently promoted?

      Answer

      In 2008 an internal investigation was conducted by the South Yorkshire Police on behalf of the
      States of Jersey Police, following an internal allegation that an officer had failed to act
      conscientiously and diligently in ensuring that an investigation into allegations of child abuse at
      the former Haut de la Garenne Children’s Home was dealt with in a timely manner.

      The South Yorkshire investigation concluded that the file in relation to alleged child abuse should
      have been brought to the attention of a senior officer sooner. However, there were no issues
      about the integrity of the officer concerned. It is not appropriate to state the disciplinary outcome
      of the investigation as such matters are treated as confidential.

      However, even if an officer is subject, during their career, to a disciplinary sanction, that will not
      perpetually preclude them from consideration for promotion, but the circumstances will be taken
      into account by any appointments board. The officer has subsequently been promoted.

      It is not appropriate to publish this report as, generally, police misconduct allegations and
      investigations are treated as confidential.

      Delete
    5. You will notice that the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand makes no mention of the Jersey Sea Cadets in his reply to Deputy Montford Tadier, the real issue of why the integrity of Andre Bonjour has been called into question.

      Ian Le Marquand obfuscates any link between Andre Bonjour and the Jersey Sea Cadets by stating "allegations of child abuse at the former Haut de la Garenne Children’s Home"; when in fact, the South Yorkshire Police enquiry was mainly concerned with Andre Bonjours unusual actions linked to the Jersey Sea Cadets...

      Delete
    6. "Failed to act conscientiously and diligently" means it sat on your desk and you didn't pull your finger-out. It does not mean "prevented the investigating officer from interviewing a potential suspect".

      Delete
    7. Hopefully, the COI will demand the South Yorkshire Police report which investigates Andre Bonjour's actions.

      Delete
    8. Unusual that the Chief Minister, Frank Walker should request and advice the States of Jersey Police to ensure that Deputy Anne Pryke was kept updated or informed, and that Lenny Harper should do the complete opposite for reasons of "security and need to know".


      Exhibit: X87

      Policy File: Sensitive Policy Book

      Decision No.: 11

      Date and Time: 20 February 2008 09:00:00

      Officer making decision: HARPER

      Decision: Not to keep Dep PRYKE updated or informed of any discovery despite request and advice to do so by Chief Minister

      Reasoning: Security and need to know

      Source: Appendix 3, page 375

      Operation HAVEN: An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008 (Redacted version).

      Delete
    9. Look at the date of the entry (20 February 2008 9:00)... Its the date that work commenced in the grounds of Haut de la Garenne!

      Delete
    10. That's why Anne Pryke was caught sniffing around the Haut de la Garenne building at the time, Frank walker must have sent her snooping up there to find out what was happening, because Lenny Harper did not trust them and was keeping quite...

      Frank Walker must have been bloody desperate to send Anne Pryke up there!

      Delete
  57. What also has to be remembered about Graham Power's Suspension/sacking was the unbelievable removal of his contract of employment from his personal safe at his place of work.

    Correct and this was been sanctioned by high level officers of the same police force and may have gone even higher. The contract contained a clause stating that in the event of legal proceedings a legal defense would be mounted at the states expense to protect the police chief against liable or other legal proceedings. Of course there was a copy held by the Jersey Human resources department of which also got lost, never to be seen again. Graham Power was now without paid legal protection.

    Work it out.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I would like to repost this comment (slightly altered) I made on the Daniel Wimberly post (http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html) because it received no response. I think it might be important and I cannot remember seeing it mentioned before as evidence of organised paedophilia in Jersey. The source I heard it from was (probably) in a position to know the truth of this.

    "I heard a little while back that there is a big house in the Wellington road area that was fitted up with manacles, chambers and electric shutters to close off areas of the house against outside intrusions. This was where the rich and well connected used to have perversion parties with victims procured for them by others. I was told this house, and the structural evidence is still there - presumably the parties have stopped. Anyone know about this and the name of the very rich person who owned it?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any idea which house in Wellington Road?

      Delete
    2. No. The source actually said "near Hautlieu". It was only the apparent credibility of this person that made me pay any attention seeing as how, as far as I know, this has never been mentioned on any of the blogs before.

      Delete
    3. Would that be The Maison St. Louis Observatory - in Wellington Road, & near Hautlieu by any chance?

      http://www.jerseymet.gov.je/climate/louis.html - A place run by Jesuits when they first established it in1894 - but more latterly run, in our period, so to speak, by the late Jersey Vice Dean of the Church of England in Jersey, former Senator Peter Manton - a man now known to have been an abuser of - and attacker of - vulnerable women - and a rapist of children - little girls in particular (I'm aware of 9, 10, 11 year-olds} and a closet Nazi, being a founding member of W.I.S.E

      Make no mistake - Church of England Vice-Dean in Jersey, Rev. Peter Manton, was a psychopath - whose atrocities have been concealed by the "Establishment".

      Stuart Syvret rote about this years ago:

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/ecclesiastical-abuse/

      And

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/reverend-peter-geoffrey-kevvit-manton/

      And

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/of-millstones-and-secret-reports/

      Even if the Wellington Road house referred to by the witness above is not the "observatory", still, the crimes of Jersey Vice Dean Peter Manton - and the crimes of those who protected him -must be independently investigated.

      A Victim - of "The System".

      Delete
    4. All the apostles, Matthew and John, Philip and Bartholomew and James, answered with one voice, saying, “O Lord Jesus, you who lives, whose goodness extends over those who have found your wisdom and your form in which you give light; O light-giving light that enlightened our hearts until we received the Light of Life! O True Word that through knowledge teaches us the Mystery of the Lord Jesus, the Living One!”

      A passage from "The Apocryphon of John" to help focus the mind of Bob Key on the truth.

      "For it is he who looks at himself in his light which surrounds him, namely the spring of the water of life. And it is he who gives to all the aeons and in every way, (and) who gazes upon his image which he sees in the spring of the Spirit. It is he who puts his desire in his water-light which is in the spring of the pure light-water which surrounds him."

      Contemplate Matthew 21:12 brother...



      Delete
    5. Page 195, Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations: Parties, Groups and Movements of the 20th Century:

      681

      WISE (Welsh Irish Scots English)

      Dates: 1974-present

      Founded in 1974 as an anti-immigration association with links to the National Front [116], WISE was led by Joan Mason, a former civil servant. Other members have included Lt.-Col. Robert Gayre of Hayre and Nigg, Brigadeer Hugh McIntyre and the Revd P.G.K. Manton. It apposes black immigration, calls for the repatriation of settled blacks and seeks to 'defend' white culture against alien influence. Its rallies have been attended by Nazis and, in the early 1980s, its meetings were addressed by right-wing Conservative MPs. Since 1984, bad publicity has caused a decline in membership.

      References: O Maolain 1987; Hill 1988

      Delete
    6. The Manton connection sounds somehwat plausible but apparently the house in question was owned by someone "very rich". I thought the Maison St Louis observatory was run by Pere Rey? However this all reminds me of the infamous Louis family in the 1960s who also weren't "very rich".

      Delete
    7. Yes, the Maison St Louis observatory sounds very unlikely; in all probability, it will most likely be a large private house of a very wealthy person with influential connections.

      "This was where the rich and well connected used to have perversion parties with victims procured for them by others".

      Delete
  59. Quote:

    Harper recalls: "I was cautious at first. The allegations reached into many worthy organisations, including the Sea
    Cadets and the St John Ambulance, and there were whispers about establishment men. One name that kept cropping
    up was Paul Every, a commanding officer in the island's Sea Cadets." Every had also served as a senior civil
    servant."

    Harper dug around, discovering that Every's name had surfaced in connection with child porn offences during Operation
    Ore in 1999. In late 2004, Harper applied for a warrant to search the Sea Cadets' HQ. He was refused.
    Harper then contacted the Jersey Sea Cadets directly: "They completely ignored me and refused to sack Every."
    When the States Assembly, too, declined to act, and Harper received a message from the attorney general's office
    that it was reluctant to prosecute, Harper began to suspect a cover-up. He says, "What made things more fraught
    was that some of my own officers were in the Sea Cadets." (On this case, the attorney general comments: "It is
    absolutely not the case that I decided not to prosecute Every. It is true that one of my officials wrongly gave Mr
    Harper that impression.")

    Harper pressed on, and in January 2005 had Every arrested and his home computer seized. On it, police recovered
    a cache of child porn and evidence that Every had scoured the internet for "naked sea cadets". Still unable
    to persuade the local Sea Cadets to act, Harper wrote in August 2005 to the youth organisation's national HQ in
    London, and finally Every was removed from his position. The following month, Harper arrested Roger James Picton,
    another Sea Cadet volunteer; Picton was found guilty of indecent assault on a schoolgirl in February 2006
    and Every was convicted of child porn offences that December.

    In early 2007, convinced there was a broad network of abusers operating on the island and mindful of Jersey's
    steadfast refusal to introduce a sex offenders' register, Harper began reviewing statements made by Sea Cadets
    who had alleged abuse. He discovered that many had been in care, especially in Haut de la Garenne. Calling up
    their care files, Harper found that a member of Jersey police's family protection team, Brian Carter, had been
    there before him.

    Carter was no longer in the force, but finding him on the island was easy. It turned out that in 2004
    Carter had noticed an unusually high incidence of suicide among men who had passed through Haut
    de la Garenne. Reviewing the records of 950 former residents, he discovered that a significant number
    had complained of sexual and physical abuse, describing similar acts and perpetrators, going
    back to the 50s. Shockingly, even though supervisors at the homes had dutifully noted the complaints,
    none had been properly investigated.

    Carter had sought out victims and taken statements detailing how they were allegedly beaten and raped by older
    children and staff, and also by Sea Cadet officers, St John Ambulance volunteers and at least one senator in the
    States Assembly. In April 2006, Carter handed the dossier to Jersey CID. Nothing happened.
    Suspecting that allegations of crimes against hundreds of children were being brushed under the carpet, Carter
    quit the force in late 2006. Now, Harper alerted Graham Power, head of Jersey's police, to the dossier. Appalled,
    Power contacted the Association of Chief Police Officers which launched an independent inquiry, currently being
    handled by South Yorkshire.

    Source: http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/pdf/1237168212.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zU46w95ExxAJ:stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2011/06/jersey-or-palermo.html+&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk]Ex Senator Stuart Syvrets Blog can still be read by using Google Cache![/url]

      Delete
    2. Woody, what's the correct BB code to display a URL as text?

      Delete
  60. Re: Syvret Blog.
    He has been writing the same stuff over and over again for years and the Establishment take no notice of it because he never carries out any of his threats.
    Sorry, but prove me wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your "Socratic method" employing inductive reasoning does not prove you statement to be right, and by the same logic, I cannot use your same statement to prove you wrong.

      Just because a dog does not bite when you kick it, does not mean that it will not bite when you kick it tomorrow!

      Every dog has its day...


      Delete
    2. If the Establishment take no notice, why have they ordered Google to take it down?

      Delete
    3. The establishment do not wish to engage directly in any public arena with Mr Stuart Syvret (because they cannot fight the truth).

      The establishment's only vehicle of refuge is silence... From this vehicle of silence the establishment have worked busily behind the scenes to ensure that the status quo is maintained.

      Business as usual...

      Delete
    4. Accordingly to Jersey Law Reports Stuart Syvret hardly ever turns up to Court to have his say!
      The last time he was imprisoned before Xmas he snubbed the Court, hardly doing himself any favours is he?

      Delete
    5. It seems Mr Syvret is in good company then; it must be a bad habit that he's picked up from the many elected politicians that cannot be bothered to turn up in the States chamber!

      Delete
  61. Loving this blog. Such informative comments. Lots of traffic for July. Keep up the good work everyone. Thank you Neil and contributors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of worms coming out of the woodwork!
      Please investigate Senator Clarrie Dupre who was responsible for a girl being at Haut de la Garrenne. In about 1975 and was a pal of both Krichefski and Jeune

      Delete
    2. Dear Anon @ 09:36,

      Can you please expand on what you have just said, so that the readers of this blog may understand a little more about what you are talking about.

      As far as I'm aware, there doesn't seem to be any historical links of child abuse to Senator/Deputy Clarrie Dupre (unless other readers know of any)?

      Delete
  62. House of Commons Debates (Daily Hansard record).

    Quote:

    18 Sep 2012 : Column 859

    There is a country where there are allegations that crimes by powerful people are not being investigated and prosecuted. A journalist has been refused entry to stop reporting about an issue. The chief of police has been suspended to stop him investigating crimes. Bloggers are being threatened to stop them talking about people. Decisions by the state not to prosecute cannot be challenged, nor is private prosecution allowed. The country is Jersey. The journalist is Leah McGrath Goodman, who is an American. The chief of police was Graham Power. Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done.

    A lay judge—known as a jurat—called John le Breton has been allowed to sit as a jurat, even though he was vice-principal of Victoria college when he wrote to the governors in support of Andrew Jervis-Dykes, who ended up getting a jail sentence. Mr le Breton was appointed to judge on a case even though he is a personal friend of a director of the defendant—this is a defamation case where the local politician, Trevor Pitman, has been taking legal action against the local newspaper. The end result in Jersey is that part of these events has been struck from the state’s version of Hansard, and the culture of cover-up continues. Jersey is an independent country, but the UK Government have a responsibility for ensuring good governance in Jersey. The UK is not doing its job properly.

    Source: www.parliament.uk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bless you Woody for publishing it <3

      Delete
  63. Would this be the same Jon Haworth afforded a share of nearly half a million pounds of taxpayers money to take Stuart to court for telling the truth about his abusive behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
  64. A head bobbing in the water1 August 2014 at 12:02

    The wife says can you put up a post you did on the excellent Jersey justice system speech by ex-Deputy Pitman to the States if you still have it please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Former Deputy Trevor Pitman's Jersey "justice" system SPEECH.

      Delete
  65. The quotation from the Westminster speech by John Hemming mentions someone called John Le Breton. Could you tell me who he was exactly? Was he a "jurat" for a long time?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jurat John Lyndon Le Breton (1998-2012), and former Vice Principal of Victoria College.

    POSTCARDS FOR PRINCE EDWARD PART ONE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Independent Inquiry, on behalf of the Governing Body of Victoria College and the Education Committee of the States of Jersey, by Stephen Sharp, former Chief Education Officer of Buckinghamshire.

      REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BODY AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE

      JUNE 1999

      Link 1

      Link 2

      Link 3

      Link 4

      Link 5

      Delete
  67. House of Commons

    Select Committee on Trade and Industry - Minutes of Evidence

    Supplementary Memorandum submitted by Professor Prem Sikka

    Quote:

    "It was also suggested that some UK MPs would pursue Senator Syvret's suspension through the United Nations. Currently, Senator Syvret is pursuing a case in Strasbourg for violation of his human rights and a file entitled "Syvret v United Kingdom" has been opened."

    Source: House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry - Minutes of Evidence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RACE TO THE BOTTOM: THE CASE
      OF THE ACCOUNTANCY FIRMS

      Quote:

      "On 2 July 1996, the States of Jersey approved the initial draft of the Bill by
      25 votes to 6. Senator Reg Jeune made a speech supporting the LLP
      legislation. Deputy Gary Matthews complained that there was inadequate
      consultation about the purpose and implications of the proposed law.
      Another member, Deputy Dereck Carter said it was “distasteful that two
      major accountancy firms could buy into the law drafting programme”
      (Jersey Evening Post, 17 April 1998, p. 8). During the debate, six members
      of parliament (including Senator Stuart Syvret) walked out in protest at
      what they regarded as unacceptable interference by the Attorney-General
      who unprecedently, and without prior approval from the House, had been
      given permission by the Bailiff to address the States on some aspects of the
      law. In the final event, the Attorney-General did not speak, but Senator
      Stuart Syvret questioned the political motives behind such a move. He was
      summoned back and admonished by the Bailiff for leaving the House.
      In the next debate (23 July 1996), Senator Syvret said that he was ‘deeply
      alarmed and concerned’ about the possible financial interests of Senator
      Jeune in bringing the LLP law on to the statute books (Jersey Evening Post,
      17 April 1998, p. 8). He stated that Senator Jeune had used his influence as
      president of the Policy and Resources Committee to speed up the law
      drafting process whilst he also had a financial interest in the law firm
      Mourant du Feu & Jeune, which acted for Price Waterhouse and Ernst &
      Young. This conflict of interests, Syvret argued, should have precluded
      Senator Jeune from playing any part in the legislative process. He said that
      the incident “reeked of sleaze” and called for a public inquiry (Jersey
      Evening Post, 24 July 1996, p.1, 2, 16 and 17; 17 April 1998, p. 8). The
      Bailiff objected to such comments being made without prior notice to the
      House. Subsequently, Syvret (and a group of other critics) sought a meeting
      with the Bailiff (Jersey Evening Post, 25 July 1996. p. 1), but in the next
      sitting (30 July 1996), the Deputy Bailiff (who is also a judge; standing in
      for the Bailiff who in his capacity as a judge was hearing a case in the
      court) instructed Syvret to apologise for his earlier comments. Syvret
      refused and was ordered to leave the House. Subsequently, Senator Jeune
      stated that his only involvement with the drafting of the law arose on 28
      November 1995 when in his capacity as President of the PRC he attended a
      meeting with Jersey’s Law Draftsman and Director of Financial Services.
      Upon being informed that the President of the FEC had already approved
      the development of the law, Senator Jeune also approved.
      At the next sitting of the House (3 September 1996), by a vote of 36 to 3,
      Syvret was again required to apologise for making his allegations about
      Senator Jeune. He refused. The Bailiff claimed that Syvret had not backed
      his allegations with evidence, but refused him permission to read out a
      personal statement. The House resolved that “Mr. Syvret be suspended
      from the service of the States until he has withdrawn, by notice in writing
      to the Greffier15, his imputation of improper motives against Senator
      Jeune”. Two other members (including Gary Matthews) tried to support
      Senator Syvret and speak, but were denied permission by the Bailiff. At the
      next sitting of the House (23 September 1996), Syvret again refused to
      issue an apology and was again denied permission to read out a statement.
      This time he was “indefinitely” barred from the House by the Bailiff
      (Jersey Evening Post, 17 April 1998, p. 8). As a result Syvret lost all his
      parliamentary privileges (Mitchell and Sikka, 1999). On 24 September
      1996, the LLP Bill finally completed its parliamentary passage by 38 votes
      to 7, with one abstention."

      See pages 34 & 35t


      Delete
    2. One will note, of the total number of 67 MP's signatures, not one conservative MP has signed this EDM...

      Delete
  68. I see Jack Hydes former headmaster of Vic College has died.

    ReplyDelete
  69. House of Commons (Thursday 17 July 2014)

    John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Some of the more serious historic allegations relate to children who were in care at the time of the event. In Jersey, there are allegations that children did not survive to their adulthood to make complaints. In England, the Government still do not record what happens when children disappear from care, using the record “Leaving

    17 July 2014 : Column 1016

    care for other reasons”. Will the Secretary of State talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education about whether we can record when children disappear from care and why they disappear, so that we can audit the process and ensure that children are safe in care today?

    Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140717/debtext/140717-0001.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UK Home Secretary, Theresa May's response to John Hemming:

      Mrs May: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point about how children in care have been, I think in too many cases, failed by the state over the years. This is not an area where the state can have any real confidence. We should, frankly, look back at what has happened to a number of children in care with deep concern. I will certainly take my hon. Friend’s point up with the Department for Education—and also with the Department for Communities and Local Government, because of local authorities’ responsibility.

      Delete
  70. Replies
    1. After reading through the material in the four links above, it is no small wonder why ex-Senator Stuart Syvret entitled his comments "THE RACKETEERING MATRIX".

      Delete
  71. Sad news for the family. However, Mr Hydes still should have been sacked - just as ESC Minister Patrick Ryan confirmed in an answer to a States question by former Deputy T Pitman that he, Piers baker and John Le Breton would have been had the Victoria College abuse cover up been rumbled today. Hydes also got all of his pension entitlement and a nice big pay out in the region of £250,000 according to a senior source in ESC. So not much to feel sorry for given his failings to children?

    ReplyDelete
  72. I hear that Lundy has gone I wonder if he got a golden handshake and has gone to live on the other side of the world? also allegedly his replacement is one Jeremy Donovan, who has taken up residence at Rozel Harbour.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Mr Syvret, under parliamentary privilege, asked Chief Minister Frank Walker: “In the event of a very senior States employee being under serious police investigation for repeated episodes of violent child abuse, would the chief minister consider that to be a sufficiently serious matter and of sufficient reputational risk for the States of Jersey to at least merit suspension?”

    Later in the debate Senator Syvret asked: “Does the chief minister really not consider, given the seriousness of the issue and the nature of the investigations that are taking place, that it is wholly inappropriate for Mario Lundy, the chief officer of the education department to remain at work?”

    Senator Walker replied: “I need not answer the question, but may I express my abhorrence at the question and the fact that the senator has yet again flagrantly and knowingly broken the rules of this Assembly.”

    Source: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/lundy-urged-to-stand-down-over-abuse-case-28466927.html

    ReplyDelete
  74. There is some incredible information and links here,more than I have seen anywhere except Stuarts blog.Well done everybody and keep it going.It just shows the JEP is worse than a disgrace and its spin and non reporting have meant that abuses have been allowed to carry on.I don't know how anyone could work for such a disgusting newspaper and sleep at night.I'm sure there is plenty more digging to do and there seems to be a link between those involved in the finance industry and those covering up child abuse.Lets hope it all comes out in the open,with maybe some UK or international media involved.Like the UK banks this whole mass of filth has become 'too big to fail' but with the help of some whisltleblowers and the good people commenting here it should be exposed sooner rather than later.Its taken a while for the paedofile ring in Uk politics to be properly investigated lets hope we have greater success here and actually get to prosecute people before they pass away

    ReplyDelete
  75. What is a 'Jurat' a reader asks! What a question that is to answer. Look no further than the Jurat mentioned by Mr Hemming MP. John Le Breton. A man who as a Vice Principle at Victoria College elected with his Headmasters Mr Hydes also mentioned on this page to ignore the Childrens Law of the island and deliberately not contact police after boys complained of being abused. Shocking enough in it self yet Le Breton was not finished by a long way. He was later asked to look at evidenced of abuse against pupils carried out by his mate Andrew Jervis-Dykes. But le Breton refused and instead wrote in glowing terms of how conscientious Jervis-Dykes was and how there may well be no case to answer! **** me! And we are meant to have faith in the justice system under the likes of Birt and the Bailhaches? No wonder Mr Hemming wants Jersey included in a full scale child abuse investigation. The judges who let Le Breton sit should be facing jail. End of.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Jack Hydes has "died"?

    How terribly convenient is that timing?

    Did Hydes have a "terminal illness", like the savage and appalling child-abuser "Big" Al Maguire, had a "terminal illness" at the start of the prosecution of him and his wife Jane Maguire in 1998, so they were let off by then Attorney General Michael Birt?

    The Michael Birt who failed to even ask for, let alone require that the Crown prosecution service he led as Attorney General were supplied with any medical reports on Maguire?

    You must remember, that was the "terminal illness" that was so bad, a big, strong looking Al Maguire was able to assault the BBC Panorama crew when they tracked him down to the south of France, ten years later?

    So has Jack Hydes "died", like Big Al Maguire oh so conveniently "died", just when the net was beginning to close upon him, and he was weeks or months away from facing accountability for his actions?

    An accountability that would have also been toxically contagious to the Jersey power structure, and the high and mighty people who run it?

    As would any process that held Jack Hydes to account, as for example any credible Committee of Inquiry must do?

    Is Jack Hydes dead dead, or merely "disappeared with a new identity dead", and few of his local Freemasons falsifying death certificates, register entries, & a grave stone to make it look credible, as the French "connections" did with the "death" of Al Maguire?

    All funded, and achieved, with the money and influence of the culpable Jersey oligarchy?

    Well, that's one core, vital witness, one of the most disgracefully culpable, and their evidence & testimony, that the Jersey Committee of Inquiry is now, terribly conveniently, spared the "problems" of dealing with.

    Watch out for more "deaths", "disappearances" and "terminal illnesses" which make it impossible to interview or call similar such witness in the coming months.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Please give some consideration to removing the Jack Hyde comment at 02.13. I understand the commenter has frustrations about what has occurred in the past, but this comment is horrendously insensitive to a person who has family who will be mourning his very recent death.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Did Daniel get any media coverage of his press releases? I didn't see any

    I agree that the comment at 02.13 should be removed. The commenter has no evidence that this death was faked; indeed, it displays an exceptionally paranoid thinking world view which is unhelpful to retaining the credibility of the "alternative" media

    ReplyDelete
  79. I didn't write the 02.13 comment but I would keep it in the thread. It's a form of hubris when we duck and dive to avoid embarrassing others to avoid awkward truths, plus the writer has raised several good points regarding the Maguire case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Is Jack Hydes dead dead, or merely "disappeared with a new identity dead", '

      'Watch out for more "deaths", "disappearances" and "terminal illnesses" which make it impossible to interview or call similar such witness in the coming months'

      Are these the type of 'awkward truths' you are referring do ?

      Let's hope that when you lose somebody you are close to, that people don't come onto the internet enquiring as to whether your father / grandfather / son / brother is really 'dead dead', or whether their death is merely a contrived freemason's conspiracy.

      Absolutely disgusting, and an illustration of the depths to which 'citizen's media' will stoop. When people decry the fact that they do not get listened to, or wonder why they do not get treated as credible media , this is why. Shame on all of you.

      Delete
    2. Anon @ 11:43 - you clearly have absolutely no clue what hubris means. It's not a question of 'ducking and diving to avoid embarrassing others'. It's a question of having a bit of basic humanity and thinking about the effect such comments might have on close relatives. Nobody is suggesting that any truths be hidden, but fabricating an obnoxious crock of rubbish about a recently deceased person, with zero evidence, isn't any sort of truth. Publishing this sort of stuff undermines all of the excellent things VFC publishes.

      It is right to strongly criticise Jack Hydes for his role in the Jervis-Dykes affair, but to describe his death as "convenient" is unacceptable.

      Delete
  80. Agree with anon @ 11.43!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree
      It was a ridiculous comment

      Delete
  81. Hundreds are expected to pack out Jersey's Royal Square this evening to remember 100 years since the start of the First World War.

    Dignitaries including His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John McColl; the Bailiff, Sir Michael Birt; and the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, will commemorate the moment at the Ceremony of Light, an event which will include war recitals and a candlelight lantern parade. Also attending from the UK will be Lord Faulks QC, Minister of State for Justice who will be on an official visit to the Island.

    CTV.

    Full and utter respect for those that died in the first world war, real heros all of them.

    But can anyone think of a better reason not to go looking at the elite guest list most of whom are paid handsomely by us peasants.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I think the commenter at 02:13 may be on to something given the responses to the comment, 1 or 2 of which border on the hysterical. Has a raw nerve been touched? I was aware of some of those dirty doings that the establishment did to let Alan Maguire off, like letting him fake a terminal illness in 1998. And it was very convenient when he suddenly 'died' in France, just after he'd become a big toxic problem for "The Jersey Way". Going from memory, the only 'proof' the victims ever got was an illegible, faxed, copy of what was supposed to be a death certificate, and even then, that was shown to them by the Jersey cops who were by then under the biased control of Warcup after the illegal coup against Graham Power.

    And I get even more suspicious when someone writes stuff like the 'comment is horrendously insensitive to a person who has family who will be mourning his very recent death.' The person who left that comment is really really ignorant. They've got no idea of the years of horror and damage caused by child abuse, like that by the Maguires and like that which Jervis-Dykes, and others, were enabled to commit by Jack Hydes. The things these children suffered were dreadful. It's just unbelievable that anyone on our side could seriously say we need to care about 'being insensitive to this person' whose conduct enabled years of chid abuse. He was and maybe still is a disgusting monster. And so what about his family? What about the feelings of abuse victims? What about the feelings of the many families of the boys who were abused by the Victoria College paedophile ring? What about the feelings of relatives and friends of Jersey's many child abuse victims who committed suicide?

    The families and friends of criminals do suffer upset and humiliations and the shock of having to reappraise those they've let close to them. But that's an unavoidable side effect of the criminal conduct of the person. Criminal conduct like covering up child abuse and allowing boys to be abused for years at Victoria College. And the same is true of all of the other disgraceful and criminal people in the Jersey 'system' who enabled and covered up all of the other child abuse, like that by the Maguires.

    Sure, exposing these disgusting people will be hard on their families. But it was the job of the unethical people and criminals to think about those consequences before acting in unethical and criminal ways.

    It is not the job of the victims, their family members, or campaigners for truth & justice to worry about that. If they did, that would be like putting the criminals and their families first, rather than the victims of crime and the families of those victims.

    I think we need to really look out for that kind of spin, I think were going to see loads and loads of it. Stuff about 'not upsetting the family members' so X and Y unethical cover up civil servant must be protected from exposure and public grilling. And why A or B suspected child abuser must be shielded, and why bent cops 1 or 2 can't be held to account.

    I think that's going to be a major part of the strategy of the spin doctors and the COI. And I think these comments trying to shield Jack Hydes from scrutiny are an early example of it. 'Oh his poor, poor family, we can't say anything critical of Hydes, even though he was a disgusting swine, because it might upset his family.

    We must be on our guard against all of that nonsense which tries to put the feelings of the culpable and their families over and above the victims and their families. This time, for the first time in Jersey, the victims must come first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A couple of years ago I was talking to my aged grandmother in-law and we discussed the child abuse scandal. She turned round and said that these investigations shouldn't be undertaken as it is unfair upon the families of the abusers.
      I countered and said that as she had been here during the occupation should the Nazi's who committed atrocities not be hunted down and processed? There was no reply.

      Mind you an interesting conversation had the other day on people who came by property and land during and just after the war was rather 'enlightening' ....

      The Beano is not the Rag

      Delete
  83. 'he was a disgusting swine'

    'He was and maybe still is a disgusting monster.'

    Great, let's punish completely innocent members of the deceased's family who weren't even alive when during the period you are accusing this man of malfeasance.

    If you have suffered abuse yourself, I am deeply and genuinely sorry for what you went through. Please do not use your suffering as an excuse to perpetuate abuse of other innocent parties.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yes, I hit the target and was right in my comment at 17:12, when I said it looked like that was going to be the spin doctors & COI strategy. Basically the their strategy is 'we must holdup the family members of the unethical, the culpable and the criminal as shields so we can argue that any attack on the crooks is an attack on 'innocent family members', that will give us an excuse for stopping the truth coming out and protecting the culpable.'

    The swift and hysterical answer at 17:28 proves my point.

    Nobody so far as I can see has ever argued that 'innocent family members' should be punished. All that is happening is the usual consequence of individuals who have acted in unethical or criminal ways unavoidably bringing shame, stress and embarrassment on their family members once their unethical or criminal behaviour gets exposed, and they face the consequences.

    That's just what happens I'm afraid. The logical conclusion of those who say the conduct of crooks shouldn't be challenged, exposed or questioned or assertions made about them shouldn't be scrutinised is that the unethical and the criminal should never be held to account because it will 'bring upset to their innocent family members'. A nonsense argument, in fact such rubbish I don't know how any intelligent person could entertain it.

    I guess the commenter believes that the wife, an 'innocent family member', of the convicted child abuser Donnelly has suffered things she should have been protected from? Like the devastating shame and humiliation of her husband being convicted of child abuse? Last I remember about that case is that she had been forced out of the family home because the Jersey authorities had seized it to cover the costs of prosecuting him. She's an innocent family member? Why should she have suffered in that way?

    I hope we see a comment from the 17:28r agreeing that Donnelly's innocent family members should not have suffered in that way. I don't, incidentally, have a lot of sympathy, after all, those are the kind of consequences of criminal or unethical conduct by a person, which invariable have harsh impacts on family members. As I said in my other comment, the crooks should have thought of that before acting as they did.

    Yes, I think we're going to see an awful lot of that rubbish from the spin doctors saying 'we can't possibly hold x or y crook to account because it will be so hard on their family members.'

    I repeat what I said in my first comment, the victims and the family members of the victims come first, not the crooks or their family members. That's how it goes in any law abiding society.

    This time, Jersey campaigners, we are going to have justice. And that means being on our guard against obvious and insupportable spin doctoring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus, you really are insane. You aren't exposing anything. You are making up a load of bollocks, labelling it "the truth", and then slagging off anybody who points out how idiotic and obnoxious you are as being a government spin doctor. For the sake of the abuse survivors, you really ought to STFU before you do any more damage to their cause.

      Delete
    2. Ah, I see VFC have let through a comment from the infamous and universally derided Jon the Troll, to amuse and amaze us with the kind of thing you bloggers have to put up with regularly.

      Yes, it's self-damming stuff. Stupid, ignorant, incapable of engaging with an argument and advancing a debate, full of spittle-flecked insults and obscenities. 'Jesus you really are insane', and 'a load of bollocks', and 'STFU'.

      It speaks for itself doesn't it? Yes, as others have observed, obviously fuelled by an excessive intake of Stella which appears to be out of control.

      As far as 'making things up' goes, I'm afraid you various correspondents who seek to protect Jack Hydes are flogging a dead horse.

      Jack Hydes, his conduct, and that of his co-conspirators like John Le Breton, was fastidiously investigated by Stephen Sharp, and those utterly damning findings are there to be read, in the Sharp report. So when people write 'you are accusing this man of malfeasance', no, actually, he's already been investigated and found guilty of malfeasance. Those of us who point out the malfeasances of Jack Hydes are merely pointing out already settled, evidential conclusions.

      There is going to be no reinvention of history here. This time Jersey victims, their families and campaigners will not tolerate it. This CoI is not going to be permitted to get away with pretending so many damning things are not already established by the available evidence.

      Hydes and co, all wealthy, well-connected men, with powerful legal representation available to them, and the might of the Jersey establishment on their side could have challenged the Sharp Report if they thought they had a remote chance exculpation. None of them did.

      The facts are there in the Sharp Report. There is no place to hide from them.

      No place to hide.

      Delete
    3. The second part of your comment is spot on and founded in fact
      The first part of your comment distorts what others have been saying. It is a work of fiction which you have invented for reasons beyond my comprehension
      Phil

      Delete
    4. Phil, I can only assume this commenter at 17:12 etc is a government spin doctor posing as a supporter of the victims. What better way to undermine their credibility than to write such offensively delusional nonsense, and create easily refuted conspiracy theories? The genuine victims can then be tainted by association.

      Delete
  85. 'So when people write 'you are accusing this man of malfeasance', no, actually, he's already been investigated and found guilty of malfeasance'

    Ian, you need to stop and engage brain because that is utter nonsense. Jack Hydes has never been found guilty of anything. The Sharp report is a report, not a conviction.

    'There is going to be no reinvention of history here' - That's interesting, because that seems to be exactly what you are trying to do.

    Ian, you seem to think that by posting your ill thought out nonsense all over this thread that you are helping the people who were abused. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are simply confirming to many people that these blogs are easily dismissed because they are home to conspiracy theorists, lynch mobs, and those who seek to reinterpret history to confirm their own prejudices. You are devaluing the good work of other more rational, intelligent people, even if they lack the courage to tell you to take your hate driven invective elsewhere

    Go away. You are not helping anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Is Jack Hydes dead dead, or merely "disappeared with a new identity dead", and few of his local Freemasons falsifying death certificates, register entries, & a grave stone to make it look credible, as the French "connections" did with the "death" of Al Maguire?"

    Why don't you adjust your tin foil hat and find out? It shouldn't be too difficult: here's his obituary: http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/community/community-news/obituary-jack-hydes-1-6092787 in his local newspaper. I'm sure you could start your investigations with Kettle Funeral Directors in Louth, St Lawrence's Church in Fulstow, and the local registry office. After all, they must all be in on the plot. Perhaps you could swing by Louth police station and let them know how you are getting on. I'm sure his kids and grandkids would also be pleased to hear from you.

    Do let us know when you find out more.

    ps You may want to take the pencils out of your nostrils.
    pps And the undies off your head.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Good to see the discussion getting back on important points. Keeping that going, can anyone say if the Jersey Evening Post has been leaked a copy of former Police Chief Graham Power's Interim Statement to Wiltshire?

    OK, they could have read it via Jersey citizen's media, or obtained a copy from their own sources, but I thought it would be interesting to know for sure, because we know now that as well as the BBC, Channel Television (ITV/ITN in Jersey) were leaked the report. BBC and ITN have both refused to run any of the serious stories that arise from the Interim Statement.

    At the moment it looks like the JEP could claim not to have a copy.

    Can anyone clarify this?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps Stuart can furnish the JEP with a copy if it doesn't already have one? (for the amount of good it will do).

      Delete
  88. The second part of the story makes a powerful case for the inclusion of Jersey in the independent overarching inquiry into historical child abuse. It reveals two important cases that directly link mainland UK care homes and Haut de la Garenne.

    David Cameron has said that he will “leave no stone unturned” and thanks to Dr Liz Davies and John Hemming MP it must seem clear that Haut de la Garenne is one big stone that the new inquiry must turn over.

    Campaigners have continued to express concern about the government’s investigation into child abuse, announced last week.

    Yesterday it emerged that Baroness Butler-Sloss, who is leading it, kept allegations about a bishop out of a report on child abuse because she “cared about the church”.

    Campaigners also want Jersey, a Crown dependency, to be part of the investigation.

    The Channel Island has been the subject of many allegations over children in care at the Haut de la Garenne home, and in 2008 it emerged that at least five children were illegally placed in care in Jersey by Birmingham social services.

    “Given that children were trafficked from the Midlands to Jersey for sex abuse, you would think it was a bit odd to omit Jersey from the inquiry,” Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming said yesterday.

    Dr Liz Davies, a campaigner on child abuse, agreed.

    “Nicholas Rabet, former deputy superintendent of Islington’s home at Grosvenor Avenue, was charged in Thailand in 2006 with abusing 30 local boys, and we know that he had links with Jersey,” she said. “I have seen evidence from a child who was sent to Jersey in the summer holidays from the Grosvenor Avenue home.

    I have also spoken to survivors from Jersey who went to an Islington children’s home for a holiday.

    In Jersey they were abused on yachts, in the big mansions there and in the opera house. The opera house is where British celebrities came. They mentioned Jimmy Savile and Wilfrid Brambell. It would be absurd not to include Jersey.”

    Source: Victim To Sue Over Human Rights Breach And The Case For Jersey’s Inclusion In Inquiry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have any of the Jersey victims of child abuse approached the European Court of Human Rights or have been legally able to sue "The States of Jersey" government?

      Delete
    2. "Jersey is different, but that does not mean that its constitution needs radical meddling
      in order to bring it into line with either the UK or Europe. I really do hope that Jersey
      may be able to retain everything that is special about the Island. It may be unusual for
      the President of a legislature also to be a Judge in the high court but so what? Can
      anyone actually prove that the holder of the office of Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff, in the
      last half-century at least, has ever used his position in the one function to influence his
      actions in the other? I think not."

      Submission to the Review of the Roles of the Crown Officers in Jersey

      Delete
    3. Child abuse victims to sue Government

      The Independent - Wednesday 06 August 2014

      Link to article

      Delete
    4. Campaigners also want Jersey, a Crown dependency, to be part of the investigation.

      The Channel Island has been the subject of many allegations over children in care at the Haut de la Garenne home, and in 2008 it emerged that at least five children were illegally placed in care in Jersey by Birmingham social services.

      "Given that children were trafficked from the Midlands to Jersey for sex abuse, you would think it was a bit odd to omit Jersey from the inquiry," Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming said yesterday.

      Delete
  89. "It is right to strongly criticise Jack Hydes for his role in the Jervis-Dykes affair, but to describe his death as "convenient" is unacceptable."

    That is an unacceptable comment like a number of comments on here which escape good moderation.

    Jack Hydes was devastated by the Jervis-Dykes affair because Jervis-Dykes was a conniving manipulating pervert who had a lot of teachers and schoolchildren fooled.
    He resigned eventually because his position had become untenable but he was the fall guy.

    The one person who could have shone more light on how Jervis-Dykes got away with abusing children for so long was the former Headmaster before Hydes, Martyn Davenport. But he had died in his 50s of cancer so we will never know whether he had suspicions whilst alive of Jervis-Dyke's behaviour.

    John Le Breton gets some flak from people in relation to this unsavoury episode but he was so devastated by what had happened he suffered a stroke soon after.
    Something that many people do not know about so the constant abuse he gets is perhaps a little over kill sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "John Le Breton gets some flak from people in relation to this unsavoury episode but he was so devastated by what had happened he suffered a stroke soon after." So do pray tell how you know that this stroke was caused by him being "devastated". I just Googled the causes of stroke, and "being devastated" isn't mentioned.

      While you are at it, maybe you could also tell us why Mr Le Breton attempted to protect Jervis-Dykes by interfering with the police investigation (i.e. trying to have it dropped), when it was clear the latter was a predatory paedophile? And explain how he wasn't sufficiently devastated to put himself forward to stand as a jurat, despite being a manifestly unsuitable person given his role in the Jervis-Dykes affair?

      Delete
    2. If he decided to stand as a Jurat why shouldn't he, he can move on in life can he not?
      I have no idea why there is so much bitterness against this man when he is a Jurat no more and that takes a great deal of free time devotion and skill when dealing with complex cases.

      Delete
  90. John Le Breton is and will always be a paedophile protector and demonstrably wholly dishonest willing to look the other way on evidence of the most appalling nature. No wonder Michael Birt let this disgrace sit on the Pitmans' case - a guarantee of success in an unwinnable case for the JEP who knew the truth about him and Broadlands who spread the lies about the Pitmans income. Le Breton should be examined by the Committee of Inquiry and how Bailhache and Birt let him become a Jurat at all.

    ReplyDelete
  91. QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANSWERS...

    Hansard 18/02/2014

    6.4 Deputy M. Tadier:

    Will the Chief Minister advise whether his department had any involvement or contact with Google and their decision to take down former Senator Syvret’s blog site?

    Senator I.J. Gorst:

    As I understand it, that action arose directly from the judgment of the court and actions arising from that, not from my department.

    6.4.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

    Is the Chief Minister aware that the reasons given for the taking down of the site were due to defamation yet the court case was to do with data protection and in his role as Chief Minister with an overarching responsibility for the Island and its welfare, does he agree that freedom of expression is something which is very important and this is something which any advocates of freedom of expression should be concerned about?

    Senator I.J. Gorst:

    Freedom of expression is important and I do not wish to tread on to legal interpretation of that, particularly in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, but the Deputy should be aware, and I am sure is aware, that Google themselves have a policy around the using of its facility blogger, which is its blogging software, around bullying and harassment.

    6.7 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

    Following on from Deputy Tadier’s question, can the Chief Minister give assurances that no States department has been involved in trying to shut down Senator Syvret’s blog because the evidence is that it goes back to 2008, well before the recent court cases, and also well before any sort of charges or court cases were brought against him. Can the Chief Minister give assurances that no States department, and if he has knowledge of the Law Officers’ Department and others as well, has been involved in trying to shut down the blog since 2008?

    Senator I.J. Gorst:

    I cannot speak of the history since 2008 because I have not been involved directly since that time. If by reference to States departments the Deputy might be referring to the Law Officers’ Department or the Data Protection Section, then I suspect that they have been involved, although I cannot absolutely confirm that.

    6.7.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

    Can the Chief Minister give an undertaking to the Assembly that he will ask departments if they have had any involvement and publish the information so that all Members can be aware of what they did and when?

    Senator I.J. Gorst:

    The judgment of the court is quite clear and I have referred to it on many occasions, and it is straightforward and actions have arisen from that court judgment. I do not think there is any need to go over that ground again and publish timelines. The court has considered the issue. They have made their findings very clear and other actions have arisen from that judgment.

    Deputy M.R. Higgins:

    The Chief Minister, I think, is obscuring the situation. I asked from 2008 which predates the court actions and predates any court orders and so on. I would like to know if there is an attempt to try and muzzle free speech in this Island by civil servants and it has been going on, we know it has, since 2008.

    Senator I.J. Gorst:

    I am not sure why the Deputy wishes that information. I have made it quite clear Google themselves have a code of practice for bullying and harassment and they are the ones that, as I understand it, taken down this particular website.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quote:

      Senator I.J. Gorst:

      "If by reference to States departments the Deputy might be referring to the Law Officers’ Department or the Data Protection Section, then I suspect that they have been involved, although I cannot absolutely confirm that."

      Delete
    2. I believe Stuart has the evidence, in the form of an e-mail from Google, that the Law Offices were attempting to have his Blog taken offline back in 2008.

      Google, as I understand it, insisted on a court order which the Law Office didn't have. The secret, tax payer funded, court case secured the court order that the Law Office had been looking for since 2008.

      Delete


    3. JERSEY’S “PUBLIC INQUIRY” INTO CHILD-ABUSE

      “We now know – only by the happenstance of the recent disclosure by Google of a letter (copy attached) – that contrary to the lies of the Jersey Attorney General – and the lies of his friend the prosecuting Advocate Stephen Baker – and the perjury of Data Protection Commissioner, the conflicted Emma Martins – that in fact the Jersey oligarchy were desperately attempting to get Google to shut down my blog – actually get the entire URL removed from the internet – from at least November 2008 – when I was opposing child-abuse cover-ups and questioning the obviously illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.”


      Delete
  92. Read Hansard from 1.1.30 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier (which is just after 15:15) to 15:45.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pages 53-54, quote:

      "In fact, on the subject of that, people may disagree with me but the truth of the matter is that former Senator Stuart Syvret was removed, yes, he was removed by the States but there was a coup on the part of senior civil servants."

      "But decisions are made by 3 Ministers. The 3 Ministers are Senator Gorst, Senator Ozouf, and Senator Bailhache. They are the 3 who have been making the real decisions. Senator Maclean was upset with me, he said: “I thought I was part of the group.” I said: “No, you are on the outside.” Some of the others are further on the outside, they are not even consulted. It is a crazy situation where the real power is in the hands of a handful, not even a handful, 3 fingers on your hand, are making the real decisions."

      "this was given in evidence to the Royal Court by former Chief Officer Power of the States of Jersey Police where he mentioned that he had been invited to a meeting with the Chief Executive and certain other senior civil servants were there. What was on the agenda? The removal of the Minister for Health and Social Services. He said: “This sounds like a coup, I want no part of this.” So he was quickly bade goodbye, off he went, and he went back to the police station and he made a formal statement which was stamped and everything else, and put in the books. Another of the senior officers went to
      another meeting on the same day at the same time. Other civil servants were discussing the removal of the Minister for Health and Social Services. If that is not a coup, what is? So who runs this Island: civil servants or Ministers or the Assembly?"

      Delete
  93. Written evidence from Michael Higgins Issues relating to Good Government

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.