Tuesday, 8 March 2016

(Some) Key Issues Facing Jersey.



The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has triggered a massive outpouring of evidence, interpretations and thoughts. There is a danger that the key issues get lost in the mass of evidence and comment. Team Voice has therefore sifted through as much of the evidence as we are able and picked from the contributions to the Blogs what our readers appear to see as the key themes to emerge. We publish them for your comment and, as always, for our worldwide readership who may see benefit in a short summary of what, from our perspective, this is all about.

Jersey needs reforms, which bring its governance to a standard, that most other western democracies would see as normal. Nothing is being asked for which is beyond what most societies would see as basic entitlements. We believe that everything said in this Blog Posting is well supported by evidence, which is readily available or has been given in public to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry.


· The Law Officers are a significant part of the Jersey problem. They combine the role of prosecutors with that of legal advisors to the Jersey Government. There is an obvious conflict of interest when matters are alleged which affect the interests of the government. This conflict was seriously exposed during the police investigation into decades of concealed Child Abuse (Operation Rectangle) and has remained a problem ever since. The Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has apparently been told of changes which have been made since that time which it is claimed bring more independence to the prosecution process. Many observers see these as cosmetic and unlikely to inspire public confidence. Jersey needs a fully independent prosecution service, which is unfettered and uncompromised by any other responsibilities. As recommended to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry HERE.

· There is no general understanding of exactly what is the significance or intended effect of senior legal figures being appointed by the Crown. (Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff/Solicitor General/Attorney General etc.)  There might be a general expectation that their role is to represent the interests of the British Crown in Jersey but instead they sometimes appear to position themselves as the defenders of Jersey interests against British intrusion. It is unclear where their loyalties lie or where they should lie.

· There are deep conflicts in the role of the Bailiff as (unelected) speaker in the island’s parliament, as a (unelected) representative of the island and the senior judge.

· So far as is generally understood, HM Lieutenant Governor is the representative of British Crown interests with a responsibility for monitoring good governance and the proper administration of justice. Yet he now appears to be appointed by the very people he is expected to oversee. There is little information on how the Governor’s duties are discharged in practice As reported by VFC HERE. For example, there is no transparent system of reporting on the activity of the Governor in respect of those things, which he is apparently supposed to observe, or what conclusions if any the Governor has reached and what actions he is taking in consequence. No information is available on the qualifications or training which is required for the Governor to discharge this particular role nor is it clear why a retired General should be considered the best person for the position?

· Democratic participation in the island appears to be low. There is a high level of non-registration for voting and a low level of turnout at elections. The electoral system appears to be tilted in favour of “Old Jersey” interests in the rural parishes. Cynicism around the processes of democracy and governance is widespread.

· Taken together much of the above presents a picture of a system of governance, which has a number of semi-feudal elements, few of which are accountable by any visible means.

· When the Jersey establishment believes that its position is being challenged it sometimes reacts ruthlessly, and in a manner which is unfettered by considerations of ethics, fairness or even legality. And nobody appears to be able to stop them from doing it.


· The Jersey political and public sector appears to have an entrenched culture of inertia. Many witnesses to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry have provided evidence of the extreme challenges which can face anyone attempting to deliver change. Progressive innovation is rarely encouraged and is sometimes (more often than not) punished. There is a long history of reports and inquiries, which have produced sensible recommendations that have not been implemented or acted upon. It should be remembered that the Jersey Government argued that the current Committee of Inquiry was unnecessary because “lessons had been learned” and the necessary changes made. The Inquiry is only taking place because the Jersey Government’s view was overruled by a rare backbench revolt that now appears to be well justified by the evidence. The past experience of external reviews too often consists of well-evidenced and constructive reports gathering dust on departmental shelves because nobody has the skills, inclination or support to take them forward or because those with responsibility are fearful of the consequences of doing so.

· There is a conspicuous lack of any consistent external and independent inspection regime with transparent reporting and follow-up. Increasingly in the UK public services, including those providing criminal justice, are subject to regular independent scrutiny. This is far less frequent in Jersey, which arguably needs this type of attention more than most regions of the UK. Where such arrangements have been in place in the past they appear in some cases to have quietly “died a death.” (For instance our Police Force hasn't been HMIC inspected for the best part of 8 years)

· For whatever reason the Jersey media appears to be noticeably non-intrusive and, for the most part, uncritical in respect of the Jersey authorities. If any further disturbing issues emerge in the island it is unlikely to be as a result of investigative journalism. There will be little that the Committee of Inquiry can do about this but it adds strength to the question of who will bring intrusive scrutiny to bear upon government/judicial actions/inactions/corruption in the future?


· It should be remembered that while some of the above raises fine points of constitutional theory, this is not an academic exercise. The well-being of vulnerable people is at stake. The Committee of Inquiry exists because there were decades of preventable suffering in institutions operated by the Jersey Government, and nobody did anything about it. When people subsequently attempted to do something about it they have given evidence, to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, that they encountered a range of difficulties and lack of support from the Jersey authorities, and among those creating the difficulties were people who purported to represent the Crown. Unless there is significant change there is a high probability that further preventable suffering will occur.

· Whatever the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry recommends, if matters are left to the Jersey authorities, most of the required changes will not happen. Change will only be achieved by strong and authoritative external intervention, followed by intrusive monitoring backed by some form of potential sanction. The Committee of Inquiry should not under estimate the extent to which entrenched Jersey interests will seek to resist, obstruct and subvert any reforms that it recommends.

Have we got it right or do you have different priorities? Let us know.

211 comments:

  1. With Cameron & all the European demi gods ignoring the closure of the free press in turkey what chance do we have in getting support to make necessary changes here?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent post. At some point those of us who are so heavily critical of the current Jersey constitutional arrangements do need to start focusing-in on specifics and considering changes that are achievable.

    I think you have covered many of the problem areas, but it's critical also to consider the policing function in Jersey. It's simply absurd that officers of the professional SOJP do not have the power to charge suspects, but have to call-up an amateur honorary police officer to do so. Those of us who live here know only too well that the honorary system is rife with petty idiots and corruption - and that they are under the control of the AG.

    It's an instructive exercise to 'walk through' the process of bringing a criminal to justice, and see just how many opportunities there are for the old boys network to stymie justice.

    As regards policing, I would consider the following reforms:

    1. Remove the right to charge from parish officers, and give it to the SOJP. Honoraries should be basically restricted to directing traffic on a wet Tuesday night.

    2. Establish a truly independent police authority with elected members (by island-wide mandate), and give this body true powers to hold the police to account. i.e. don't fill it with retired partners of local law firms.

    3. Establish some form of UK-based ombudsman to deal with complaints that aren't adequately addressed (in the eyes of the complainant) by the local police authority. That ombudsman having the power to send UK police officers to investigate where deemed appropriate.

    4. Remove local political oversight and involvement from the policing function, other than by the States sitting in open session. No single states member, or grouping of members, should be able to interfere in the functioning of the police.

    5. Perhaps a step too far, but consider appointing police chiefs on fixed 5-year terms and appoint candidates by election on an island-wide mandate.

    You have covered the inherent and fatal conflict inherent in the role of the AG, but I would also bolster attempts to curb the omnipotence of the role by introducing legislation to allow private prosecutions, with no ability by the AG to veto such actions.

    I would also introduce legislation to allow English solicitors and barristers to act locally. One of the great structural faults in Jersey is the inordinate amount of power vested in locally-qualified lawyers. Can anybody name one lawyer who has truly locked-horns with the Crown Officers, other than Philip Sinel? Despite the monstrous catalogue of criminality and lawlessness we have seen from our government, I can't recall a single lawyer who has stood up and challenged the establishment. We need lawyers who are not beholden to the AG, SG, Bailiff etc to make sure their personal gravy train isn't derailed, and the only place we will find them is off-island.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is an excellent over-view of the situation, VFC, and I agree also with most of what Anonymous (8 March 10:26) suggests concerning the SOJP.

    It is surely significant that you have made no mention of the “child care system” in Jersey, and how that needs to be brought up to modern-day standards. After all, the Inquiry was set up, as I understand it, to investigate precisely that: the (failings of the) “child care system” – and that topic doesn’t even find a place in your review of the “key issues”! Everything revolves – rightly – around Jersey’s mediaeval constitutional arrangements, now 800+ years out of date and no longer fit for purpose.

    That said, I quite understand your focus being on the PTB and not the kids: until the PTB are reformed what chance is there of getting the profound social reforms needed by the Islanders?

    It’s worth bearing in mind that those social reforms are not limited to child care. I recall reading recently, for example, that the Island has only one geriatric psychologist – and that for a 100 thousand, rapidly ageing, population.

    Although I live almost as far away from Jersey as is possible without leaving this planet, I have close links with the Island (almost my entire family lives there) and I know that the “model” offered by your PTB, displayed in the way they run the Island, is adopted also within numerous Island family homes. “Heads of family” naturally – perhaps subconsciously, even – follow the example of the Island authorities, running their homes and families along the same feudal lines. It's little wonder that domestic violence, bullying, physical and psychological harm to children and the aged, and other abuse problems are so rife in the Island’s homes. And then those same "heads of family", with feudalism oozing through their veins, go out working with the Island's kids - in organizations such as the Scouts, or sports clubs, or as staff in the Island's schools - areas not covered by the Inquiry’s TOR but also in need of strong independent oversight.

    Constitutional reform, however necessary, will not in itself solve the Island's problems. What is needed is a root and branch reform of Jersey society as a whole. The infamous "Jersey Way" needs to be scrapped in its entirety and replaced by a system of morals, ethics and, indeed, law, all based on fairness, honesty, empathy, compassion, support and caring.

    I fear that Jersey will not enter the “real world” of the 21st century within the lifetime of most the Island’s current adult population – nor even in the lifetime of most, if not all, of today’s children.
    RL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It should be said that nothing will really have any chance of positive change unless influential people like you can persuade the likes of former politicians Trevor and Shona Pitman, Sarah Ferguson, John Young and Daniel Wimberley to rouse themselves for one more tilt at the oligarchical windmill on our behalf. I left Bob Hill and Ted Vibert out of the suggestion purely because of their health and age. I left out the once truly great Senator Stuart Syvret simply because if he would not come through for the victims at the Care Inquiry I can't ever see him hacking it again in the States no matter how much we need him.

      Delete
    2. If ever a comment was worthy of a "troll-alert", it's that comment 17:38.

      Remember - Sarah Ferguson is the former politician who - along with Colin Egre - directly interfered with a "prosecution" decision - and was welcomed into doing so - by then Attorney General (sole prosecution authority in Jersey) William Bailhache - so as to tamper with what should have been an unambiguous prosecution of a Jersey "businessman" for straightforward bribery & corruption of police officers.

      More recently Sarah Ferguson sock-puppeted a useful-idiot proxy into taking forward a proposition in the Jersey legislature in relation to that same issue, the said proposition only ever having two real intended purposes. Firstly, to provide a propaganda opportunity to the Jersey establishment to falsely attack and trash the good former Deputy Police Chief Lenny Harper. And secondly, to very badly damage and undermine the reputation and standing of the naive proxy who was so foolishly misled by Ferguson into taking the proposition forward in the first place.

      And how often have we seen things like this in Jersey politics?

      It is - in fact - how 80% of Jersey political careers go; most of them enter the arena starting out as basically good, well-intentioned people (if not really being possessed of great calibre & ability) but genuinely persuaded of themselves that they're "good-guys", that they're "not going to be like most of all those other States members", that they're "going to do the rights things, and be strong".

      Of those who get over the hurdle of getting elected, in the toxic face and opposition of the Jersey oligarchy machine - I'd say it usually takes about eight weeks - literally, about eight weeks - and about three dinner party invitations - to utterly "sucker" and "neutralise" all of those good and honest and well-intentioned Jersey politicians.

      The proxy who acted for Sarah Ferguson is a text-book example.

      A well-intentioned, basically decent guy - who really - really - should have known better. Someone who "was going to make a difference". But yet what's the only publicly significant - and noticed - thing he's done since getting elected?

      Take forward a private-members-bill which had plainly zero chance of succeeding - but had it done, would have simply involved chiselling £100'000s from tax-payers and handing over to someone by way of "compensation" for the fact their bribery of cops had been discovered and stopped by Lenny Harper.

      If the proxy is defeated when seeking re-election - the act of being a fool, of being Sarah Ferguson's proxy in what is - starkly - a reprehensible background issue - will be the cause.

      Any argument which attempts to place Sarah Ferguson - an utterly toxic individual, straight out of the traditional ranks of the Jersey oligarchy - into the same company as the others mentioned in the comment at 17:38 - is unambiguous trolling.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. Stuart could easily "hack it" in the States: he is by far the best orator the house has seen in my memory, and by far the most informed and principled states member too. He would run rings round the clueless morons currently infesting the states buildings. He was also, if you look beyond the JEP caricature of a loony-left trouble-maker, a political moderate who campaigned on issues based on their merit rather than political dogma.

      However, Stuart won't return to the states for two reasons. First, he doesn't want to - and who can blame him. Reform of government isn't going to come from within; it is going to be imposed. Second, the crown officers will simply enforce bankruptcy proceedings to prevent him running for office.

      As far as criticising him for not engaging with the COI, you really do have to be monumentally dim to keep plugging-away at this. It's really getting old. Stuart has explained his position very clearly and cogently. You don't have to agree with his reasons, but to accuse him of 'not coming through' for the survivors is grossly offensive. Nobody on this island has done more - and sacrificed more - than Stuart on behalf of the abuse survivors.

      Delete
    4. Totally agree with 08:35

      All this pleading for Stuart Syvret to stand for election again is irrelevant while "the crown officers will simply enforce bankruptcy proceedings to prevent him running for office"

      Could someone with a knowledge of this part of errr..... "Jersey Law" inform us how long this threat of bankruptcy proceedings can be held over the Ex Health Minister.

      Can this threat be held in perpetuity?
      My guess is that proceedings must be started within a number of years (5?). proceedings could be drawn out over several years, then the bankruptcy (fraudulent if successful) would not be void for another number of years after that.

      This puts Mr.Syvret out of politics for at least another decade????

      Let us not forget that the bankruptcy threat was achieved with the use of at least one proven liar who identifies himself in the audio here:

      http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

      Th other 3 proxies recruited for the political suppression in the SECRET court case appear to be equally unsavoury characters.

      A real CoI would demand the transcript of that court case in order to understand the nature of the suppression of the champions of the abused on this island!

      Delete
    5. Stuart's current debts have nothing to do with the Secret Court Case.
      Its all to do with his failed attempt to sue the States of Jersey.

      Delete
    6. The comment at 19:11 is simply wrong. My attempt to sue the States was - axiomatically and inescapably a component-part of the broad corrupt Crown oppressions and suppressions conducted against me - by expressly and personally conflicted prosecutors and judges - and those chosen by corruptly conflicted prosecutors and judges.

      When prosecutors and witnesses and judges lie in court - when they conduct a Stalanistic show-trial in which - just as soon as they lose - three months into the case - they get around that "inconvenience" simply by deeming your entire defence case "no longer admissible" - the only avenue left open is to pursue civil remedies as a kind of substitute for what should have been the right to run a defence.

      Especially so - when the civil issues one is raising included multifaceted - illegal- evidenced - child-abuse and child-abuse cover-ups; matters which the public interest required to be pursued.

      There is no credible distinction between the different facets of the conduct of the criminal enterprise that passes for the Crown "prosecution" and "judicial" function in Jersey.

      And nor is there any hiding-place for that corruption. Biased, conflicted, structurally unlawful "judicial" functions remain - inescapably - that.

      A system in which directly and profoundly conflicted individuals - can choose and appoint their own "judges" - and in doing so basically "weaponise" what should be a right to pursue objective justice, and turn that right against free and functioning democracy - then the very polity itself is a mafia operation.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  4. Quote of the last blog:
    "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.” [Albert Einstein]

    Quote of this blog:
    "It should be remembered that the Jersey Government argued that the current Committee of Inquiry was unnecessary because “lessons had been learned” and the necessary changes made. The Inquiry is only taking place because the Jersey Government’s view was overruled by a rare backbench revolt that now appears to be well justified by the evidence." [VFC]

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bag on!!!!!!!!!!! Just read their statement "No need for enquiry we have learnt lessons. Cover up all the way!!!!! Heads should roll!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. VFC, In your blog you refer 7 times to the "Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry"

    I appreciate your attempting to call a spade a spade, but it is worth reminding readers that no such entity exists in Jersey.

    The Committee of Inquiry that exists has called itself the "Independent Jersey Care Inquiry"

    It is purposefully titled a "Care Inquiry" not an "Abuse Inquiry"
    Now this bit of spin doctoring would be neither here nor there if the "Care Inquiry" was actually achieving it's legislative purpose

    Frances Oldham's "Care Inquiry" has not been "robust and fearless" as promised.
    It smacks repeatedly of a damage control exercise run on behalf of the establishment (yes, that's the Jersey way!)
    The CoI failed to consult adequately with witnesses at the outset (including critical witnesses)
    When faced with criticism in the early days the CoI backtracked on it's decision to give "unaccredited" media the use of the Media Room:
    http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/independent-jersey-care-inquiry-5-not.html
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/bloggers-excluded-by-jersey-child-abuse.html

    The "Independent" Jersey Care Inquiry is at best a toothless tiger. It has failed even to use the powers it does have. Ex Health Minister Stuart Syvret is a critical witness and a real CoI would have used it's powers to subpoena him.
    That is just one elephant in the room.

    A £26 million lawyer fest and it is still only half baked.
    A better job could have been done with half the money. This is theft from the taxpayer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. could I ask the above commenter 19;12, how many transcripts have you read and how many sessions have you attended ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @09:29 Yes you may! I have read a good many transcripts and parts of transcripts, and I am still working my way through them.

      May I ask you SPECIFICALLY what parts of my comment you object to,
      or feel are unfair,
      or feel are factually incorrect?

      Perhaps after you have done that you could tell us what you thought of the (non)questioning of Deputy Trevor Pitman by the excuse for a CoI

      After that I have a list of a further 30 to 40+ questions for you.

      Delete
  8. I have read all the transcripts, all the statements and all the supporting evidence ,I have attended many sessions, and whilst not of the opinion that the COI is without any failings it has produced a body of evidence that is now available to all so that they make their own minds up.I Have witnessed the masterly questioning of many witnesses for example, Lewis, Le Marquand,Skinner and Mr K to name but a few. Questions from the panel have been direct and probing ,showing evidence that the panel indeed have read everything and have an in-depth knowledge of the material. I believe that some of the issues that have caused delay are due to challenge from the states legal team particularly the publishing of some evidence. The COI has also to stay within its terms of reference and I believe that this has constrained them. This is my opinion based on what I have read and observed and I am entitled to my opinion just as you are to yours .It is to the credit of VFC that we are allowed to discuss different points of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whichever way you slice it the regularly damning evidence from Deputy T Pitman being suppressed, essentially vanished for months by Oldham and her crew cannot be excused in any shape or form. If bowing down to demands from a Law Officers Department is meant to fill us with confidence when it is quite clear the evidence was valid and important for plebs like me to see to make informed conclusions then I am afraid it does the exact opposite. Power and Harper aside the 'Big Two' witnesses for the good guys I wanted to see and hear were Pitman and Syvret. I bet if you asked him Stuart would agree that in their treatment by Oldham we plebs have effectively been denied hearing from. So confidence I have not a jot.

      Delete
    2. Sorry chaps I made the comment @10.56 and see I missed out the word 'both' after I say 'hearing from'. Going senile perhaps? 49 next month!

      Delete
  9. Replies
    1. And Chapesses obviously!

      Delete
  10. "I have read all the transcripts, all the statements and all the supporting evidence ,I have attended many sessions, and whilst not of the opinion that the COI is without any failings it has produced a body of evidence that is now available to all so that they make their own minds up."

    Did we really need to be fleeced of £26 million to achieve this? Much of the evidence to which you refer has been in the public domain (published on this and other blogs) for several years. More to the point, it has also been in the possession of the police and so-called prosecution service for several years.

    Jersey has never needed a COI. What it has needed is a robust and independent non-politicised police service; a robust and independent non-politicised prosecution function; and robust and independent non-politicised courts of law.

    The correct place to hear and consider the evidence to which you allude is the Royal Court, during criminal proceedings. Not a toothless talking-shop which will do nothing more than issue a large and heavily redacted report, which will then be used the 'draw a line under the affair'. And nothing will have changed.

    Just look at how the exposure of the South African junket by two senior civil (self-)servants is playing out. We all know what happened: they booked themselves hugely expensive business class flights because business class is nice (when you're not paying for it), and because it gets you a shit-load of Avios points. They lied about why they 'needed' to fly business class (the old 'arrive fresh and hit the ground running' schtick), and got caught out. They not only defrauded us; they lied about it. Straightforward gross misconduct, which would get you summary dismissal in most private businesses.

    The reaction of every ordinary taxpayer in the island: sack them and make them pay the money back. The reaction of our Chief Minister: bring in an outside expert to hold and enquiry. In other words, play for time to let it die-down, get the spin doctors to work to cloud the waters, issue a mild criticism, "lessons learned", and carry on as before.

    The Jersey Way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Interesting comment by Jerry Gosselin today at
    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=787.msg60764#msg60764
    In the first paragraph he appears to have got over his differences :-) and is sounding like Mr.Syvret:

    "I only read what they [the JEPaedo] put online but I really wouldn't get your hopes up, CB. If you mean things like the 'exclusive' expose of top civil servants spending £13,000 on return flights to South Africa, get over it. This is lazy, easy journalism by numbers. Wherever bureaucracies exist, there will be individuals taking advantage of that bureaucracy. It is part of the newspaper's theme of exposing the malpractices of individuals within a government bureaucracy rather than exposing the inherent flaws within the bureaucracy itself. Individuals can easily be disciplined, pensioned off, fired, imprisoned, whatever, which leaves the paper looking like some great crusader for good over evil, but the bureaucracy itself and the dodgy legal environment which legitimizes it continues without challenge.

    Furthermore, the JEP might have no choice but to adopt a stance that is more critical and questioning of practices within the Jersey government if journalists at other organisations - I am thinking principally of ITV News Channel TV - are already increasingly doing the same. Journalists from different media socialise with each other and no doubt tell each other what they know and compare each other's scoops. There is peer pressure. If one media outlet suddenly starts publishing quite radical reports that are critical of the government, this might act to encourage journalists working for rival organisations to try to go one better.

    The JEP has duly noted the frequency of these demonstrations against various government policies and may now be starting to hedge its bets. It senses when the wind is changing and it will do what it has always done in the past - start vetting and selecting a new generation of pro-business Establishment politicians (e.g. Christian May, the JEP's own Lucy Stephenson etc.) to take over from the current ones who have lost the confidence of the people. This is what it did in 1945. It knew that there was going to be change come what may and if it didn't put forward its own vetted candidates, the JDM might snatch power and real change might follow. It worked a treat back then and the JDM were completely brushed aside by JEP-approved 'progressive' independent business candidates when the first post war elections were finally held.

    The same thing is happening again. The end result will be nothing more than a change of personalities and the usual attempt by the incoming executive to appear a bit more transparent and willing to hold public meetings than the previous lot. Nothing important to us will change... unless we put forward our own credible, radical candidates to rival the JEP's brown-nosers and quite frankly, apart from one or two individuals who aren't in the States Assembly but should be, I can't seriously think who these rival candidates might be."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Face up to reality - and I am not an establishment troll - as you point out good, strong and credible alternatives are conspicuous by their invisibility.

      Syvret and Trevor Pitman were politicians to hold their own with anything the business lobby ever had. Great and in the latter's case hugely passionate orators. Men of both courage and genuine intellect.

      But as has been said before both men along with a few other notable individuals are gone. The hope that they may deign to come save us seems pretty unlikely.

      Stuart Syvret has told us again and again he is finished with conventional politics. From what I hear rumoured Trevor Pitman and his wife are no longer even in the island. Nor I believe is the former Deputy of St Mary who was another outstanding opposition politician.

      If true I am not in any way being critical. Trying to bring Jersey toward open democracy via the States Chamber must be one of the most thankless tasks imaginable.

      My point is just where are the left's new candidates coming from? With due respect the Reform party are just a side show who show little prospect for gaining popular traction. Other recent well known leftist figures sre sadly now simply too old as has also been pointed out.

      The cupboard is pretty much bare. Which all says that unpalatable as it may be the only answer is to ride things out and try and survive till the whole rotten edifsce collapses. When enough people are suffering and can see the truth then and only them might we be able to start afresh.





      Delete
    2. "Furthermore, the JEP might have no choice but to adopt a stance that is more critical and questioning of practices within the Jersey government if journalists at other organisations - I am thinking principally of ITV News Channel TV....."


      In this respect ITV News Channel TV & BBC are merely another part of the 'landscape' rather than themselves being the 'gamechangers'.

      There is indeed more competition occurring between the island's stale medias ......but the gamechangers have been the bloggers and their increasing readership.

      The "statemedia" misreporting (and non-reporting) has progressively been becoming more untenable when the hidden facts have become so readily available elsewhere.

      The blogs have been on the money for the last decade but they now have the readership to match. The higher their readership the greater their power.
      So spread the word to all you know.

      Delete
    3. Hi "not-a-troll" at 14:46

      "My point is just where are the left's new candidates coming from?"

      I consider myself a right winger and I have voted Syvret whenever I have had the opportunity.


      The battle between Left and Right is a sideshow. This is a battle between right and wrong.

      Facing up to reality is what many of us have been doing for years. It is a journey and it hurts!
      Stiff upper lip, what..

      Delete
    4. Not a troll but a very nice boy11 March 2016 at 18:00

      Agree but those of us facing up to reality are a tiny minority. My only other comment would be to say that in Jersey the battle between Right and Left and right and wrong is the same thing. The Right have got us into this mess being the politics of caring only about the greedy self. No offence meant.

      Delete
    5. No offence taken at 18:00

      "The Right have got us into this mess"
      Quite true, but child abuse and paedophilia is pan-class and pan-politics. The Left and the Liberals have shown themselves to have an equal apatite for minors and cover up in Islington, Rochdale... UK and elsewhere.

      "in Jersey the battle between Right and Left and right and wrong is the same thing."
      I disagree. In Jersey the principal problem is that the politicians are gutless and self serving. We just need representatives of valour and integrity. If e.g. Syvret were more right wing, or e.g. Higgins was more left wing then both IMO would remain equally valuable to this island and it's people.

      The Left and Right both have their weaknesses and attractions. The "evils" tend to occur at both extremes. There is a balance between care for the less well off and the rights of 'workers' to keep what they have earned.

      Greed is a facet of the human condition. There is a human failing of [extreme] greed.
      You do have an indirect point about the evil of the Right in Jersey. Jersey has a preoccupation with electing people who claim success in the business community. Jersey is run as a company town and anyone who has a present and future reliant on business has a vulnerability to (intolerable?) influence by the establishment.
      The success or failure of a business relies on it's relationships in the environment. Reliance on business can be used as a "stick and carrot" to herd those without iron-clad integrity. Or even a choke-chain with the attack dogs of the establishment owned media ready to savage the disobedient on demand.

      Jersey needs representatives of integrity -of whatever colour
      "Integrity" is a cliche at election time. Even Andrew Lewis banded it about !

      Delete
  12. Catching up with Stuart Syvret's Twitter feed, I notice he tweeted a few days ago what he claims to be quotes from correspondence he had with your then Attorney General William Bailhache back in August 2007 when Syvret was Health & Social Services Minister. Syvret attached to his tweets screen-clips from the alleged e-mails, one of which quoted the following questions from Syvret to Bailhache:

    'I have two simple questions:

    1: Could you explain by what juddgment you came to think it appropriate to ignore my clear warning as to the complete inappropriateness of the Jersey Law Officers becoming involved in advising staff in this matter, as prosecution may well be an appropriate path?

    2: I have very clear powers and responsibilities under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 as the Minister for Health & Social Services. If I am forced to come to the conclusion that you too have joined in with these lengthy attempts to obstruct me in my lawful duties – to whom do I turn and to whom do the States of Jersey Police Force turn in the event of me making a criminal complaint against you as a party to the obstructions and cover-up? Do you, for example, prosecute yourself?

    There is a degree of urgency in these matters, so I would appreciate a swift response.

    Thanks

    Senator Stuart Syvret
    Minister, Health & Social Services
    States of Jersey'

    Can I ask, are these e-mails on the blogs? And has the COI published them (presumably the COI has them given the Attorney General's office (Law Officers Department) has disclosed to the COI all such material)?

    The tweets by Syvret were the first time I've ever seen, or known this particular correspondence quoted to exist. I presume it does exist and is genuine because Syvret's never been shown to have fabricated any documentation ever before.

    Assuming the material quoted by Syvret is genuine, well, I'm pretty lost for words.'Damning' on your Attorney General, the island's only prosecution authority, wouldn't seem to do the job of description properly. If real, and thought of in light of everything else said and done in the disgraceful 'Jersey saga' this is seismic. I mean this is immediate resignation of William Bailhache type material. In light events, it just isn't possible for an AG recipient of that e-mail to now be head of your judiciary. In fact, not possible to remain in any public office.

    So, where is the e-mail? Does the COI have it? Is it genuine?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can I ask why you think this is of seismic "immediate resignation" importance? While the emails are undoubtedly genuine, and might be eye-catching in most other jurisdictions, I can't see anything particularly noteworthy about them when put in the context of the general lawlessness with which successive AGs have conducted themselves in office. To give one example, I wonder whether you are familiar with the same AG's role in instigating the unlawful dawn raid on Stuart's home by a dozen police officers, and his subsequent lies about his involvement? The one where emergency police powers, intended to be used where there is a risk of harm or destruction of evidence, were abused to justify a warrant-free invasion of private property. For alleged data protection offences.

      Delete
    2. I feel the person who asks the question & explains some of the history at 10:08 answers themselves. The e-mail in question, if genuine, adds another lawyer of conflict of interest on the conflicted William Bailhache. In fact what the e-mail does is amplify the latter points the person raises at 10:08.

      Once drawn into the administrative and Ministerial matters Syvret was wrestling with under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, in particular the subjects of the unlawful obstructions being placed in the path of the obligations of that law, and the questions of past unlawful cover-ups Syvret was attempting to investigate, William Bailhache was then conflicted out from playing any other kind of professional or personal role in the controversy. Most certainly, for example, decisions to have Syvret raided, arrested and prosecuted by abusing the data protection law. This e-mail shows William Bailhache to have a prior and personally direct interest, call it a professional, political, and reputational interest, in damaging, suppressing, obstructing and discrediting Syvret. Therefore his latter decisions to do just that are all, ab initio, unlawful.

      Perhaps someone with more familiarity with the proceedings of the COI than me could confirm that it has this e-mail? It should have, if the disclosure process from your Law Officers Department has been full and frank.

      And there is another deeper and even more serious dimension to what is revealed in the e-mail. It greatly amplifies a point which stuck in my mind made by a commenter here on VFC, some months ago now (I really wish I'd bookmarked or copied it, I can't remember where it appeared now). But the point stuck with me it was so important. From memory, that reader pointed out that, basically, from the moment people like your Attorney General and his LOD began to play a part in obstructing the Health & Social Services Minister and the discharge of the requirements of the Children Law, in reality it became impossible, legally impossible, for the Attorney General to then prosecute any of the actual child-abusers being investigated by Syvret, and of the corrupt civil servants who were conspiring to conceal child-abuse, or in any way obstructing Syvret. In particular, if there were any child-abuse suspects who were States, Health & Social Services employees at that time, those suspects basically became immune to prosecution from the dates of that e-mail, at the latest (possibly sooner) because by that stage, as that e-mail proves, the Attorney General had already entangled himself in the obstruction of the Minister. How could the Attorney General / LOD then, later, decide to charge and prosecute the self same people Syvret had been trying to expose?

      The really fundamental point made by the comment I remember from last year was this, 'if there were abuse-suspects or conspiracy to cover up suspects amongst the generation of civil-servants that Syvret was investigating, then the victims of those people were cruelly, cruelly misled when going through the hell of re-living their experiences in statements and formal complaints to the police. There was never any chance, none at all, of their attackers being charged. The only prosecution function in Jersey had already involved itself in shielding such abusers by aligning against the Children (Jersey) Law. Your prosecution couldn't prosecute attackers in the category of those being investigated by Syvret, without destroying its own standing and credibility.

      Delete
    3. Indeed, I was being somewhat rhetorical. I don't disagree with your analysis of what SHOULD be. However, for those of us who have been following this debacle for several years, I suppose there is almost a sense of wry amusement when somebody who is perhaps coming across some of this material for the first time expresses shock at the sheer lawlessness of the island.

      The problem is this: no matter how much incidents like this amplify the misconduct of our AGs, SGs, Bailiffs etc, it makes no difference. There's LITERALLY nothing anybody in Jersey can do. We are powerless unless and until the UK government accepts its responsibilities, and the unwavering response of the UK government, despite the overwhelming evidence of misconduct by Crown appointees, is to wash its hands.

      In Jersey, we have the rule of lawyers. Not the rule of law.

      Delete
    4. To the comments above concerning the e-mail thread I made reference to on Twitter - yes, the e-mails exist and are genuine.

      And, yes, assuming "full & frank" disclosure by the Attorney General's Office and his "Law Officers Department", the CoI should possess the e-mails.

      But, to be on the safe side, I'll see if Free-Speech Off-Shore will publish the thread in full. I don't control the site, so can only submit things. Provided it get's published, then like all of the other publicly available evidence on the blogs, the "public-inquiry" can access it.

      In general, I agree with both commenters; the issues raised are - plainly - of "seismic" significance; so seismic only the UK government and the Crown can make the appropriate interventions. Issues such as the - equally plain - non-existence of the rule-of-law in Jersey are of too great public importance to surrender to some "substitute" for the rule-of-law, like a public-inquiry.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  13. Neil, do your own sanity a favour and change direction.
    Your enthusiasm to protect children could be so better utilised than dwelling on blogs.
    Pick out what's failed and build on what's getting somewhere.
    Your speech at the Care Inquiry is a very good start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Neil, do your own sanity a favour and change direction. Your enthusiasm to protect children could be so better utilised than dwelling on blogs."

      Really?
      Excuse me but the quality blogs (VFC, Rico Sorda, Syvret & a couple more) are all which has actually achieved the progress so far in Jersey.

      If you are genuine in proposing a change of tack away from citizen's journalism then you need to make realistic proposals in rather more detail than just referring to what was publicised .......errrr ..........on Neil's last blog:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/oral-evidence-of-vfc-jersey-child-abuse.html

      Delete
  14. For once a thread straying slightly off topic has flung up something else worth pursuing and certainly worth a blog.

    What do leftists and progressives who want to end this elitest corruption ruining our island do in prep for the next election?

    As commentators have said there is not much to inspire with regards to those opposition members in the States now. So how do we get a Sam Mezec to work with a Tracey Vallois etc to form a united, credible front?

    And does anyone know the location of the English Hill under which Big Trev is sleeping, waiting to awaken and save us in our darkest hour like King Arthur?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good subject for a post I have to agree, and when you think it through a natural extension of this And the last VFC post. For me there are sadly two problems that arise straightaway. Firstly quite wrongly nobody in the States will be seen as linked to Reform. Secondly quite rightly how could anyone genuinely be willing to stand alongside somebody like Sean Power who is desperately trying to pass himself off as being separate from the Establishment? Snookered before we even start. Last but not least as has already been said there just aren't any huge anti-establishment characters around who could front something up. Interested in what others think though.

      Delete
    2. If anyone ANYONE I was going to vote for was found to be working with Sean Power I would ditch them like a hot potato. Power is poison as his attacks on GP alone showed us.

      Delete
    3. Indeed. And to our eternal shame on this side of the pond, an Irishman to boot.

      I am sure the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation, the centenary of whose deaths we commemorate this year, are spinning in their graves.

      For this they died?

      Delete
    4. Gombeen man writ large!

      Delete
    5. Or "Piltdown Man" :-p

      A missing link and a fraud.

      Delete
  15. I keep hearing about some poll which showed approval of Gorst, Ozouf and MacLean at about minus 60%. Anyone know where it can be found?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Does this report ring bells with anybody and has any reflection on our so called system 'The Jersey Way'

    Large anti-government protests in Poland over 'Rule of Law'

    Link:- http://www.euronews.com/2016/03/12/large-anti-government-protests-in-poland-over-rule-of-law/

    Tens of thousands of Poles have marched through Warsaw, demanding that the right-wing government respect the constitution.
    Its controls on the media and other institutions have been criticised by the EU, the US and human rights groups.
    At the rally which was organised by opposition parties, protesters called on the government to recognise a court ruling that declared judicial reforms illegal.
    On Saturday the Law and Justice government rejected a ruling by the Constitutional Court outlawing some of the reforms, saying it would not take it as valid.
    Earlier in the week the court declared illegal the government’s decision to increase the number of judges needed to make rulings. The reforms also change the order in which cases are heard in the country’s top court, and are said to make it difficult for judges to challenge – or even review – the government’s legislation.
    The European Council watchdog the Venice Commission had also called on the Polish government to recognise the court ruling.
    The row has deepened a crisis that has stirred concerns about the state of democracy and the rule of law in Poland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poland doesn't have the advantage of having had more than 800 years to refine its system of government to the level of perfection as we enjoy here. In Jersey, there is no prospect of a spat between the judiciary and the government, since the true power block in Jersey - the government within a government - includes the judiciary. Our oligarchy encompasses the legislature, executive, judiciary and media.

      Delete
    2. Just the point I was trying to raise
      'Our oligarchy encompasses the legislature, executive, judiciary and media'

      Delete
  17. Dear Freddie letter, the smoking gun gets fired.

    BBC interviews - hear again.

    Bob Le Brocq, wants resignation of two ministers and information released for scrutiny.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03jv59j 02.33.30

    BBC Radio hotseat programme turns into a blaze for Ozouf

    Philip Ozouf – ripped apart by a member of the public over Esplanade Development and asks Philip Ozouf to apologise to the public.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03jv5gr 03.34.20

    PlanetJersey

    http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3656.msg60770;topicseen#msg60770

    ReplyDelete
  18. I notice that people are still afraid to mention that the Business concerned was Boschat Recovery Service. I know exactly what went on and what the corruption was at PHQ, my husband pointed it out to an English Inspector who came over and it was in the tow in call out log in book a PHQ, the fraudulent behaviour of Boschat & certain Police Officers was detrimental to all other Recovery Services our own included (B Corby 24 Hr Recovery Service). I for one am not afraid to speak the truth out-loud. This was allowed to continue for man years No apology nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How very courageous and correct of you, Mrs Corby, to state the truth. I wasn't personally affected by the actions of Boschat but I happen to know others who were. I used to be strong supporter of what I thought were Jersey 'values' and our 'establishment'. The astonishing saga of how States members, prosecutors, the AG and magistrates contrived to fail to press a prosecution of Boschat and convict him given the evidence, really shook my faith in Jersey and those kind of people who I used to trust. Perhaps too naively trusted in the past. All of those people imagine themselves to be pillars of our community and beacons of trust and rectitude but they had no shame, no shame at all in contriving one way or another to let the crimes go unpunished. And as you so rightly point out, they were not victimless crimes.

      Frankly the whole episode disgusted and disillusioned me. Just as did another shameful example of the abuse and twisting by our powerful of what should have been justice, the Reg's Skips saga, in which Philip Bailhache himself played an improper role. Both my families are traditional middle Jersey but our faith in the Jersey system has been seriously shaken and that would be the case because of those two cases without even starting on the child-abuse cover-ups, and the disgraceful Occupation style treatment of Stuart Syvret. Even if we didn't always agree with his politics every decent person in Jersey knows that he was talented and of the greatest integrity and bravery. Our judiciary and the rest of the legal establishment have played with fire. One day these people are going to be shocked and find the support they've taken for granted has evaporated.

      Delete
  19. All of this about Stuart Syvret not giving evidence and his relentless argument for he was right not to should be put to bed now. Rightly or wrongly, and for my own two pennies worth it will be rightly, it will be recorded by history that when he finally had the opportunity to deliver his evidence for the victims he refused. That is all that will be recorded in the dry old history books and for me it is a shame. You also have to ask just where does he go after this? More to the point who does he think will be listening? As s person who voted for him three times I think this a tragedy. Dry powder or wasted powder? Nobody I know who used to vote for him agrees with his stance people just can't understand it whatever their doubts about this inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There would appear to be sackloads of dry powder and it is indeed being kept dry and NOT wasted. There is even a clear statement of this within Ex.Health Minister Syvret's last comment on this thread:

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/03/some-key-issues-facing-jersey.html?showComment=1457825819312#c7343381802976288560

      "To the comments above concerning the e-mail thread I made reference to on Twitter - yes, the e-mails exist and are genuine.

      And, yes, assuming 'full & frank' disclosure by the Attorney General's Office and his 'Law Officers Department', the CoI should possess the e-mails.

      But, to be on the safe side, I'll see if Free-Speech Off-Shore will publish the thread in full. I don't control the site, so can only submit things. Provided it get's published, then like all of the other publicly available evidence on the blogs, the "public-inquiry" can access it.

      In general, I agree with both commenters; the issues raised are - plainly - of "seismic" significance; so seismic only the UK government and the Crown can make the appropriate interventions. Issues such as the - equally plain - non-existence of the rule-of-law in Jersey are of too great public importance to surrender to some "substitute" for the rule-of-law, like a public-inquiry."

      Delete
  20. I voted for him, understand his stance & agree with it & believe he will not let anyone down in the long term so we are not all of your train of thought 09.45

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely right "Constables out",
      Mr. Syvret is well on the way to being proved right (yet again!) and is playing the long game not the "winner takes all" charade with the loaded dice, marked cards and make it up as you go along rules.

      Absolutely right "Constables out",
      Mr. Syvret is well on the way to being proved right (yet again!) and is playing the long game not the "winner takes all" charade with the loaded dice, marked cards and make it up as you go along rules.

      It is said that history is written by the winners.
      When Anonymous at 09:45 refers to "the dry old history books" he is (IMO erroneously) implying that the historically abusive establishment has WON, or that he accepts that it has or should win.

      Furthermore Anonymous implies that the end of the CoI (and their soon to be dusty report) is the end of the matter.

      Anonymous is wrong on both counts.
      The world is now connected. Researched blogs such as this are where the future will seek the real history in order to understand and unpick the "dry old" official history.

      In this searchable connected world we are also in the age the "perpetual campaign" These matters will not be dropped until there is some sort of real closure. Real closure may ultimately mean that the children of today and tomorrow are protected by fit structures and the rule of law.

      Anonymous' talk is either defeatist or disingenuous.

      "put to bed" indeed

      Delete
    2. You sound just like Stuart. Are you he? To put matters straight I want the same thing as you do. I just feel like every other bar one friend and colleague I talk to that Stuart Syvret has got it wrong on this one. Does that make us all trolls or agents of the Establishment? No it does not. The sad thing is everyone (almost) I know who cares about all of this agrees Stuart's call on this one IS wrong. It just plays into the hands of those haters who say every time it comes to the crunch Stuart won't or can't deliver. As for the claim that he is about to be 'proved right' far from if we are talking about his position. Possibly our best politician ever but he is making excuses that don't stand up to scrutiny anymore. GP, LH, TP, MH and so many victims have all put aside their reservations and given evidence knowing it was necessary, and that they could still speak out again if Jersey is ever a part of some UK intervention,Not that I think there ever will be. But not Stuart and he IS wrong. So we will just have to disagree.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 12:16
      You are too fixated on the "official history" choreographed in this not fit for purpose CoI

      I think you are seriously deluded If you think that this CoI is going to deliver the rule of law in Jersey and protect future generations of the island's children.

      I suspect that the CoI is a very expensive way of NOT learning lessons

      Granted, the CoI has provided an "official" platform for information which was available fro FREE on these blogs nearly a decade ago, and statemedia now has little choice but to report *some* of it.

      Why your fixation with taking pot shots and telling the Ex.Health Minister what HE should do .......and furthermore, how he is irrelevant if HE does not do as YOU say.

      Who are you to hold such sway???????

      The HEROES who have proved themselves over the years and decades "GP, LH, TP, MH" (you forgot RS, VFC, SYVRET, and many others!) have all earned the right to come to their own decisions -and even to disagree with one another on whatever detail or whatever path.

      Ex.Health Minister Syvret has been constructively excluded from this CoI. The CoI has the power to subpoena him, and a REAL CoI would have done just that!

      What a REAL CoI cannot do is pretend that critical witnesses do not exist. Syvret is not the only one!

      Yes Anonymous, "Long live the Jersey Way"

      Why should we ignore Syvret and not you?????

      Delete
  21. Its over, Stuart Syvret is not part of the Multi-Million Pound Inquiry so why keep on going on about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Its over, Stuart Syvret is not part of the Multi-Million Pound Inquiry so why keep on going on about it."

      Anonymous .....you do not see the irony in asserting (contrary to the evidence and good sense) that Stuart Syvret is irrelevant .....when it is you and your ilk who keep "going on" about him?

      LOL [it smells like a troll]

      There was no need for the CoI to cost £26 million. The PR consultant/lawyer fest costs have been deliberately in a cynical attempt to wear down the Jersey taxpayer to a point where they will take no more.

      £26 million !!!! for this charade?
      This amount should be reclaimed from the personal estates of those who orchestrated the fiasco.

      Follow the money.

      Delete
  22. "Researched blogs such as this are where the future will seek the real history in order to understand and unpick the "dry old" official history."

    So in other words you never had any intention of giving evidence because you believed your Blog was enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So in other words you never had any intention of giving evidence because you believed your Blog was enough?"

      Anonymous -I am not Mr. Syvret and I do not run a blog so please stop disrupting this thread.

      Delete
    2. Syvretesque @13.21

      I do not want Stuart Syvret ignored. Far from it. I want him in the spotlight where he should be giving his evidence. Yes all of the people you highlight ARE heroes and SS as big a hero as any. But it is him who is going to make himself irrelevant by his own hand. All this talk of being subpoenaed this late in the day is laughable. Why should even more money be spent when Mr Syvret could give the same evidence without such a ploy? We are still.to hear from the spineless Gorst so please SS get on the phone now and fill that public gallery as you give your evidence for history and the victims.

      Delete
    3. It is so much better when you ask your hero nicely -fair enough. That is good manners and I have no wish to offend without cause.

      You are of the opinion that "All this talk of being subpoenaed this late in the day is laughable" -obviously the COI cannot put itself on a credible and legal footing this late in the day

      I am of the opinion that a COI that chooses NOT to engage with critical witnesses is what is laughable.

      That is not a COI, it is a "CONI": a Committee Of Non Inquiry

      This £26 million CONI represents poor value for money for the taxpayer.

      I trust Mr.Syvret's judgement on this above yours and those who hold a different view have to accept that it is HIS choice and should respect this. He is amongst those who run the gauntlet of death threats so he has earned that right and has given his reasons multiple times. We are all free to politely express our opinions but they ring hollow if we do not adequately answer Mr.Syvret's stated reasons.

      Few people will see a flawed CONi report as the end of the matter and the elephant NOT in the COI room is not perfect but it does give the campaign for children's future safety both "belt and braces" -just in case [when?] the "belt" of the CONI proves too slack to hold their pants up.

      Mr.Syvret and others provide a focus for this future against an administration desperate to put the issue to bed.
      Mr.Syvret wants the proper rule of law. Is that too much to ask.

      This is all old ground. If you want Mr.Syvret to give his evidence then adequately answer his concerns.

      Delete
  23. So are you saying that the 600 + people who have sent submissions in have all wasted their time because none of them are smart enough to understand Stuart Syvret's translation of what he sees as a proper rule of law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @15:36
      No, I'm saying that different people have the right to make different choices .....and that it is a good idea not to put all your eggs in one basket.

      Sigh!
      It is what lawyers (and others) see as "the proper rule of law"

      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/advocate-philip-sinel-submission-to.html

      as apposed to the Jersey Way.

      Please stop wasting our time.

      Delete
    2. You are saying that all those who have submitted evidence to the COI (including me) have wasted their time because we don't understand the Proper Rule of Law.
      Are you for real or is this a wind up?

      Delete
    3. No, I'm saying that different people have the right to make different choices .....and that it is a good idea not to put all your eggs in one basket.

      Delete
  24. "You are saying that all those who have submitted evidence to the COI (including me) have wasted their time because we don't understand the Proper Rule of Law."

    Quite probably, yes. Unless you are an abuse survivor, and giving evidence gave you some form of personal closure, then yes. You probably have wasted your time, and you probably didn't (and still don't) understand the proper rule of law.

    Stuart posed a very straightforward question: "What committee of inquiry?" Perhaps you would like to answer this question, and explain how the current theatrical performance on the Esplanade meets the definition of a lawful COI? How any jurisdiction with the rule of law could allow so many obvious abuses of process?

    Let's start with you explaining how a COI operating within a functional rule of law could allow an individual like Richard Jouault to be seconded to 'help' the COI sift through evidence. Or could outsource a critical part of its work to a private businessman operating in secrecy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Jouault is certainly exposed in the infamously disappeared Pitman evidence as entirely unsuitable to be involved in a committee of inquiry. So maybe the above poster has a point? On t'other hand as my Yorkshire grandpa used to say, if young Master P hadn't made his statement this fact wouldn't be recorded for prosperity on the committee of inquiry's evidence files and (hopefully now) website. Thee bugger still no nearer to an answer!

      Delete
  25. I'm a bit on both sides. Stuart clearly has made up his mind and has explained his reasoning several times.

    In my view his decision is wrong but he has an absolute right to make that decision.

    What I would say is what so many have said to me. This being that he should now drop the on line attacks on the COI and just get on with whatever Plan B he has to progress as he thinks he can.

    It is a shame that a lot of people who used to support him now just dismis him though.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm just catching up with the comments after a nice weekend, and my, my, it does seem like someone's hate-filled obsession with Stuart Syvret just won't go away. I'm thinking the helpfully linked 'DeaththreatTroll'.

    Why the obsession with Syvret, and with Syvret giving evidence to the COI? We have to suspect it's because Syvret was right when he pointed out at the start of this there was a very real danger the COI process could be used as a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' by effectively 'neutralising' a great deal of evidence and rendering it henceforward unusable in any criminal or civil matter. As 'the rule of law' seems popular above, and I'm sure most readers of this site understand its basics, it's worth reminding ourselves that there is no 'statute-of-limitations', so the many, many criminal acts will remain 'live' so to speak. And if a victim of those many criminal acts, e.g. corruption, perjury, conspiracy, conspiracy to pervert justice, misconduct in a public office etc. chooses to hold onto their rights for criminal justice, rather than 'consenting' (qui tacet consentire) to the substitute of a 'public inquiry' then, well, all of those criminal acts of which they were a victim don't get 'cleansed', and instead remain on-the-books, so to speak.

    Of course we don't yet have the rule of law in Jersey. But, who know's, one day it might just come crashing on in? And let's face it, the Jersey establishment has already pushed their luck beyond any seeming bounds of the credible, and are now a cancer on the standing and reputation of the British state. Some people's sense of invulnerability might collide with reality one day.

    And when that day comes, the position and choice of people like Stuart Syvret is going to prove invaluable to the public good in the community of Jersey.

    In all this, I have to say I remain slack-jawed in disbelief at the incompetence of the legal team, and others, behind the COI. And one doesn't even need to invoke the astonishing spectacle of a public inquiry agreeing to incorporate into a key part of its processes a directly conflicted individual such as Mr. Jouault. What on Earth ever made them imagine, for one instant, they were going to get past Syvret fatal gaffes such as ignoring a key part of the legislative decision, not complying with human rights provisions, not complying with the Salmon Principles, refusing him legal representation, and not embracing cross-examination?

    Actually, I think such incompetence is so amazing and ham-fisted it can't be only put upon the legal advisers, the Chair must carry it's share of responsibility and blame.

    If Syvret was hoping for a legitimate means of keeping the criminal dimensions of all this alive, as opposed to running the risk of them being 'neutralised' by the COI process, he needn't have worried, the clowns handed it to him on a platter. One needs no expertise in the rule of law to see the Jersey COI process self-immolated its own credibility before it left the starting blocks.

    So it looks like sleepless nights, for the rest of their days, for all the criminals, of every type, who were hoping the COI would 'wipe-the-slate-clean'. Instead they have to bank on the random chances, unlikely into the future, the British state will carry on shielding the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The subject of this Blog post are the Key Issues during evidence giving to the COI yet there is somebody regularly coming on here to justify not to give any evidence to the COI. It's a bit late, and people who have given evidence away from all these attempts to find excuses not to give evidence, should be proud of doing so.
    Call me a troll, call me what you like, I couldn't care less, we've paid for this Inquiry and we should get as much out of it as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting comment at 20:23. Could the person who left it explain what they mean by the word 'excuses'? My understanding of the word 'excuses' means something like being unwell, or a family bereavement, or something serious like that for not doing something you accept under normal circumstances you should do, like your job maybe. But the different arguments I've read on the blogs for some people's choice not to recognise the COI don't fit into the definition of 'excuses'. Instead the arguments I've read are not 'excuses' but reasoned grounds for concluding that engaging with the Jersey COI isn't a legitimate requirement in the first place. I would be genuinely interested to hear reasoned arguments as to why those people are mistaken in their view the COI isn't meeting legitimate standard. I'm pretty bored with pat and wrong phrases like the word 'excuses'. Give me a real argument and I'll take an interest.

      Delete
    2. This conversation is exhausted.
      I have given evidence to the Inquiry and people who do not want to should stop patronising those who have and walk away.

      Delete
    3. Well said whoever you may be, Sir or Madam. As somebody else said somewhere above SS has made his decision and he had every right to do so. He and anyone else who may support this view now need to move on and stop going on about it to those who disagree. Likewise the latter need to stop going on about SS not giving his evidence.

      Delete
    4. Well, that answer at 21:11 seems like trolling to me. It's saying to those who have a different point of view they're not allowed to express it. Like if they don't agree with the COI, they loose their right to campaign for a different point of view, and to campaign down a different pathway. That kind of argument is nonsense and can't have any place in a democratic society. I haven't seen any comments critical of the COI which are 'patronising'. Or more importantly, I have never seen any comments critical of the COI in which the same person is attacking or criticising those who do engage with the COI. That's really what I was trying to express in my question @ 20.04. There's an absence of rational argument in this issue, and a lot of double standards on the part of those who choose to believe in the COI compared to those who don't who have respected the right of all to choose their own path.

      Delete
  28. Time for a new post? What about an interview with one or some of the big figures through all of this? Perhaps Syvret so long as he doesn't just go on and on about he failed to give evidence? Or get someone who will give a wider overview of the likely future for law and disorder in Jersey? A sort of where do we go from here, who do ee vote for, or do we vote at all. A bit different but be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I know the primary focus of this blog is child protection, but let's not forget another vulnerable group - the elderly.

    Does anybody else find it astonishing that the Cheval Roc Care Home is allowed to remain open with 10 residents, following the collapse of the cliff face below the building?

    My understanding is that these residents have all been relocated from the States-run care home at The Limes - in other words, they have not moved to Cheval Roc through their own choice, but were simply transferred by Health & Social Services as a matter of expedience.

    I doubt anybody given free choice in the matter would choose to live in a building literally right on the edge of an unstable cliff of dirt. The claim in the JEP that engineers have stated that there is no risk to the structure of the building is patent nonsense - they may have said that there is no damage to the structure of the buildings, but any engineer who could claim that there is no risk here is an idiot. If that is the case, why have they closed the 3 rooms closest to the subsidence? Why are they talking about reinforcing the cliff face?

    So why has the local regulator not stepped-in, closed the home, and ensured that the 10 residents are moved to a place of safety?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't the local regulator...erm....the very same Health and Social Services Dept?

      Tell me I'm wrong, please...

      Delete
    2. I'd like to echo the reader who says this,

      'I doubt anybody given free choice in the matter would choose to live in a building literally right on the edge of an unstable cliff of dirt. The claim in the JEP that engineers have stated that there is no risk to the structure of the building is patent nonsense - they may have said that there is no damage to the structure of the buildings, but any engineer who could claim that there is no risk here is an idiot. If that is the case, why have they closed the 3 rooms closest to the subsidence? Why are they talking about reinforcing the cliff face?'

      You don't need to be an engineer to see a steep sedimentary deposit forming a highly dynamic zone such as a coastline to understand that it is, by definition, not stable. The photograph spoke.

      Delete
  30. Campaigning for, and pushing for on line voting to be set up for the next election surely is the biggest priority which needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Considering the *turkeys in power now are already saying that its impossible to get on line voting in place before then!
    *turkeys donot vote for Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I commented above at 12:12 on 12th March, & I was struggling to find a comment made on VFC last year which really stuck in my mind. This is what I said in my comment,

    '......And there is another deeper and even more serious dimension to what is revealed in the e-mail. It greatly amplifies a point which stuck in my mind made by a commenter here on VFC, some months ago now (I really wish I'd bookmarked or copied it, I can't remember where it appeared now). But the point stuck with me it was so important. From memory, that reader pointed out that, basically, from the moment people like your Attorney General and his LOD began to play a part in obstructing the Health & Social Services Minister and the discharge of the requirements of the Children Law, in reality it became impossible, legally impossible, for the Attorney General to then prosecute any of the actual child-abusers being investigated by Syvret, and of the corrupt civil servants who were conspiring to conceal child-abuse, or in any way obstructing Syvret. In particular, if there were any child-abuse suspects who were States, Health & Social Services employees at that time, those suspects basically became immune to prosecution from the dates of that e-mail, at the latest (possibly sooner) because by that stage, as that e-mail proves, the Attorney General had already entangled himself in the obstruction of the Minister. How could the Attorney General / LOD then, later, decide to charge and prosecute the self same people Syvret had been trying to expose?

    The really fundamental point made by the comment I remember from last year was this, 'if there were abuse-suspects or conspiracy to cover up suspects amongst the generation of civil-servants that Syvret was investigating, then the victims of those people were cruelly, cruelly misled when going through the hell of re-living their experiences in statements and formal complaints to the police. There was never any chance, none at all, of their attackers being charged. The only prosecution function in Jersey had already involved itself in shielding such abusers by aligning against the Children (Jersey) Law. Your prosecution couldn't prosecute attackers in the category of those being investigated by Syvret, without destroying its own standing and credibility.......'

    The point kept going around in my mind, so I looked for the comment I remembered from last year, and found it. It was in 2 parts and its on the 14th June 2015, and starts at 21:26. The author titled the comment 'Falls Into View'. Here are the links,

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/06/mario-lundy-and-stuart-syvret-at-jersey.html?showComment=1434313561967#c1881054599747596949

    And,

    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2015/06/mario-lundy-and-stuart-syvret-at-jersey.html?showComment=1434313674161#c8361438438157544175

    ReplyDelete
  32. Is it true that its the COI's last day tomorrow and the premises close down for good?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After tomorrow there will be no more hearings/meetings at the Seaton Place building. There will be "closing statements" from Counsel to the Inquiry in April or May I believe which will be open to the public at a venue to be confirmed as I understand it.

      I believe also that "Interested Parties" will be offered the opportunity to submit a closing statement. Not sure how/when that will work but will keep readers updated.

      Delete
    2. St Paul's Gate will be the venue and the submission deadline was set in February.
      It is more or less finished after tomorrow and then we await their Report.

      Delete
  33. Certainly their posted timetable for hearings does not go beyond tomorrow, and it might explain their arrogance in leaving the posting of transcripts and documentation stuck at 4 February. But then I have a suspicious mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well it cannot go on forever.

      Delete
    2. Polo.

      If memory serves correct we had to wait for three months for transcripts to be published last time. It's been a very poor show throughout this COI as to if/when the transcripts get published.

      Delete
    3. My point was that if they are closing up shop they may have been taking advantage of this to delay posting transcripts and documentation which might have informed the final set of hearings to their disadvantage.

      Their behaviour to date in handling documentation has all the appearances of being manipulative. They have taken down some documents (& admittedly put them back up after a long interval). They have redacted documents in a very sloppy way, showing their unfamiliarity with the Jersey scene. They have presented unseen documents at the last moment to those appearing in person and taken up a lot of appearance time quizzing them on these to the detriment of those people expounding a case they had spent a lot of time working on.

      This, and the many other faults of the Inquiry, make me suspicious.

      Delete
  34. So the Jersey child abuse public inquiry would have us believe it has finished its work, in as much as public hearings and interviews of obvious witnesses go?

    I stand to be corrected if any of the following obvious witnesses have been called (intermittently following events from London so I don’t claim to be fully up to speed) but off the top of my head, just as an interested observer of the Jersey situation, this quick list of unavoidable witnesses comes to mind,

    Christopher Chapman

    Tim Le Cocq

    Mike Pollard

    Andrew Williamson

    The responsible people at Ministry of Justice

    Former Lieutenant Governor Andrew Ridgeway

    Present Lieutenant Governor McColl (I forget his first name)

    The responsible people from the Crown Dependencies Office of the Privy Council

    Emma Martins

    Christopher Pitchers

    Julian Clyde-Smith

    Paul Vane

    Geoff Southern

    Alan Breckon

    Judy Martin

    Richard Lane

    Mike Bowron

    Graham Jennings

    And you will note I deliberately left Stuart Syvret out of that list as his situation has been debated pretty much comprehensively already (and his circumstances do differ to all those others). Speaking as an interested observer I couldn’t take your publicly inquiry seriously if it hasn’t taken live evidence from all those witnesses. (& I guess those with more direct, Jersey based experience of events could add to that list very easily.)

    Have any of the above been examined by the public inquiry, and if not, why not? If it reckons to have finished public hearings and it hasn’t interviewed those, then I guess that confirms the assessment of obvious bias on its part made by others.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I tried to leave a comment this afternoon but it may not have worked. I wondered how your child abuse public inquiry can claim to have finished the process of public hearings when there are quite a number of obvious witnesses who have not yet (so far as I've noticed) been questioned. Off the top of my head the following people seem to be essential to a process of investigating what went wrong in Jersey.

    Andrew Williamson

    Graham Jennings

    Judy Martin

    Richard Lane

    Emma Martins

    Christopher Chapman

    Christopher Pitchers

    Former Lieutenant governor Andrew Ridgway

    Present Lieutenant Governor McColl

    Tim LeCocq

    Geoff Southern

    Julian Clyde-Smith

    Alan Breacon

    Mike Bowron

    And I'm sure there’ll be a number of others who I’m not aware of. Is it expected that your public inquiry will explain its reasons for the obvious missing witnesses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The COI has to have a good reason to call people to answer questions and some of the people mentioned above have no reason to be called.
      Can you possibly give a brief reason as to why you think they should be called?

      Delete
    2. I see my earlier comment did go through. Apologies for the repetition.

      I’m asked at 20:04 for a brief reason why those witnesses should be called. Sorry I don’t have time to explain each of them at this actually moment, but I’ll start with a few observations.

      Mike Bowron is the present police chief who took over from David Warcup who enacted the improper suspension of Graham Power. In the eyes of many people the SOJP remains under a leadership regime which had an unlawful genesis. Plus it’s obviously the case that confidence and faith in impartial policing must be fundamental to the concerns of vulnerable victims of crime. Survivors have a right to have the present police leadership regime grilled to see if the taint of Warcup is gone. And is it not also the case that different (anti Establsihment) people have made different criminal complaints only for the police under Mike Bowron to refuse to take action? So how can ordinary people have any faith in him/SOJP? I’d say thinking about it it’s pretty astounding actually he hasn’t been called.

      Ditto both the Lieutenant Governors. Is it not fundamental to all this that there’s a basic breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey and the place is being run by an out of control and unaccountable oligarchy? Isn’t that how the law failed victims in the first place? In fact as the COI has accepted as much by calling the present Bailiff and both predecessors how can it not call the oversight apparatus (the LGs) responsible for the failings and conduct of those Bailiffs? In fact like I said in my previous paragraph, the more I think about the more amazing it is they haven’t been called. There are very strong grounds for saying the Lieutenant Governors should have been called and questioned as a higher priority than the Bailiffs.

      Alan Brekon and Geoff Southern were, weren’t they, on the Jersey parliament select committee in 2008 which had the responsibility for investigating child protection issues but they refused to do so at that time?

      Judy Martin was for (a long time going from memory) responsible for social services issues as a deputy minister (or something like that)?

      Time Le Cocq was Solicitor General & Attorney General (DPP) for much of the key period.

      Emma Martins the data protection commissioner, instrumental in harassing, intimidating and silencing political opposition and whistle blowers.

      Christopher Pitchers the judge who passively accepted the notorious and infamous Matt Tapp spin doctor report as though it was established fact.

      And now I remind myself of it, Matt Tapp himself should be on that list too.

      Etc, etc,

      Sorry, that’s all I have time for at the moment. But I’m sure those familiar with the whole controversy can form the obvious reasons themselves.

      Delete
    3. Wonder why you would not publish my comment relating to the Scrutiny review mentioned above?

      All I pointed out was that just like the Oldham inquiry it was mentioned in comments on blogs of the time that former Senator Syvret would not give evidence to the Scrutiny Panel either.

      Not that I believe one group of politicians should have been even considering investigating the stuff the Oldham inquiry have anyway. It needed to be independent something on which we now know the Oldham inquiry also has serious questions to answer.

      Why the sudden about turn on openess? Unless my comment never got through for some reason in which case I withdraw my criticism.

      Delete
  36. Brian Napier, Ian Critch and Jimmy Perchard are three more that should have been called as witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  37. No fan of Geoff Southern but the comment about him and former Senator Breckon is a bit unfair. I can remember reading the report that came out of that Scrutiny review and as a counsellor I have to say it was a good piece of work. What I also remember being mentioned on the blogs at the time was that this was an Inquiry that Stuart Syvret did not give evidence to. Now where have we heard that before?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I hadn't realised that so many main witnesses had been left out by the COI. Wow, that’s shocking. Like, not even the current Police boss?!? How did they justify that? And that judge who used the Matt Tapp stuff in his judgement, now it’s on the record that Tapp was employed by Bill Ogley? They can’t be serious??

    ReplyDelete
  39. Chief Minister Gorst said today that only some of the COI's recommendations will be actioned.... How will the COI justify their spending of 23million quid of our hard earned cash without all of their recommendations being actioned?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not quite what the Chief Minister said. In fairness to him he answered the question with honesty.

      When asked by Frances Oldham QC if the States of Jersey would adopt their recommendations he basically said (rightly) that he could not give that promise as it is a matter for the States as a whole to vote on. It might be that he can get consensus across the States for ALL of the COI's recommendations but then again he might not.

      Delete
  40. That's interesting re your Chief Minister. Can you fill us in with a bit more detail? Not so easy for the outside (real) world to know what's going on over there. From what you say VFC it's not so clear if Gorst gave the straight answer. Sure he can't promise what your legislature will do, but the question is does he pledge to at least try and get the right decisions? That's the big question, will he make that promise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure that he was asked that specific question today, or to make that promise.

      For what it's worth I do believe he wants to do the right thing but there is little doubt he is up against it (the Crown/Law Officers). Has he made the promise? Not that I know of. Will he do his best to do the right thing for the island's children? I think he will........Time will tell.

      Delete
  41. Is Gorst not just covering his bottom on the undoubtable uncovering of the illegal suspension of Chief of Police Graham Power?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure Ian Gorst's bottom needs covering in that regard. The same can't be said for ANDREW LEWIS. (And others)

      Delete
  42. Having been born and bred in this Island we call 'home' and having seen and read and seen the COI statements unfold I am now of the firm conclusion that what ever this COI report put's forth I do believe that the feudalistic claptrap we have all endured for the better part of 800 years has had it's 'use by date'. The simple fact that the real power in this Island, namely the 'crown appointees' are NOT elected by the people and not accountable to us the people has to stop. I refuse to accept that an un-elected 'crown letter's patent' appointee can decide which ELECTED states member can or cannot say this or that. The red pork pie hat and ermine needs to be put to pasture and real democracy brought into place. I am from a country parish and was educated in the parish and state secondary system but one thing is for sure MY moral compass is beyond the reach of the 'elite' of places like V.C, where for centuries we have had to accept that 'the great and good knew best'. My own Constable is a prime example, if his nose were any browner he would have to change his name to Mr Mahogany, sad but true.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The comments at 12.12 and 09.19 trying to defend the conduct of your parliament’s select committee back in the days of 2007, 2208, 2009 are laughable. Come on, if you haven’t learnt enough by now you almost deserve to be taken for fools. If those politicians like Alan Breckon, Geoff Southern, etc, had been doing their job properly, you wouldn’t now be having to spend £26 million on a failed public inquiry. Dear oh dear, I’ve followed events casually and even I know those arguments to be nonsense. The usual turn of events in a legislature would be for a house committee to be the people doing the digging, challenging and discovery against the executive office holder. What took place in Jersey back in 2007, 2008 was the astounding opposite of that. The executive office holder did the digging, uncovered the problems, exposed them, and was asking the challenging questions. But your house committee on social services, child welfare issues was responding to the executive office holder the minister for health & social services with obstructions, diversionary arguments and outright refusals to properly investigate matters which were already evidenced and made known to them by the person who had been that minister. Don’t you guys remember that after the minister broke the issues in July 2007, it was sometime in late 2009 or even 2010 before the committee whose job it was to scrutinise these issues got around to the cosmetic act of tabling an inquiry proposition which notoriously consisted of about 3 sides of A4. If you guys in jersey have forgotten that others haven’t.

    Heavens above, if you people in Jersey haven’t yet had the perspicacity to see and learn from those kind of experiences you do need rescuing.

    Look at it this way, the details I mention above are actually besides the point in a really major way. The real important point is that those kind of events took place and are at the central heart of the child protection failings by your government, but this presents so called public inquiry has failed to examine them. Failed to call any of the key players involved in that fundamental episode of the failure of your government to exhibit the needed levels of internal scrutiny.

    How on Earth has that happened?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Scrutiny Sub Panel actually brought a proposition to the House as a result of its findings back in 2009 after former Health Minister Stuart Syvret was accused of going around things "the wrong way."

      So VFC asked the question "what is the elusive right way?" as published HERE.

      Delete
    2. It could be argued that the former Health Minister should have been doing his job by giving evidence to the select committee back in 2008 or whenever that review happened. But Mr Syvret never gives his evidence when push comes to tug. Why? Why? Why? My fear is that once this latest opportunity is gone Mr Syvret will have missed the last bus. What then for such a once outstanding politician? Mumbling to himself in the bus shelter about how it is everyone's fault but his. As another commentator recently said get on that bloody phone now and hold them to account. Or shut up and spare us the guilt projection and histrionics.

      Delete
    3. Someone should have made the above comments months if not years ago

      Delete
    4. "Why, why, why?"

      You really are a tedious bore. Stuart has explained a length his reasons for not giving evidence, but you just keep plugging away at him as though it were all a great unexplained mystery.

      This is the typical way in which propagandists work. Keep repeating the same thing over and over and over, regardless of evidence that reveals their position to be a complete lie, and hope that it eventually becomes the accepted truth.

      What's your motivation for peddling these lies? What result do you hope to achieve? It's certainly nothing constructive.

      Delete
  44. Forget Stuart Syvret.
    Nobody in the States or Media have taken a blind bit of notice of him in years.
    Geoff Southern who used to be an friend of his hasn't spoken about him in 5 years.
    All this defence of his excuses when over 600 witnesses did not agree with his idiosyncratic views of this Inquiry and gave evidence shows his say in all of this is insignificant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nobody in the States or Media have taken a blind bit of notice of him [Syvret] in years."

      Well .....the £26m CoI proves that they should have done!

      Bunch of retards. QED

      Delete
    2. An interested party19 March 2016 at 13:36

      Well yet another bit of twisting the truth to paint a distorted picture. Stuart Syvret's evidence was wanted by the COI. He just would not give it unless he was treated as a unique case. The result being the likes of Power and Harper and the victims who gave evidence were all.hung out to dry. Well done Stuart. Played right into their hands like a prize plum.

      Delete
    3. An interested "party animal" @13:36 ?

      £26m to prove that Stuart was right

      Not a bunch of retards you think?

      Delete
  45. "Well yet another bit of twisting the truth to paint a distorted picture." I couldn't have described your post better myself. If the COI wanted Stuart's evidence then they had the power to subpoena him. They didn't. Care to comment on what that says about the COI?

    Treated as a unique case? What, a former minister wanting to be provided with legal representation before giving evidence to the inquiry? You mean like Andrew Lewis? Not so unique then?

    Carry on trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The obvious difference, of course, being that Stuart wanted legal advice to ensure that by giving evidence, he wouldn't lose the ability to have that evidence deemed inadmissible in any future prosecutions of child abusers or their facilitators. Andrew Lewis needed lawyers because he was trying to save his own skin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Stuart really didn't need a lawyer at all did he or certainly no more than Lenny Harper.

      The real farce was/is Stuart demanding s lawyer at tax payers expence to even go through the Inquiry TOR and protocols.

      Delete
  47. In response to the self-evidently unintelligent trolling above. Syvret has explained before that the COI 'constructively' prevented him from giving evidence. Which one is out of line, him or the COI? What does the established law say in respect of key parties having a right to legal representation before quasi-judicial inquiries? Does the right exist, or not exists? It exists. Thus the COI are out of line. QED.

    The fact others may have chosen to give evidence and testimony without the benefit and guidance of legal advice, and thus without having a lawyer available to guide them on questions they may very well have had a right to have put to various other witnesses, is a matter for those people. Some would argue that many, many of those witnesses have been poorly advised and guided in not asking for their right to the benefit of legal advice be met. Had they done so and asked for their rights things may well have gone far better. For example consider how obviously biased and weak and restrictive the questioning of Graham Power and Trevor Pitman was. If a few dozen of the survivors and whistle-blowers had had legal advice, the COI's lawyers would have been given a long list of very helpful questions people such as those 2 witnesses could have been asked.

    But more than the stupidity of the trolling, a more important fact is revealed by the monomaniacal obsession with Syvret. It's the double standards on display. As a commenter above pointed out, there are many very startling omissions from the roster of obviously centrally relevant witnesses who have remarkably not been called. And VFC added a few others. As was pointed out, and it shocked me because I had kind of been under a vague impression he'd been called, the present Police Chief Mike Bowron. A more fundamental witness to call when fears and doubts over the objectivity of policing in Jersey to properly protect vulnerable children are at the heart of the issue, would be hard to imagine.

    And equally, there are the Lieutenant Governors, the people with the responsibility to properly ensure Her Majesty's subjects don't become victims of judicial corruption in Jersey. Where were they? And the same goes for the other missing witnesses.

    Enough with the double standards trolling. If you’re worried about missing witnesses, worry about all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Can somebody please explain why those who are rightly critical of Stuart Syvret's snubbing of this Inquiry are called a troll and how being critical of his attitude is defined actually as trolling or; is it only name calling to hide away from the truth? I would say there are 600 + people who are critical of him not showing up so does that make them all trolls?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those who believe Stuart Syvret was wrong not to engage with the COI and give evidence are entitled to their point of view. I think they are wrong, but that's just my opinion. To hold a different opinion does not make them trolls.

      What makes you a troll is your constant reference the matter when the conversation has moved on; your constant pretence that Stuart has not provided any explanation to justify his position (e.g. "Why, why why?"); and your constant refusal to provide any argument to support your claim that Stuart was wrong. For example, you have not addressed any of his criticisms of the failure by the COI to follow established protocols for such bodies. Perhaps that is because you have no arguments, but are just the usual troll having another go at Syvret.

      Why don't you answer this question: what is your motivation in criticising Stuart Syvret? How does achieve anything constructive?

      Delete
    2. Hear! Hear! I am not a troll nor am I anti Stuart. I just don't agree with his argument on this matter. Also though I have huge sympathy for the way he and people like Trevor and Shona have been shafted for standing up against the local gangsters I don't agree with Stuart's attitude to those who do disagree with him yet are clearly also on the side of right and truth.

      Delete
    3. I never wrote the comment "why, why, why?" so you've got that all wrong. Your explanation as to what a Troll is not the definition as found on the Urban Dictionary so in my humble opinion you are using the label of 'Troll' to gag an opinion. Mr Syvret's claim against the Inquiry to 600 people doesn't make any sense, so how can the conversation ever move on?

      Delete
    4. @16:03 ......"I would say there are 600 + people who are critical of him not showing up so does that make them all trolls?"

      No! But your statement does make you look like a troll IMO.

      Let me explain.
      Of the "600+ people" a good proportion of those will have been witnesses from the side of 'failure' (states, protection failure / cover up....)
      Some will just have been evil (Mr.K, Bailhache etc.)

      I would say that IF you are not a troll then you are living in the make believe world painted by the JEPaedo et al.

      You say that the "600 + people... are critical " of Syvret but you are projecting your own obsession with Syvret onto them.

      If one is actually dealing in EVIDENCE rather than prejudice it seems that at least some of the key witnesses from (NOT from the *dark side*) are supportive of Syvret and critical of the CoI.
      The Ex Deputy Police Chief for example (and probably Chief too):
      www.exaronews.com/articles/5735/jersey-s-former-deputy-police-chief-slams-island-s-abuse-inquiry


      You are quite right that Syvret is very important, but he is not sufficiently important to warrant this obsession. As a previous commenter says "If you’re worried about missing witnesses, worry about all of them."

      I do.

      These incessant personal attacks on just one of the players are just so tired (& transparent IMO).

      A polite statement that you disagree with the Ex. Health Minister would suffice (and would not look troll like).

      Delete
    5. You are presuming that a lot of the 600 never wanted Syvret to turn up but I'd argue that they would have liked to see him questioned on many of the serious allegations he has made over the years. Several have said on Facebook that they would have liked him to present this long awaited evidence. But if you cannot debate this subject without a need to use the word 'troll' in every response then that speaks for itself.

      Delete
    6. @10:40 ......... LOL -& you are welcome to your opinion

      ......and that you launch each attack against Syvret without condemning the CoI's UNEXPLAINED failure to subpoena the Ex. Health Minister

      That that speaks for itself surely.

      Is this the bit where you claim to be an abuse survivor?

      Delete
    7. Lets put this another way as you don't seem to get it.
      What would have been the reaction say if Mario Lundy or Frank Walker had refused to give evidence to the Inquiry by using the same excuse as Stuart Syvret?
      Would critics of them be called trolls too?

      Delete
    8. @11:10 "Lets put this another way ....Would critics of them be called trolls too?"

      There are a multitude of important witnesses who should have appeared before this £26m CoI

      Draft list posted by informed commenters :

      Andrew Williamson
      Graham Jennings
      Judy Martin
      Richard Lane
      Emma Martins
      Christopher Chapman
      Christopher Pitchers
      Former Lieutenant governor Andrew Ridgway
      Present Lieutenant Governor McColl
      Tim LeCocq
      Geoff Southern
      Julian Clyde-Smith
      Alan Breacon
      Mike Bowron
      Christopher Pitchers
      Matt Tapp
      .......................etc.

      Whilst the above have been mentioned as suitable for "invite"/subpoena before a proper CoI .....*no* there has *NOT* been the rabid plethora of troll like comments.

      A previous commenter summed it up ....a "monomaniacal obsession with Syvret"

      Produce a rational response to Mr. Syvret's reasons or (as s a previous commenter says) "If you’re worried about missing witnesses, worry about all of them."
      QED

      Delete
    9. If Stuart is drawing our attention to worrying about all who surely should have given evidence then why no mention of Monty and most certainly Constable Simon Crowcroft, the charlaton who "championed" Graham Power only to abandon him once people like Stuart himself, Trevor, Bob, Daniel Wimberley and Deputy Higgins started getting a hard time for doing so? Really all my Constable seems to care about is not upsetting any potential voters in case it costs him at the elections.

      Delete
    10. Thank you for a fair comment @11:33

      RE. "If Stuart is drawing our attention..." Sigh!
      ....come, come this is NOT all about Stuart.

      The CoI is just the latest battle in a wider war for effective child protection

      For some (including some survivors), the *show* CoI is all they can see.

      Thanks to the good people who HAVE given evidence there is a chance of 'winning' the CoI .....or at least getting a draw against the obvious [& toytown] bias.

      It is now over (bar evaluating and dissecting their report)

      The *show* is over. The CoI is not the only *show* in town.
      There is a wider war, and it is a war that *must* be won if future vulnerable generations are to be safe.

      To reiterate "Thanks to the good people who have given evidence..."

      We will win because we did not loose all our army in just one battle.

      Once more into the breech my friends.... etc. etc. [~Henry the Fifth Act 3]

      The war is over when children are safe and justice is done.
      End of.

      Delete
    11. "The CoI is not the only *show* in town."

      Yes it is.
      Do you seriously believe the Survivors would be prepared to go through all this anguish again just for Stuart's shall we say 'side show?' It is the only show in town and thanks to past States Members like Francis Le Gresley we were lucky to even get it.

      Delete
    12. @13:20 ....Sigh!
      ""The CoI is not the only *show* in town." Yes it is."
      Really?......so who are you? the all-knowing, all-seeing eye?


      Do you seriously believe that this CoI will deliver :

      a) justice?

      b) protection for present or future generations of vulnerable?


      Best of luck with that my friend [seriously]

      I hope to be proved wrong but I suspect that this CoI will deliver neither.
      If you have no "Plan B" then we may as well lube ourselves up for more of the same.

      Is arguing among ourselves about relative trivia the way to go?

      The ground has been double dug this season. This conversation is over.
      If you are real you have my best wishes.

      Re. Francis Le Gresley; Indeed and Francis Le Gresley has highlighted the dept of gratitude owed to Mr.Syvret

      a PR goon's message would be that Syvret was once the sharpest tool in the box .......and then suddenly flipped to being a cretin who cares for no-one.
      Perhaps endless repetition will make it true in the minds of the easily led.

      Have another go if you must.
      Go nuts, if you want. This conversation is over (& tedious)

      Delete
  49. I have only just read the comments left earlier which listed some witnesses the committee of inquiry hasn't called. I'm very disturbed that Judy Martin hasn't been hauled over the coals. She was the assistant minister of social services for a long long time and I know of complaints to her which she ignored. She was the politician with special responsibility for children services and social services and she was a total failure at that. How has she not been questioned at the inquiry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judy Martin should have been questioned of that there can be no argument.

      Delete
  50. 6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of H.M. Attorney General –
    “Will H.M. Attorney General advise whether his department fully cooperated with the Napier review into the suspension of the former Chief of the States of Jersey Police and whether the then Attorney General’s letter of 11th November 2008 to the then Chief Minister advising that the former Chief of Police should not be suspended unless the full Metropolitan Police report was received was forwarded to Mr. Napier, and if not, why not?”

    ReplyDelete
  51. Time for a new post Voice?

    Unfortunately I think there is only one person monomaniacally obsessed with Stuart outside of the infamous and dispucable troll.

    But if I were to name him I would be called a troll myself. And to be honest I doubt you would publish the comment as criticising some people no matter how justified doesn't seem permitted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:47 submit your evidence for evaluation.

      ever heard of a proxy?

      P.S. you are wrong

      Delete
  52. One observation I would like to make, and that is, now we are approaching the final stages/IP submissions there appears to be one person we have omitted to mention in all this. Many people, bloggers, members of the public etc. deserve heartfelt thanks for never wavering in their quest for the truth. However I feel that we have forgotten ex Senator Francis Le Gresley in all this without whose heartfelt and impassioned speech when bringing the proposition for the CoI to the States I will never forget. We have an awful lot to thank him for as well.]

    Compare his speech with the disgraceful words that emanated from Deputy Lewis's mouth when he gave his evidence and there we have the difference between an honourable man and a dishonourable one.

    Thank you Francis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good point Jill. Though cards on the table I.must say that in his wider record in the States I unfortunately view Francis Le Gresley with little respect. Yet on this issue he does deserve mention.

      I think it was former Deputy Trevor Pitman who made the point in his written evidence that while there were apparently a number of States Members looking to lodge a proposition calling for an inquiry they all knew that because they were seen as left wingers and so anti-establishment this would have been doomed to fail.

      Having Francis Le Gresley willing to step in as a respectable, non-threatening face whose proposition more members would vote for in Jersey's toy town politics saved the day.

      For all of it's fsults, and I am also one of those who believe Stuart and all others should have given evidence to it, without Francis Le Gresley we would not have had even this.

      Delete
  53. All this talk about who should have given evidence and who didn't give evidence is pointless.
    The 3 stages of the Inquiry are over and the doors have closed.

    ReplyDelete
  54. VFC, as a long time reader I really respect the full and frank debate you host here. But I also value at least equally the sheer quality of the discussions and debate, nothing even remotely approaching which is to be found on any Jersey heritage media outlet or platform. It's a matter for you, absolutely, but could I suggest I'm not the only regular reader who is tiring of the trolling which has appeared especially prominently under this posting?

    As another reader pointed out above, a definition of trolling is the diversionary and forum wrecking, time wasting practice of making the same point, over and over and over and over and over and over again and again and again and again, all the while simply ignoring the reasoned arguments and factual responses which have already been made by others. I for one will tire of reading this forum if it continued in that vein, let alone take the trouble to submit comments.

    Pretty much every regular reader of this site knows perfectly well who the single Syvret obsessive is who it trolling this site with his monomania. The same individual is also identifiable for the plain intellectual bankruptcy of their position and inability ever advance an debate.

    The key facts are, actually a significant number of people who should have been witnesses, haven't been. Syvret is merely one of that number. Thus the obsessional postings singling out Syvret are mere trolling. Just as is the comment @ 12:15 which seeks to peddle the fiction that the battle for the effective protection of vulnerable children in Jersey begins and ends in this COI. It doesn't. As other commenters have pointed out above, we're in a war, and a war dose not end with one battle.

    Could I take the liberty of suggesting we've had enough of the trolling for the time being? I fear that by being too tolerant of the circular nonsense which never advances the discussions and debate, you're letting the trolling achieve certain of its objectives, such as boring readers, making the commenting process futile, and mainly dramatically lowering the quality of debate.

    As a regular reader, I vote you protect the quality of debate on VFC and limit the trolling. It's becoming very tedious.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely @14:34

      I do think you are being unfair to 12:15
      by my reading they are likely saying the same as you ..."All this talk about who should have given evidence and who didn't give evidence is pointless." at least after repeat #2

      3 strikes and you are out?
      I trust VFC's decision on this

      Delete
    2. I had an unmoderated blog for yonks. Not, mind you, that I got a lot of comments.

      However, in more recent times and in relation to posts on Jersey, I started getting comments some of which were clearly trolling. So I had to moderate my blog, which is a pity.

      I did find it very difficult at times to distinguish the trolling from legitimate critical comments and I was loathe to block comments. After taking advice from VFC I think I got the situation under control. So I'm a big VFC fan, not only as a blogger but a moderator as well.

      I made a suggestion here before that people who want to post anonymously, and I understand the reasons for this in Jersey, should be asked to adopt some name when posting. This would not be related to their real name but would enable readers to distinguish between the various anonymous posters and have reasonable discussions with them individually. As it stands we don't even know which anonymous we're talking to half the time.

      If this practice were then to be abused by imposters, I'm sure VFC could sort it out by reference to his tracker.

      I'm just putting forward the idea again as, while nobody has taken me up on it, nobody has actually argued against it either.

      Delete
    3. Tired of troll obsessives20 March 2016 at 15:47

      Yes I have to agree. The long, repetitious rant @14.34 does nothing to enable debate. There have been so many of these tirades always on the lines that if someone critices Syvret's stance they must be 'the troll' it is getting tiresome. I could not agree more that a significant number of individuals should have been called to give evidence. Equally so that this not happening must be viewed as a failing of the COI panel and Chairman. This obsessive refusal by probably just one or two people to accept that those hundreds of people who did give evidence to the inquiry as being quite podsibly still the right choice is as detrimental to the underlying debate is irritating as it is hugely frustrating however. Over and over again we are getting any who differ in the view that the inquiry is crap and must be corrupt have to be the same person/troll. No doubt I too will be accused of being the person/troll who made the why, why, why comment. So yeah, new post please and thanks for doing what must be a frustrating task.

      Delete
    4. Hi Póló @15:17

      The idea of "pen names" is a good one and bears repeating.

      I am one of the few who took up the suggestion when you made it ages ago. VFC will know which commenters are posting (astroturfing) under multiple names (JEPaedo style).


      I am not always as polite as I could be (should be?) but we do our best to judge the situation.
      Feelings run high.

      JH is surely not the only troll/astroturfer on the island and it is easy to misjudge people, (especially off a brief comment -e.g. 12:12 ?) Gentleness is especially required because abuse survivors are amongst VFC's readers.
      Not everyone sees the world the same way. Indeed some readers (and survivors) may be on the ASD spectrum / asburgers (potentially undiagnosed) and we all have a right to have our say, but not take the piss. Some understanding and leeway is required.
      JH etc. surely have character flaws, but probably noting as harmless as this.


      The new comment "Tired of troll obsessives" @15:47 has just appeared, critisizing 14:34
      I think that 14:34 has a point, or does 15:47 think there is any point in the "discuassion" thread starting http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/03/some-key-issues-facing-jersey.html?showComment=1458403414537#c6895567856950318018

      13 comments where 4 would do?

      Thank you for posting as "Tired of troll obsessives" rather than "Anonymous". Please advise if/when you change.

      & thanks to VFC x1000

      Delete
  55. I agree with the comments at 14:34 and at 16:15, the trolling was beginning to get too obvious and too boring. But I don’t think we should let the need to prevent trolling stop sensible debate. There are some important issues here which do need discussing, but which can be discussed without going on about particular individuals. I suggest we debate those and just ban any references to SS for the rest of this posting? That way things get disciplined to stay on the relevant facts and topics.

    And to get that ball rolling I think the issues are these (others may have different suggestions?)

    To all practical intents, the COI has finished gathering testimony & evidence, so now it’s a case of waiting. What does Jersey do then?

    To make that question more interesting, I suggest we imagine 3 broad scenarios.

    1, The report of the COI is as good as the most optimistic hoped it would be (by good I mean rightly damning of the ‘Jersey Way’ and the corruption, abuse and cover ups)?

    2, The report of the COI is mediocre, filled with the usual predictable stuff, ‘lessons have been learnt’, ‘won't happen again’, ‘a few tweaks of the system here or there and everything in the garden will be rosy’, blah, de blah, de blah?

    3, The report of the COI is as corrupt and full of lies as the most pessimistic fear, and says things like the ‘Attorney General / prosecution system / LOD is A, OK’, ‘none of the abusers who weren’t prosecuted should have been’, ‘the non prosecution decisions were fine’, ‘nothing wrong with the judiciary’, ‘no evidence of cover up’, ‘Lenny Harper was mad’, ‘the Graham Power suspension was lawful’, etc, etc?

    What do readers think? For exmaple, what do we think the establishment response and strategy would be under each of those scenarios?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very constructive comment and suggestions at 17:57. I'd have to give it a bit more thought to come up with what direction I thought the next battle will take in each of those scenarios.

      What I can say with certainty is that the powers that be, and not only in Jersey, will try and get away with as much as they possibly can. We don't need to learn anything further to understand and know the megalomania of these people, the hubris, their pathological sense of invulnerability. I mean it. Let no one be surprised at the audacity of the things they will attempt. In so many ways we as a community are already trying to deal with the fall-out and consequences of the maddened over-reach of a mafia who in their own eyes were as invulnerable as gods. They've gone so far, went too far, they they long since 'bet-the-farm' on the corruption.

      I suggest people be clear-eyed about that fact. And not surprised at what I suspect will be the inevitable 'hustle' between the COI and the Jersey Establishment and their protectors in London at the end of this particular battle.

      If they can roll-us-over, they will.

      I suggest that if even the real optimists are right, and we get something along the lines of a report as described in 'option 1' in the comment, there will still then be the next huge battle to fight.

      Delete
    2. Whatever way it goes the report will no doubt be accompanied/countered with maximum establishment spin.

      It may be a sideshow in the context of real reform, but the one thing that seems to strike home with the establishment is publicity (cf Frank Walker vs Stuart Syvret on Panorama).

      Would it be an idea for people to start collecting their thoughts on a sort of extended note for editors, including a few litmus tests which could be tweaked at the time of publication and which might ensure the establishment don't have it all their own way.

      If the report is a "good" one it could be helpful, if not, it could give the press some stories to play with.

      Even a tame establishment press (& I include international) can't always resist a good story.

      Delete
  56. I’m sorry to be depressing but isn’t it obvious already the COI is going to white-wash the Attorney General and the prosecution decisions, or non-decisions more like, and make excuses for them?

    The COI tried to play us for fools and thought no-one would notice them privatising what was meant to be a main part of their task by handing over the inquiry into the prosecution decisions to a private businessman, instead of conducting it themselves in open, like the public inquiry was supposed to. And he’s already done what they paid him for, said ‘everything in the garden is rosy’ with the prosecution decisions.

    I mean, there you go, the white-wash has already happened. I’m amazed at people who are going on like there was still something to hope for. We’ve been mugged allready.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The Jersey public inquiry has become an immense headache for the authorities in London. They have no-one to blame for that but themselves. Throughout this whole saga the governance failures in Jersey have been on clear display, with no disguise even attempted by Jersey's barons. As others predicted some time ago, the Jersey inquiry process has turned into the worst of all possible worlds for the UK cabinet and Crown secretariat. Legal and constitutional liability lays there, even they accept that in their policy and statements. They should have grabbed the collars of the potentates in Jersey at the outset of this controversy and pressed them up against the wall and said, 'look, we're "advising" you, this is the end of your mediaeval bubble, and now you people must get with the 21st century. Do you "understand" what we're saying? We're giving you this "advice" because you do need to avoid constitutional "accidents", do you understand what we’re saying?' But rather than give such wise discouragement the Whitehall apparatus did the opposite and gave succour and every imaginable wrong "message" to the Jersey oligarchs at every stage, effectively boosting them on to more and even more hopelessly unsustainable acts of lawlessness. The incompetence of Whitehall has its nadir in the Committee of Inquiry. If there was ever any chance of containing the contagion of what is, effectively, repressive state corruption to within the shores of Jersey, the Jersey equivalent of a public inquiry was that chance. One would imagine that after seven years of the folly of encouraging what is obviously an extensive, white-collar organised crime cartel controlling Jersey, one which has its power-base founded in the island's incestuous legal syndicates, someone of relevance in Whitehall or the Palace would have had the competence to give the Jersey mob the correct "advice" this time? That someone sufficiently "large" and "frightening" (in the administrative sense) would have said to the Jersey bosses, 'it stops here. Your public inquiry is where you are required to face the filthy mess you've made, and to clean it up, get the "message"?'

    An unavoidable corollary of that was “impressing” upon the Jersey cartel the hard reality the public inquiry in the island had to be credible. That it couldn’t be incompetent or biased or ultra vires. And that, yes, the career-ending realities and consequences of such an inquiry had to be taken on the chin by the island’s establishment. Instead, the Palace and Whitehall secretariats managed to find themselves looking for a line to be drawn under the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey by a public inquiry which succeed in being so incompetent, biased and ultra vires it flaunted that fact in the face of the world by ignoring a core part of its legislative instructions before it had even had its first public meeting. The Jersey inquiry apparatus has many fatal failings. For exmaple, imagining it could play any realistic part in re-building Jersey as a functional polity (that is the magnitude of the task, nothing less) in a process which has unfolded for months in a room permanently filled with highly paid officials representing the state, but yet with not so much as one paid professional present for the survivors, whistle-blowers or public-interest side. This is another exmaple of Whitehall failure. That the Jersey legal syndicates can have even fantasised they might get away with such a scenario is quiet remarkable. The fact that London let them even entertain such a notion, let alone put it into effect, goes beyond the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey and now poses the same questions about British governance itself.

    ReplyDelete
  58. As Wedgie Benn used to say, its about policies not personalities but in Jersey we have mostly only the latter to snipe away at. Policies - even where they exist - are more difficult to deal with so it was good that the Inquiry Panel in its final sessions wanted to hear especially about proposals for future change. It was also interesting that they kept on asking about the lack of Party Politics and how this might make a difference if there was such a thing in Jersey. I certainly did not hear any reasoned replies to these questions from the witnesses. A lot of speculation of course and opinion but not much research and few Jersey text books to call upon and in the absence of the likes of Norman Le Brocq, Mrs Trachy or Thomas Gruchy no spoken testimonies about the unrecorded struggle that has been going on for centuries. It is also evident to me, reading the outpourings of personal criticism here that a " progressive political party" is still just as unlikely as it has been since the Liberation when left wing heroes were transformed, in the public mind, into the commie threat almost overnight. Then as now the role of the JEP was important but not the only factor in suppressing organised change.
    The ability of Jersey's so called "progressives" to self destruct has still to be seen to be believed but there is little or no reasoned analysis of the problem by the "accredited" media or even the progressive participants. It was always thus.
    It is unrealistic to expect 3 outsiders to absorb the information from 600 witnesses and to formulate proposals for the wholesale reform of virtually every aspect of Jersey's government, judicial, legal and administrative systems. But the growth of the Inquiry from what was perceived as one concerned with "child abuse" into a wholesale examination of the entire and so called "Jersey Way" has been remarkable.
    By whatever process the 3 were chosen (and bearing in mind the death of the original chair) I think they have done as good a job as might be expected from mere human beings dropped into a quagmire.
    At least the Inquiry Panel has undertaken the research that Clothier, Carswell and Kilbrandon never did and their archive of information will exist for a long time to come.
    Just as the Parliamentary Commissioners of the mid 19th century examined and interrogated to prepare their substantial (but uncompleted) reports on the civil, criminal and municipals laws etc of Jersey and Guernsey so this will be an incredibly valuable resource for reform and research.
    Unfortunately, unlike the 19th century reports which were prepared for the UK Parliament the Care Inquiry has been set up by and for the States of Jersey. So any hopes that its findings might be enforced from London are ill-founded. The constitutional difficulties of "outside intervention" were referred to by CM Gorst in his last day submissions but nevertheless, it is practical to hope that a Child's Commissioner for example, might be established, with outside supervision and safeguards, to overcome some of the "Jersey Way" obstacles.
    That the Care Inquiry relied upon 3 outsiders plus a team of outside lawyers is in itself significant and reveals the basic fault arising in a small jurisdiction regarding conflicts of interest. Of course some will claim that even the 3 chosen ones were inevitably conflicted before they arrived because they were appointed locally but somebody had to do the job and somebody had to appoint them.
    That they have only served here for two years on this project hopefully means that they have not been sucked into local allegiances but retain their declared independence so far as it is humanly possible.
    Unfortunately, the same ambition is not a realistic one for those who have been in Jersey for a long time and so we residents continue to " hoover" up prejudices and personal animosities year after year. By way of comparison, the current UK Tory Party appears to set an example for tolerance and political cohesion...

    ReplyDelete
  59. Tom is right to highlight the need for party politics - open and honest party politics that is as opposed to the way the Establishment operates.

    The complicated part is that Jersey being what it is we will also need big personalities to help inspire the development of the necessary grass roots network of activists.

    The situation with Reform Jersey demonstrates this. Three capable MPs but no big characters to inspire and grab headlines for policies.

    As Tom also mentions o for a Norman Le Brocq. I would also add o for a Senator Ted Vibert although I was never wholly convinced he was suitably wholly left-wing policy wise to see it through. But able to inspire and shake things up he did without doubt.

    But that is now sadly the past. So where do we go to develop the party to eventually help push London to do what they should be doing?

    There are no easy answers but for my own feelings what I will say is this. Ex Deputy Trevor Pitman gets a good deal of mention and support in comments on this blog.

    Back in 2008 I rejoined the now defunct JDA once Pitman became Chairman because I thought Geoff Southern capable as he still remains could never motivate enough people to get involved with the party ethic.

    With Southern more in the background as we can see looking back parties slowly began to be taken seriously. The JDA with Pitman at the helm could and I am convinced would have made the transition we need now.

    It was wasted, and I know because I was there, due to two things. The stupid downside of personality politics which saw other well known figures refuse to get involved (I could name a few but it would only turn into a slag fest of denials).

    Secondly the stupid and destructive ego trip that saw Geoff Southern stand against Stuart Syvret in the 2010 by-election against the argument of people like the Pitmans and David Rotherham.

    I do have to say that the fact this by-election ever happened was a huge disaster and error of judgment in itself but the fact is these events set party politics back a decade.

    But to end on a positive note and in line with Tom's comments I still believe party politics can be a big part of the answer to the problems highlighted on this blog and in Jersey generally.

    We just need to find a way to get people to put the I'm not working with him kindergarten histrionics out of the way. And find a way to get one or two figures of real capability and stature back in the saddle. Most of us know who they are.

    End of sermon and thank you for letting me sound off. Makes a nice change from always reading comments in frustrated silence.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Did they ever locate the burial place of Thomas Gruchy? I was sure there was a promise to do so after the successful Reform Day vote of a few years back. With all of this hype about rekindling tourism you might have thought not just finding the grave of such an important historical figure but creating a memorial would be another small step in the right direction? Some tourists are deeply interested in the historical aspect of Jersey after all.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The notion that party politics, at least in the form of a non-establishment party which united all opposition to the Jersey cosa nostra and then swept all before it, is a fantasy. It always was. And always will be. I say that not because I oppose organised politics, I don't. And let's face it the truth is Jersey is controlled by an undeclared Jersey Establishment Party. I say a fantasy because people like Tom Gruchy and others wedded to Old Labour style politics need to 'get real'. The best that organised politics could ever realistically hope for in Jersey would be a kind of moderate left/liberal/green type party which could only ever have any real ambition to win seats in Jersey's urban/poor areas, and build flexible, co-operative working coalitions with those occasional good States members who shared some of the same concerns/views, but who by chance represented rural areas, or those who had broad island-wide appeal and success (like Syvret). The JDA/Southern approach, the Old Labour/party machine/1970s dinosaur approach which refused to accept what was actually a very good opportunity, and frankly the best that could ever have been hoped for in a place as anti-party and de-politicised as Jersey, of de facto coalition working with people like Syvret and a few others like him, was disastrous. The 'you-are-with-us-comrade-or-against-us' approach, especially in a place as fundamentally conservative as Jersey, instead of opportune coalition working, set the cause of modernising politics in Jersey back 40 years. At least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A left/labour party is doomed to failure unless it can work with another party.

      A center, anti-corruption party?

      Syvret was/is a green party member, I think.

      Delete
    2. Utter nonsense. What a great triumph for free market capitalist greed austerity has proven! Such safe hands on the local and global economy and all - of course - why the big business parasites and individual tax dodgers grow ever richer.

      Delete
    3. Fur coat and no nickers ...or boxers - Bend over for O###f21 March 2016 at 17:20

      LOL @16:38
      "business parasites and individual tax dodgers grow ever richer"

      Indeed. But the far left is a non starter in Jersey because it is too far down the road of being a "financial centre" ....which enables the above


      Zero-ten and the budget deficit

      Now guess which moderate politician predicted that it would be the disaster that we now see unfolding........?


      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/jerseys-public-finances-2004-2014-and-philip-ozouf/

      This contains "Taxation Policies: A Transparent Inquiry Report & Proposition written by Stuart Syvret 2004
      (Rejected by the Jersey [Retards] Parliament 2004)

      "The Government You Deserve" .....cruel but true.

      Delete
  62. A democratic socialist/environmentally focussed alliance is what we need.

    The comment showing very limited understanding spouting guff about Old Labour at least shows what needs to be overcome. Vested interest and economic elitism as suggested already.

    With mention of 2008 it is relevant to say that a mixture of this latter day version JDA and the 'Green' candidates like Mister Palmer, Dr Forsket and Daniel Wimberley would have been ideal.

    Unfortunately there will always be figures pretending to be for the people but instead supporting the Constables and parochial politics to also overcome.

    The politics of these people has divided our island and resulted in our childrens' future being gambled on a monoculture.

    How bright that looks now.

    ReplyDelete
  63. You only have to look at the "record number of jobs" lies being spouted by Gorst in the JEP today to see the comments at 15.44 and 17.20 for the gobbledegook or possibly trolling that they are. Gorst and his Tory Boy' predecessors are destroying our island.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I left the comment at 15:44. It would gratifying on a personal level, were it not so sad for this community, to see the consequent comments demonstrating the accuracy of my analysis, to wit,

    "Utter nonsense. What a great triumph for free market capitalist greed austerity has proven! Such safe hands on the local and global economy and all - of course - why the big business parasites and individual tax dodgers grow ever richer."

    Right on, Comrade. Stick it to the running dog lackeys of capital, Brother.

    I needn't labour the point as anyone with a modicum of intelligence and feel for this community, about 98% of the readers of this sight, know just how far that type and style of politics is ever going to get in Jersey. Res ipsa loquitur.

    And in those remarks we see exactly the type of blind, party, thought-police demand for idealogical purity, 'there-is-no-way-but-our-way', intolerance, and rejection of broad and reasoned co-operative thinking which dooms that approach to failure. Especially in a place like Jersey. Progressives like Syvret were the ones who got it right in rejecting getting sucked in to that type of politics.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous at 17:48 - I completely agree with your analysis. Jersey is not a hotbed of socialism - in the UK, it would be a safe Conservative seat - and candidates who simply regurgitate left wing dogma like Jeff Southern have no electoral appeal beyond the confines of a few St Helier wards. Whenever people like him stuck their heads above the safe parapet of a Deputorial election and stood on an island-wide mandate, they were dismal failures. The one exception I can think of was Norman Le Brocq, who was elected despite his politics, rather than because of them (because he was held in such high personal regard by the island community).

    I'm not actually sure that political reform is possible in Jersey, but if it is, it will come from people like Mike Higgins, Bob Le Brocq and Stuart Syvret, who cannot easily be pigeon-holed as left or right, who campaign on issues from a sense of what is right, rather than dogma, and are interested in fairness rather than political ideology.

    If a political party is to ever succeed in displacing the establishment, it will need to reflect this reality, and not position itself as a threat to middle Jersey in the way that Reform members have. You can wax lyrical all you like about Trevor Pitman, but anybody who could describe Hugo Chavez (former Venezeluan president) as a political hero, is never going to be acceptable to most sensible voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How did this post get on to this?
      Each to their own but the 'no sensible' voter comment is out of order. Who has the right to say what is 'sensible'?

      Many millions of 'sensible' voters clearly did vote for Chavez again and again. And in elections the Carter Centre monitored as being among the best run electoral systems in the world.

      Millions of 'sensible' voters decided they would likewise vote for Margaret Thatcher again and again. I wouldn't. But I would not dispute any of these people's right to choose to vote for whoever they 'sensibly' thought might look after their particular section of society best.

      As to whether doing so within the bigger picture is also morally sound I accept this is a whole different story.

      Delete
    2. The comment at 18.32 must be amongst the most ignorant I have read in a long time. No wonder Jersey is in a 1980s time warp if some of your readers don't see the relevance to what happens elsewhere within global politics.

      I mean a part of our key industry's business does revolve around depriving the people of some of these countries of tax that should make their lives better. But shsss don't be anti-Jersey by mentioning it.

      Delete
  66. Sad to see so much trolling now even attacking Trevor Pitman. Really the lack of intelligence evident in the comment above about Hugo Chavez says it all. If he can afford it the poster ought to put down the red wine and read the book what everyone should know about Venezelua. Written by a professor if I recall. But no doubt just like Jeremy Clarkson the poster also thinks Cuba was a democracy before the revolution? LOL indeed. As for the obsession with trying to big up Stuart Syvret's apparently being 'right' not to get 'sucked in' to party politics give us a break comrade. Some people just can't work with anyone. #JerseyProgressive Party1940s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, so I must be drinking red wine and trolling to take a different view from you, then? And unintelligent and historically illiterate, to boot?

      No, I didn't think Cuba was a democracy before the revolution: what gave you that idea? As for Venezuela, perhaps you ought to take your nose out of 'the book what everyone should know about Venezuela' (presumably only one book has ever been written about the country) and familiarise yourself with the current state of the country: Chavez's legacy. Or would you prefer to delude yourself that it is a Marxist workers paradise, and queuing all day for basic necessities is a small price to pay to be a Marxist dictatorship?

      Delete
    2. Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!21 March 2016 at 19:30

      Point made. The ignorance is staggering. My sister's boyfriend is from Venexuala and I have been fortune enough to visit. Huge problem there but few caused by Chavez. More like Chavez should have not held back and done somethung about more of them. The country's main problems of inequality brought about by generations of US supported corruption between Copie and Action Democratia. But I doubt you would know anything about that past what you might cut and paste from Wikipedia. But I suppose the huge positive steps Chavez made in regard to improved education, literacy, health and having a true demicrstic voice amongst the poor is irrelevant in your eyes? Really I can't help but wonder if you have a poster of George W Bush on your bedroom wall? Or is it still Maggie?

      Delete
  67. I commented above at 15:44 and 17:48. In the possibility I deem it worthy of spending any more of my time arguing with would-be “communist revolutionaries” I’ll give myself the name ‘Realist’.

    Is it not strange, and is there not a lesson for readers of this site, most of who I imagine seek simply the introduction of credible, responsible, & safe governance and effective checks and balances in Jersey, such basics as a separation of powers, that debate here is now being led down the wholly irrelevant path of the “merits” of a now dead communist de facto dictator Vs. the, yes, well-documented disruptive abuse of power there to be seen on the record in US foreign policy?

    What, prey, in any relevant, or realistic, sense do such historical, global events have to do with securing basic and safe governance in Jersey?

    I hadn’t had former Deputy Pitman in mind when I made my comments, but now he’s mentioned by 18:32 and 19:10 I’d have to agree and say he represented just the kind well-meaning but juvenile and obsolescent political thinking which never had the remotest chance of establishing any meaningful progress on the road of political modernisation in Jersey. Modernisation which is much needed. Because of that need, and the real needs of most of this community to be protected from the stagnancy of our “establishment”, it’s genuinely sad that people like Mr Pitman chose to cling to such immaturities as idealising communists and hitching his wagon to rather odious and non-credible dinosaurs as Geoff Southern.

    It seems to me that if the cause of moderate, that is, credible and realistic, political reform in Jersey is ever to be resurrected (a task that could well now be impossible) those involved in that process will not be in any way allied to communism, and nor will they be associated with, or accommodate, the likes of yesterday’s yesterday man, the noxious and destructive Geoff Southern.

    The type of response which the commenter at 18:32 and 19:10 attracted, a spittle-flecked admiring citation of South American revolutionary organisations, should, I suggest, be borne in mind by the powerless who are wondering how reasoned and effective opposition to Jersey’s rotten and dangerous “establishment” can have failed them so badly during the last ten years.

    Realist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I consider myself a right winger and I have enjoyed your comments "Realist"

      The battle between Left and Right is a sideshow. This is a battle between right and wrong.

      Neither side has a monopoly on righteousness.

      If I lived in South America I might well have voted for Chavez ............to right the wrongs

      In Jersey I habitually vote for moderates with backbone ............to right the wrongs (and avoid the icebergs)

      Delete
    2. So now Chavez was a communist? Yea Gods! If this is a person in Jersey writing this no wonder the local Establishment laugh all the way to the bank. No wonder most politicsl candidates here get away with what have been called wish lists instead of political manifestoes. At least people like Reform are trying. Political parties are not the whole solution but they are a necessary part.

      Delete
    3. Just seen the comment @20.23 on March 21. If ever we needed proof of the trolling behind the comment you really need look no further than the claim that Trevor Pitman 'idealises communists' and has 'hitched his wagon' to Geoff Southern! Lowers the credibility of the whole blog. Don't feed the haters.

      Delete
  68. I wrote the comment at 23:26 last night and I’m somewhat dismayed that none of the comments since then have responded. Dismayed, but not perhaps surprised, on reflection. The absence of political acuity on the part of the Jersey public is the reason the island is so remarkably easily run by its big-money crime cartel and the associated syndicates. It is possibly no accident at all that since my comment, debate here has been diverted onto the not immediately relevant issue of the failure of party politics in Jersey. If may reiterate my point, the general public in Jersey, in addition to child-abuse survivors and whistle-blowers, need to begin becoming conscious that governance of your community is not in fact vested with you, but lays with the authorities in London. But those authorities in London continue to avoid the corollary of the meeting of their responsibilities to you. The conduct of your ‘non-public-public-inquiry’ and its overt and frankly flaunted lawlessness is in some way’s the apogee of Whitehall failure to rouse itself into even the most token or grudging meeting of their obligations to the vulnerable of your community.

    It’s obvious to anyone of moderate intelligence and curiosity that the system in Jersey, frankly undiluted 12th century feudalism, absolute power in few hands, mixed with the limitless money of 21st century off-shore tax-haven activity, is the recipe for the “perfect-storm” of corruption. That those running a public inquiry could have the nerve to attempt to act as defectively as they have, let alone to then do so, is so ‘writ-large’ it is hard to see it as anything other than a clear “message”; basically, an uncloaked threat, to those who might have thought the rule of law would be easily brought to the island. How things have gone in Jersey sits in plain sight. So much so it scarcely needs debating any further. The degree of protection it has been given, though, must make any thinking observer start to conclude the corruption, a limitless flow of money at the disposal of the Jersey cartel, able to “purchase” virtually any decisions of power, has infected Whitehall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be fair @21:58
      There are many issues here and your 23:26 comment
      http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2016/03/some-key-issues-facing-jersey.html?showComment=1458516386805#c3172806380078370519
      cuts to the core of the most fundamental and vital of them.
      What more can I say?

      It is worrying how "party political" debate can so easily collapse into playground name calling which hides the good points both (all) commenters are making.

      Be nice everyone

      Delete
    2. It is very sad as you say. But also illuminating as to why the very necessary progression toward positive political change in Jersey of which party politics is a key aspect has been so easily emasculated.

      The major problem, aside from the so deeply entrenched Establishment and fugazi justice institutions obviously, being the fact that most who go into Jersey politics do so motivated by self-agrandizment.

      The most disheartening part of all of this to any with the intelligence to see it, let alone the backbone to say it is that this political myopia has also undermined almost all of the progressive left over the decades.

      Too many candidates aside from the brief flowering of hope between 2005 - 2010 ensured failure because they 'wanted to be da man'. It is this obsolescent political narcissism - this lack of properly functioning brain cells if one is to speak bluntly that we need to overcome before we can tackle the rest.

      Sadly I suggest the prospects are not good as the vitriolic and childishly immature verbal assaults on the two or three posters advocating political parties - worse, horror-of-horrors, left leaning parties -/within this thread demonstrate.

      One can only hope that some serious sober reflection might make such people realise however belatedly that there is actually truth in the old slogan 'There is no I in TEAM'.

      Delete
    3. Probably the most accurate assessment of why the Jersey elite manage to hold on to power that I have read in msny a year. You only have to look back to how certain progressives sabotaged the Clothier proposals. We had an opportunity to rid the States of the Constables, probably the last opportunity, but it was thrown away because of inflated ego.

      Delete
    4. Yes and we all know whose ego. The progressive champion touring the parish halls in what we now know was no more than the emperor's new clothes. Really to those of us approaching retirement age little more than a modern JJ Le Marquand. Sticking it to the conservative elite on a weekly basis. But in reality a conservative just like them.

      Delete
  69. Just to let your readers know that the Inquiry have now posted documentation up to Day 138 on their site.

    This includes:

    Wendy Kinnard

    Transcript Day 135 Link

    Statement Day 135 Link

    Andrew Lewis
    Transcript Day 136 Link

    Transcript Day 138 Link

    While Lewis has also clearly made a statement (it is referred to in the transcript) this has not been put up. Normal practice would be to put it up with the transcript of his final day of evidence (Day 138)

    So while the additional material is welome it seems clear that there is still some "trouble at mill".

    I have not read this material yet and am just starting into it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Polo.

      Thanks for the links. Rico and/or I will be publishing a number of Blogs concerning Deputy Andrew Lewis' statement/transcript to the Inquiry.......Or his legacy as I'm sure it will become known.

      There could be a good reason for his statement not being published yet. If we look at the Transcript:

      Counsel to Inquiry: "Mr Lewis, the Inquiry has received in this phase of the Inquiry a very large number of witness statements from people involved in these decisions and other political policing prosecution decisions. Your statement contains more personal attacks on other individuals than I think any other statement we have received in this phase........"

      It could be that because Deputy Lewis took this opportunity to "personally attack" so many individuals in his statement that it is being checked/redacted for defamation/libel reasons?

      He disgraced himself and the Island. More (Blogs) to follow.......

      Delete
    2. Perhaps wrongly, my impression is that all material submitted to the COI is privileged and could not therefore be used in any defamation action.

      Delete
    3. I haven't had time to read all the transcripts of Wendy Kinnard's evidence before the COI, but from what I've read, it's clear we lost an honest, intelligent and capable female politician when she left the States. Compare and contrast with the wretchedly thick Anne Pryke and Juliette Gallichan.

      Delete
    4. The disgraced former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis' statement is now published on the COI site HERE.

      Delete
  70. It strikes me as incredibly odd that certain commenters go on and on about how the legislative and judicial powers in London are the great enablers of the Jersey Way, yet also go on and on about the only way forward being to take our island's many problems to the very same London courts. Is this what is called an oxy-moron?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the word is dilemma.

      And I don't know the answer to it.

      Delete
  71. It’s always very revealing when the Jersey equivalent of the Peoples Front of Judea (see this famous Monty Python clip)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4

    show their true colours and, inevitably, the undignified festering personal hatred and jealousy towards Stuart Syvret shows on the surface. Syvret agreed with about 85% of the same policies as these people and was a huge asset towards achieving many advances in real-world policies which may not otherwise have been achieved. Before he upset the apple cart by exposing the child-abuse cover-ups, he had more political traction with the establishment in the states than the likes of Geoff Southern could ever achieve, and more significantly, he was held in more affection by 1000s of people across all parts of the community, had greater political influence over public discourse, and more votes than the all the JDA members (including the whole three of them who got elected) combined. Before he suddenly became too dangerous to our corrupt, crime concealing “cartel” to borrow an apt phrase from another reader, he was the best and most powerful and effect asset progressive politics ever had in Jersey.

    But to about 3 former members of the Peoples Front of Judea (or is it the Judean People’s Front?) he is the devil. Why they hold that view is obvious to anyone who follows Jersey politics closely. And the fact the other 10 members never possessed the smarts to recognise the personal hatred and jealousy against Syvret driving 1 or 2 of their main members illustrates to us why their judgment is so poor they think idolising South American dictators and day-dreaming that Jersey’s ever going to elect to become a Marxists Workers Paradise amounts to effective politics in the island. Just how reliable, effective, competent at co-operative team-building and competent at coalition governance in Jersey, that is, effective in contributing to a prosperous and fair society in Jersey and advancing moderate and sensible reform, were a micro-band of Old Labour dinosaurs who could not even work with the most successful progressive politician Jersey had ever seen? Not very, I suggest.

    Realist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see now why the electorate finally rejected Stuart Syvret. Blimey, even flat cap Southern wasn't dopey enough to stop working for the people who elected him and push off to London. Dunno about Realist? More like surrealist reading this festering hatred.

      Delete
  72. I know enough former and present States members to know full well there was never any chance of the States assembly voting at the time of Clothier to remove the Connétables. But what very well could have happened, because amendments were drawn up (not used in the end) to this purpose voting for the reforms, removing the Senators, diminishing the number of Deputies, creating an executive cabinet, but, crucially, amended to scrap the post of Senator. That amend would have been tabled two weeks before the debate, and very, very likely would have been carried by 2 or 3 votes (they had done the numbers). The result would have been the very worst of all possible worlds. Power concentrated into cabinet executive, the number of Deputy’s reduced, and most appallingly the most democratic, accountable (and often progressive) seats in our parliament removed (very much against public wishes). It is greatly to Syvret’s credit he saw what was almost certainly going to happen, and did what he could work to compromise, work with others, and head it off at the pass. He’s been rabidly hated ever since by 2 or 3 destructive, bitter ego-maniacs who never in a month of Sundays would secure an island-wide vote.

    I repeat, there was never any remote chance of the Establsihment voting to remove the Connétables. But a large number of them (not all) have always wanted to remove the Senators, to diminish democracy and instead make the not very democratic Connétables the senior figures in the States. So, after the transparent hate-fuelled, progressive-wrecking futility of Southern running against Syvret in the principle by-election, how has the great cause of reform been advanced by Southern and his two-man-band immature student-radical followers Tadier and Mezec? The most democratic seats in the Jersey parliament, the Senators? Reduced from 12 to 8. The least democratic seats, the Connétables? How’s the reduction there going? Still 12, of 12.

    To quote one of the People’s Front of Judea above, “How bright that looks now.”

    The “progressives”, helping Jersey’s deep establishment achieve the roll-back of democracy instead by stealth, that Syvret had the talent to prevent the establishment achieving in one fell swoop. I doubt I’ll bother replying to any more of this nonsense. I’m confident I don’t need to. It’s a fact that 90% of the readers of this blog (and probably 99% of the community) if given a straight choice between Syvret’s approach to politics or Southern’s Peoples Judean Popular Front of the One True Comrades’ Revolitionale of the Brothers Redux would choose the Syvret approach every time.

    The fact 3 or 4 nostalgic old Reds are about the only people in Jersey who fail to grip that plain fact shows both hoe and why they are a political irrelevancy.

    Realist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my comment at 15:17 where I say this, 'but, crucially, amended to scrap the post of Senator', I meant to say, 'but crucially, amended to retain the post of Connetable.

      That is what the establishment party plan was. The amendment to that effect had been drawn up and was going to be tabled with the least possible notice. And there. After the requisite 2 weeks, the great reform everyone had been banking on was to have been turned on its head and made to achieve the very opposite of what was needed. An assembly with fewer Deputies, an executive cabinet, no Senators or island wide mandate, but with the Connetables still in place. And nightmare of nightmares, now the senior members who would have naturally been favoured for the Ministerial posts. That is what Syvret prevented from happening. Sadly, things are evolving that way by stealth these days.

      Realist

      Delete
    2. Funny how that rabid Conservative Alan Breckon came second in the Senatorials? Lucky he wasn't a Leftie never would have made it otherwise.

      Delete
    3. I see we're reduced to citing Alan Breckon. Apart from the minor inconvenience he wasn't elected Senator as a JDA member, let's, for argument's sake pretend he was a member of the People's Judean Paradise on Earth for the Front of Revolutionary Workers One True Way Redux Marxist Situationist UDI For Grands Vaux Collective, and ask ourselves just how effective he was and what did he achieve. Virtually nothing I can remember. It's certainly true a faction of the deep establishment liked him as his left-but-wholly-ineffective-and-non-threatening presence in the States helped the cosmetics which have to be maintained. The two successive acquittals show that.

      Delete
    4. Don't really want to venture into this debate but think it rather unfair to attack Alan Breckon. The make up of the States means it is difficult for anyone outside of the fold to achieve change even when it is sensible.

      The other two long-serving political outsiders who spring to mind are Stuart Syvret and Geoff Southern. That is 20 years and 14 years respectively by my reckoning. And in concrete terms you have to say they both achieved nothing.

      Although I suppose you have to say that in Southern's case at least he tried with his often tedious monthly propositions. It is just the way Jersey is.

      Delete
  73. I'm just disappointed Jeremy Corbyn never listed to Realist's wisdom. He could have saved himself some wounded pride, then knowing he could never win the biggest mandate given to any Labour leader, let alone hope to see the party membership swell to its greatest number since formation. Thanks Realist, Reform can change their ways now. Obviously what we need is more of that good ole Tory fairness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...let alone hope to see the party membership swell to its greatest number since formation."

      That is completely untrue.

      Delete
    2. Not sure if the poster was suggesting Labour 2016 has its largest membership ever? I read it as being able to hope of such progress. Certainly the current membership since the explosion of Corbynism HAS seen the membership rise to its highest since 1977. Now approaching 390.000. On that basis the hope of eventually getting back to the just over a million pinacle must be - potentially - possible. If the party and Corbyn aren't betrayed by the Tory Blairites of course.

      Delete
  74. Shocking news about the latest terrorist attack. Puts some of this childish socialist bashing into perspective certainly. How does the world put an end to what drives some people to blow up others? Maybe the subject for a blog? This post has certainly been ruined by the rambling posts if the mysterious R.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, nice piece of shroud-waving. Of course the terrorist attacks are shocking, but have absolutely nothing to do with the debate here, and don't put anything into perspective. Your attempt to rubbish another poster's views (which happen to oppose your views) under the banner of "it's all so trivial given what happened in Brussels" is shameful opportunism.

      I find the mysterious Realist's analysis of local politics to be pretty much spot-on (and no, I'm not him or her).

      Delete
    2. No Realist you aren't. You just happen to spout the same poor me hatred of any who don't share your redundant and rather deluded views. As for your shameful dismissal of the latest events in Belgium they probably suggest you need help.

      Delete
  75. I think Reform Jersey will do OK at the next election. Certainly the young women who stood with Montford was very credible. I just hope the likes of Eddie Noel get the elbow. Completely useless.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Apologies if this question has been asked before. But does anyone know how long all of the hundreds of witness statements made will remain accessible on line? As people have pointed out many of these have only recently been put up ages after the witness appeared. Others have been taken down for long periods. I just worry a little that with the COI running down all of this will suddenly disappear forever and it will be as if the inquiry never happened within a very short time.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I commented under the name 'Realist'. I made the suggestion to VFC a little while ago that ALL of the comments which misappropriated the dreadful terrorist atrocities into our discussion here should be removed. I'm disappointed that VFC hasn't taken up my suggestion. Sadly I have to go on the record and say I deplore any and all attempts to appropriate and mobilise acts of terrorism into our narrow partisan discussions. I think it regrettable that VFC erred in judgement in permitting the comment thread which began at 16.38. As the thread made reference to me, although I'd taken no part in it, and did not wish to, I have to ask that this comment is published to make the forgoing known, and to disassociate myself from such inappropriateness.

    Realist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I think it was good that someone felt it right to remind us of events in the wider world. Whatever our problems here in Jersey we haven't had to suffer what some have elsewhere.

      Delete
  78. For pity's sake new post please. These attacks on just about everyone a commentator doesn't like are excruciating.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Talking of who should have been called to be questioned by the Committee of Inquiry. Which I think we were before one poster sidetracked us. I have only just heard that former Deputy Bailiff Francis Hamon has died. Shouldn't he have been called over the last two years? I believe he was in office for quite some time. Even under Philip Bailhache?

    ReplyDelete
  80. ......... BLOGGER SITE NOTE .......23 March 2016 at 15:10

    The number of comments on this blog is nearing 200

    If it passes that point readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread

    Once 200 comments have been reached, further replies to these first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that "Load more..." link is clicked

    Therefore if you wish to read the full comments thread (without omissions) you should click that "Load more..." link now, before returning to read the comments.

    P.S. Hope the party political sniping is over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fully endorse that PS. Some of the comments from one individual have been as silly as they were rude and unpleasant.

      Delete
  81. Andrew Lewis's statement now up on Inquiry site.

    Link

    Have not read the stuff yet but have just finished reading the puke inducing transcripts of his innings, so this should be fun.

    [VFC: this is a second attempt to post this comment. If first came through, delete this one.]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Polo.

      I didn't receive your first attempt. I have put a link to the statement earlier in the thread and I too have read the transcripts which make for painful reading (for him).

      In any normal functioning "democracy" his position as a legislator would now be untenable as a result of those transcripts which basically confirm everything Team Voice have said about his (possibly illegal) suspension of the Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

      Lewis is a disgrace to Jersey, that said, the establishment (Law Officers Department/AG's Office) will see him as an asset.

      Delete

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