Wednesday, 8 May 2019

Interview with Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel Member Professor Alexander (Sandy) Cameron.

Professor Sandy Cameron

As a result of continued communications with the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel (IJCI) and of our  PREVIOUS POST. VFC was offered an interview with Panel Member Professor Sandy Cameron to which we gratefully accepted.

Regular readers will be aware that the relationship between the Panel and VFC has not always been as amicable as it is now, not least when were were banned from its MEDIA ROOM and  ITV/CTV,was NOT BANNED.

We are pleased to say that our relationship has come a long way since then as we are working towards the same goal(s) in that we want Survivors, and interested parties, to supply the Panel with evidence/information concerning the "care" of children in the Island since the publication of its (IJCI) REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS Those who wish to submit evidence/speak with the Panel can do so by visiting its WEBSITE, taking part (anonymously) in its SURVEY or by e-mailing them at

The Panel, during its evidence gathering and public hearings stage did some excellent work, not least by giving a voice to the Survivors/Abusees, vindicating them and those of us who have been fighting their corner and attempting to hold the guilty to account.

William Bailhache

As a result of the Panel's Hearings we learnt that former AG and current Bailiff William Bailhache has some very uncomfortable questions to ANSWER in his "reasons" for not prosecuting an alleged paedophile. We also learned that William Bailhache sent an e-mail to the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker and then States Chief Executive, Bill Ogley on the eve of the (possibly illegal) suspension of Chief Police Officer Graham Power advising them not to suspend the Chief Officer. Notably he didn't send the e-mail to (or copy in) the only man who could suspend him, the Home Affairs Minister at the time, Andrew Lewis. We also learned that William Bailhache withheld this evidence from the Napier Review.

Philip Bailhache

We also discovered, as a result of the IJCI, that former AG/Bailiff/Senator and brother of William, Philip Bailhache was accused of withholding, and asking the then Education Chief Executive, John Rodhouse, to withhold evidence from the police concerning a now convicted paedophile.

Excerpt from John Rodhouse statement to Inquiry:

"it concerned a volunteer youth worker. The then Attorney-General, Philip Bailhache, called me to tell me that a named volunteer youth worker had acted improperly with a boy. The boy's father was an (redaction) and did not want to involve the police. Philip Bailhache wanted me to investigate and take action. I protested that it was a matter for the police but Philip Bailhache said that the parents would not co-operate and that if I did not act nothing would happen. I interviewed the man who admitted the offence and with the help of the Youth Officer, the man was effectively removed from all youth work in Jersey. As far as I was concerned I was caught between the legal authority of the island in the person of the Attorney-General and what I believed to be my professional and moral duty. I have since learned that the man was some time later convicted of a similar offence and subsequently faced a further charge."

So if anybody is considering giving evidence but are not sure, you might see merit in having the historic record documented for current and future researchers. It demonstrates the the Inquiry has done good work in some areas and without witnesses coming forward this, and much more, evidence wouldn't be available. To be clear the Panel want to hear about current practices and how its recommendations have been, are, or not being implemented.


Regular readers will also be aware that VFC was invited to submit evidence to the Inquiry which we did HERE and further invited to appear as a witness which we did HERE. Despite our many differences, with the IJCI in the past, VFC has always considered the plight of Survivors/Abusees past, present and future, is the primary concern. Rooting out the corruption (either perceived or otherwise) in States Departments, Law Offices Department, Attorney General's Office and the old media (formerly known as Mainstream media). We have been striving for the Care Inquiry's RECOMMENDATION 7 before it existed and we continue to do so. Putting differences aside for the greater good has enabled VFC and the IJCI to hopefully bring more witnesses forward, to document evidence, and give a greater picture of what has been allowed, and possibly continues to be allowed to happen,  that enables children to be abused on the Island and for the abusers to be protected (more about that in an up-coming Blog)

The Panel has further invited VFC to submit evidence, and to appear at a Public Hearing, to discuss the role of the media (as mentioned in the video below) both of which we have humbly agreed to and look forward to the opportunity.

Further discussed in the video below are subjects of who can make contact with/give evidence to the Panel, how to make contact (links above), Do witnesses need to be on-island? what its purpose is of this visit. Will the hearings/meetings be transcribed for the historic record and along with documents provided to the panel, will they be uploaded to the website/given to Jersey Archive? The controversial  taking down of the website, and its alleged reasons, are also (very briefly) discussed.


  1. "Giving a voice to the Survivors/Abusees, vindicating them and those of us who have been fighting their corner and attempting to hold the guilty to account".

    The guilty, 'if guilty' have not been held to account though so why do you say this? 2 main protagonists have retired and sailed into the Sunset. Many have carried on as normal, keeping their jobs and a few have died because the claims go so far back.

    Can we please stick to the truth because we know Lundy has never been found guilty of anything so none of his accusers have been vindicated as nothing has happened.

  2. You some how managed to quote me and mis- quote the quote you quoted.

    The quote you quoted said:

    "Giving a voice to the Survivors/Abusees, vindicating them and those of us who have been fighting their corner and attempting to hold the guilty to account".

    Then you say:

    “The guilty, 'if guilty' have not been held to account though so why do you say this?”

    The fact is I didn’t say this/that.

    If you read the quote again you will see the word “attempting” to hold the guilty to account.

    We can only publish the facts of the (possibly) guilty. There is nothing we can do about a corrupt “justice” system. At least we are trying to do something for the Survivors/Abusees.

    When you say:

    “Can we please stick to the truth.” I think I have shown that I am sticking to the truth and it is you who managed to stray from it.

    If you are disillusioned with people not being brought to justice then might I suggest that you give that evidence to the Panel?

    1. No I am disillusioned by the way you keep on saying 'people have been vindicated'.
      Evidence giving is only vindication when it is proved beyond doubt to be true.
      People can only be vindicated when it is over.

  3. VFC, this useful interview has answered a question I discussed with some survivors last week. They are considering speaking with the panel. One of the first pieces of advice I offered the survivors was that they should establish upon what basis and authority the members of the supposed "public-inquiry" were now re-engaging with the public and seeking evidence? If - as appeared to be the case - the actual "public-inquiry" had ended, then these three individuals reconvening to revisit the situation two years later would not attract the powers and safeguards associated with a public-inquiry; for example, witness testimony and evidence presented now to these three individuals would not be shielded by 'legal privilege'. Thus, the possibility exists of civil or criminal legal action being taken against witnesses who provide fresh material.

    I advised the survivors that they should establish clearly and from the outset to what extent - if at all - legal protection for witnesses would be in place for this present exercise?

    Professor Cameron answered that question in your interview, when he said the "public-inquiry" was legally "functus". This means legally the "public-inquiry" as such no longer exists. The corollary of this is that the three former members of the "public-inquiry" cannot - and should not claim to - provide the protections of legal privilege in respect of fresh testimony & evidence.

    The foregoing is a fundamentally important point.

    Witnesses might respond to this request for fresh engagement by the three former members of the "public-inquiry" - and do so believing themselves to be legally protected from action for anything said - only to later find that no such legal protection was in place.

    There is no indication in the available evidence that the three former members of the "public-inquiry" have given any consideration to this fundamentally important legal question, bearing as it does on their present activity and potentially upon witnesses responding to their invitations.

    It may be that the three former members of the "public-inquiry" have given careful consideration to this issue, and fully understand that they cannot offer any legal protection to potential witnesses? If so - they must make an urgent declaration to that effect and publish an unambiguous disclaimer on their website. For obvious reasons it would be wholly wrong to entice witnesses to come forward in the false belief they were protected from consequent legal action.

    On the basis of past performance on matters of basic vires, it seems almost a certainty that the three former members of the "public-inquiry" have simply failed to consider - and think through - the issue. If that is so, I suggest they give the matter some urgent thought - as it is very difficult to imagine their avowed aims - of forming a free & frank assessment of where things stand today - being successful on the basis of no protection for witnesses.

    Stuart Syvret. Historian, independent journalist, international anti-mafia activist.

    1. Witnesses can give their testimony in private and anonymously so for those who are worried of repercussions or "the jersey way" best play it safe and do it anonymously rather than not share their experience at all.

    2. People should be giving evidence straight to the Police not the Inquiry.

    3. "People should be giving evidence straight to the Police not the Inquiry."

      Good luck with that.

      Stuart Syvret.

    4. Unfortunately the police are back under political control. If your abuser is "connected" the chances of getting him/her investigated/charged are not as high as they would be with a non-politicised police force.

  4. Stuart's point at 15.33 is important.

    It appears that the "panel" is returning as three private individuals with no special status beyond having been invited.

    People would therefore need to be very careful in how they frame their evidence/opinions. Calling anyone's professional competence into question could have legal consequences.

    Doing so in private would not solve this as if it were suspected then surely a court could subpoena the relevant documents.

    Submitting evidence anonymously would surely limit the usefulness of the exercise if the witness's identity was not known to the "panel". If it was surely a court could force its revelation.

    Stuart's fears in this area with the original Panel have been unfairly dismissed by many but he has certainly been sensitised to the issue.

    It seeme to me, on the basis of the above, that the "Panel's" work will run the risk of bias towards what has been done at the expense of what has not.

  5. Is this story for real?

    "JERSEY could play a ‘leadership role’ in helping other small jurisdictions around the world review their laws and develop new legislation, says former Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache."

    1. Yes Im sure he would love to create another banana republic. Somewhere hot maybe where he could enjoy his retirement safe in the knowledge that none of the local plebs can touch him.

    2. If he is talking about covering up abuse and even giving such miscreants jobs sitting in the courts as if they were respectable honest people then for sure Jersey could help. We are world leaders in this field.

    3. He could always help other small jurisdictions just make Laws up where they don't exist.

      Quote Philip Bailhache:

      “I adopted the simple expedient of making it up” HERE.

    4. So Jersey's former Bailiff and Chief Judge laughs about making things up? Priceless. Why wasn't he questioned about this attitude by the inquiry team? It is frankly shocking. What else might he and his successors have made up to achieve the desired result or even conviction?

    5. He made up the excuse to turn off Syvret's microphone and on this evidence you have to conclude he likely made up his denial in answer to Pitman's challenge to him of reading confidential police documents in public view on a plane. And none of the MSM do diddly squat!

  6. I don't know why the panel have come back, were they invited by others or was it at their own instigation? It might be that the penny has actually dropped in regards to the Jersey Way and they are coming back to look and listen to people unrestricted from the previous "limited terms of reference" that was set up by others which was the real reason £ was spent on a whitewash/cover up that was ultimately controlled by the legal profession with the original terms of reference tainted by any input from the AG and the Law Officers Department.

    In regards to the comments on legal privilege restricting people from meeting the panel, whilst I am not a lawyer myself it appears legal advice seems to be bandied about quiet freely by others. but at an educated guess as a layman, anyone who was actually in the Jersey care system and wanted to meet with the panel as a genuine victim, not sideline commentators, I personally think the chances of anyone trying to sue someone who was actually in the system and have a genuine complaint, unsubstantiated or otherwise, would be pretty slim especially when they are been invited to meet by the panel.

    I fully understand that Mr Syvret's situation is different to others due to court orders made personally against him, but the most valid point that has been raised on this matter was by him in regards to wishing people good luck with obtaining a police investigation because if the police or the Attorney Generals office act or had acted with probity in the first place these discussions would not be taking place now.

  7. Well done VFC for this interview, as usual you are leading the way.Sandy Cameron gave important information regarding the panel's visit, it is now up to each one of us to decide whether to take part or not/

  8. Good to see someone different interviewed. Talking of which is there any news on the former Deputy Pitman interview mentioned yonks ago? Must be back in the time of the original Care Inquiry we last saw an interview with the man. Does he even still follow and engae in politics?

    1. Logistics are proving a little difficult right now but hope to have an interview with former Deputy Trevor Pitman within the next few weeks. I understand he only keeps a glancing on local matters. This could change after the launch of his new Blog.

    2. I have not seen Trevor or Shona in years, are they in Jersey?

    3. I heard Chiapas Mexico living with the Zapatistas. Could be just rumour though.

      But talking of the Pitmans there is a story on the Bailliwick Express about this Crown Advocate being charged with a grave and criminal assault on a pensioner.

      Wonder what those behind the COI think of that? Doesn't send out a great message does it even if most of would say its only the tip of the iceberg?

      Thing is wasn't this Advocate the very one defending that estate agent or the JEP over that disgusting slur in the form of an alleged cartoon attacking the Pitmans that led to them being lost to us?

      Jersey, eh? What a beacon of high standards, justice and democracy.

    4. Don't follow the BE on line. Anyone got a link?

  9. The last time the Pitman's were seen anon, they were with me near Lindisfarne, not sure they survived the party but I still have their dog Pip!!!

    1. The Pitmans and Big Ian on the Holy Isle! Now I guess we know the Righteous have God (or the Gods dependent on your beliefs) on their side as well as the Zapatistas. Perhaps there is hope after all in this island run by political diabolists.

    2. I want to hear from Trevor Pitman even more after reading the above; Shona too.

    3. Ian. You are a mug. With that information there will likely be an Establishment Hit Squad being scrambled and helicopted out to search the Nothumbrian coast and surrounds even as we speak! Taking out three of the biggest champions of justice for Jersey's betrayed will surely be too much of a temptation for the Red Cloak Brigade. Get under cover now!

  10. This posting gave me a great laugh tonight. Apart from the usual suspects, Syvret, VFC, Polo, you are ALL still hiding in fear under the same Anonymouse banner you have ALL hidden behind ALL your lives. Haven't you cowards learned anything over the years? I'm not being rude to you guys n girls, I'm just trying to impress upon you that sooner or later you are going to have too stand up for what you believe in whether you like it or not. Perhaps better get on with matters today hey???

  11. Have just received the following update/draft schedule from the Panel.

    "I can now confirm the public discussions sessions will take place in the St Paul’s Centre Tuesday 21st- Friday 24th May.

    Sessions will be Tues/Wed/Thurs 9.45am – 4pm Friday 9.30 am – 3pm
    The detailed programme will be available early next week.

    Participants will include politicians, civil servants, Children’s Services staff, Commissioners, voluntary organisations, foster carers and care experienced people. Alan Collins who represented victims at the Inquiry will also take part.

    1. Would have been good to see the above mentioned Trevor Pitman there. Mind you remembering your interview with him regarding his appalling treatement by the panel back in 2015 I would assume he would not be interested anyway and who could blame him? It is a shame though. Pitman was probably the key figure in highlighting just how disturbing and corrupt the Jersey media's part in all of this was. Like to know which politicians past or present will be attending. Can't imagine any of the current lot have anything worth adding apart from Mike Higgins. This in itself shows a horrible reality. Nothing changes

    2. I would not give them the time of day if I was ex Deputy Pitman. To treat a key witness so appallingly after he had submitted such a huge and damning written statement of detailed evidence was just unbelievable. When you further consider the bizarre bouts of even this evidence vanishing from the inquiry's website, often with ever more inexplicable redactions once it re-appeared, those who criticise Stuart Syvret for his non-attendance should think again. Stuart would have been treated in exactly the same way.

  12. Today's BBC statement …
    "Current policy means we have no alternative but to sack Danny Baker for racial abuse. If only he'd sexually interfered with children then we could have turned a blind eye for years."

  13. Timetable update from Inquiry Panel.

    "An additional session has been added on Friday 24th May at 4pm. This session will be a discussion between the Panel, the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey.
    We are waiting to confirm a few more participants before publishing a fuller timetable next week."

    Public Roundtable Discussions at St Paul’s Centre, St Helier:

    Tuesday 21st May : 9.45 am – 4.00pm

    Wednesday 22nd May: 9.45 am – 4.00pm

    Thursday 23rd May: 9.45 am – 4.00pm

    Friday 24th May: 9.30 am – 5.00pm

    1. What's the point of all of this?

    2. Hopefully to help prevent vulnerable children being abused (for decades) by people who were supposed to “care” for them. Hopefully so no other child, or family, should have to go through the life destroying treatment by the State of Jersey, and others, that vulnerable youngsters have had to in the past and possible present/future.

      Hopefully to show that any changes that have been made by the States and dodgy legislation put in place isn’t just window dressing to keep independent eyes at bay so the whole lot could all happen again.

      So I suppose the point of all this is “hope.”

    3. VFC, you report this: -

      ""An additional session has been added on Friday 24th May at 4pm. This session will be a discussion between the Panel, the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey.
      We are waiting to confirm a few more participants before publishing a fuller timetable next week.""

      Well - that is going to be most entertaining.

      Whilst all parts of the Jersey polity were - and are - grotesquely conflicted and involved in the Jersey child-abuse disaster - of those departments which are notionaly democratically accountable (so this is excluding the corrupted Crown departments) the Health & Social Services Department - and the Chief Minister's Department - were the two most profoundly corrupted and pro-actively involved in the child-abuse cover-ups.

      On the plain evidence.

      So - which two Jersey government Departments then went on to basically run the supposed "public-inquiry" - forming the core interface with the "inquiry" process - and doing so with the active willingness and blessing of the "public-inquiry" and the three panel members?

      The Health & Social Services Department - and the Chief Minister's Department.

      £24 million, eh?

      £24 million.

      The hubris - the frank stupidity - of these people is remarkable. Truly. And that is the view of a raft of international observers.

      There are enough experts - in various relevant disciplines - including international serious organised crime law-enforcement - globally now - to hold a conference on The Jersey Situation.

      Hear that train 'a coming.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Investigative journalist, historian, international anti-mafia activist.

  14. Syvret was going to be our star witness at the public inquiry. But they blocked him by refusing to give him legal representation. the men who attacked me and my mates when we were children had all the money and power of the States defending them. The public inquiry even gave secret code names to known child abusers to help the cover up carry on. Why should we take these inquiry people seriously now?

  15. I appreciate you keeping everyone updated on this hugely important issue. Thank you for the work that you're doing that allows many of us, even off island, to keep track of the latest developments. Keep at it!

  16. This is all most interesting. Some on point observations above concerning the legal status of the former members of the former COI. Certainly correct that the status and powers of a public inquiry no longer attaches to this exercise. AS VFC is in communication with the three former members, perhaps you could ask them how they see their work being regarded at points in the future, in the broad context of the national and international response to the systemically concealed abuse of children? Are they confident that their work is robust and will withstand the inevitable and taxing peer-reviews these types of inquiries are going to be recouringly subjected to by successively better informed generations?

    1. Think we need a proper qualified Lawyer to approach them with any legal concerns/issues!

    2. Oh I certainly agree with that, as do legal colleagues when we discuss the Jersey situation. One of the issues which concerns us is that there appears to be no serious or effective legal representation of the disenfranchised on Jersey. Of course, there was a time, not that long ago, when this would have been irrelevant to us as a broad profession. But in this age of information technology all is changed utterly. If one doesn't mind me shoehorning a quote from W.B. Yeats into this avalanching history, 'A terrible beauty is born'. Less enlightened colleagues don't grasp that yet. But many of us do. Now that knowledge, evidence and misfeasance is inerasable and universally sharable, our historic product as lawyers, as 'catch-&-kill' operatives, on hire to eliminate the 'problems' of the rich & powerful, is over.

      This is probably the key reason why I and colleagues find the Jersey situation so fascinating. It could very conceivably be the source, ultimately triggering globally the compliance by lawyers with already established law, as opposed to our ever lucrative ability to re-invent and re-run on behalf of those who need obfuscation, and who can pay us, matters long since settled. Now, there's a prospect.

      Of course with the advantage of hindsight it is not so surprising that Jersey, and events on Jersey, should have originated this potential global change in the history of organised society. When you have a micro jurisdiction run entirely by lawyers and in truth nothing but lawyers for centuries, and the place is awash with untold billions of dollars annually in the global wildwest of our era, and the seniors who run the place are literally overt sociopaths, things are not that surprising.

      These are interesting times. Jersey may very well yet become ultimately famous for more than association with an item of sailor's clothing, cows, nazi collaboration, and tax evasion. The Jersey situation in this age of globalised and easy communication has that potentiality.

    3. Good point.
      People talk about legal problems frequently on here but if no qualified Lawyer is prepared to air them to the Inquiry then nothing will ever progress.

    4. Philip Sinel?

    5. Please no more smart-assed lawyers trying to out-twat each other ... give me reasoned common sense without the self-indulgence ... please!

    6. My dear fellow, if only the 'smart-assed lawyers' being bankrolled in all this were trying to 'out twat each other'! Alas, for that to occur, you and the Jersey survivors and whistleblowers would need to have skin-in-the-game in that you would have to have some lawyers working in there that were employed by you, taking instruction from you, and dependent on you for their continuing lucrative contracts! In that circumstance you would have your lawyers indeed trying to 'out twat' their lawyers.

      Sadly, all the lawyers employed in this Klondike gold-rush are working for your establishment. So they don't even have to try to 'out twat' each other!

      Wakey wakey.

      Some readers here are a bundle short of a case file.

      Look, if the legal issues remain to elusive for you, try using a langue associated with a (slightly) different form of enterprise. In the endeavours of confidence tricking, and grifting generally, there are a category of people described as "marks".

      Go and take a look in the mirror.

      One need not be terribly 'smart assed' to understand what is going on on Jersey.

  17. Today I gave further evidence to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Panel. I'm not sure I told them much more than they already knew. The very system/structure that allowed children to be abused, and their abusers to be protected, for decades, is the very same system we have in place today.

    It's only a matter of time before we need another Inquiry.

    1. You keep on saying this but if a claim fails the evidential tests and you have no audit trail to show a cover up then what are the Panel supposed to do?
      Remember Paedophiles are actors.

    2. The "Jersey" evidential test is the problem or the "Jersey" "not in the public interest" is also the problem.

      Realistically there is nothing the Inquiry Panel can do other than recommend the UK fulfill its constitutional obligation and restore the rule of law and good governance on the island.

    3. "You keep on saying this but if a claim fails the evidential tests and you have no audit trail to show a cover up then what are the Panel supposed to do?"

      That assertion is fundamentally untrue. The cover-ups are clear and evidenced. There are known child-abusers, extensively evidenced, multi-victim child-abusers, walking free on Jersey. Right Now.

      The public inquiry cannot intellectually or legally make any legitimate contradiction of that fact, because they chose quite deliberately not to receive certain evidence, not to summon certain known witnesses, and to adopt a methodology of secrecy expressly calculated to prevent the public from piecing together various facts which which could only form the full picture if they could be associated together.

    4. "It's only a matter of time before we need another Inquiry."

      You sound like a remoaner for Brexit.
      There is no way another Inquiry of this magnitude will be repeated again.

    5. Oh, I wouldn't bank on that my good fellow. For the Jersey authorities to have any legitimate claim to having held a free, fair, transparent and legally sound public-inquiry - well, they had to have had done just that! Held a public inquiry which fully satisfied all tests for vires.

      They failed (really remarkably in truth, the incompetence was startling) failed so openly and badly to grasp what was their last-chance in the last-chance-saloon that all local, national and international campaigners can forever more point out the legally robust fact that Jersey failed to hold a lawful public inquiry.

      This is what is immediately apparent to all dispassionate, disinterested external observers. This is an example of the remarkable incompetence. Your authorities and those they employed in the process of the public inquiry clearly had as a prime objective, perhaps THE core 'mission-statement', "Deliver something in the domestic environment of Jersey that will be convincingly spinnable to the local population and which will easily convince most local people that a real public-inquiry had taken place."

      Of course, Jersey having no meaningful Fourth-Estate, such a mission-statement was never in the least taxing or in doubt. Success in obtaining that goal was always a forgone conclusion.

      But was that goal, that easily obtained objective, of successfully propagandising the local population, ever a 'wise' objective? Was such a pre-guaranteed and easy 'quick-win' for your traditional establishment going to reduce, or amplify, the long-term crisis the island faces? Especially in this unique era of uncombatable, permanent international scrutiny?

      Failing to hold a lawfull, credible public inquiry, and of course so easily being able to con the local population that you had, is a wonderful outcome, a big 'Win' for the short-term self interest of various hopelessly compromised criminals. For example, the known child-abusers, the corrupt politicians, the senior civil servants involved in enabling and shielding those abusers for decades, the professionally conflicted law-firms, the gangster Crown Officers - etc.

      To that narrow cohort of fatally conflicted individuals and their allies and families (largely the grouping of people who have steered the public inquiry process) to have successfully delivered a 'public inquiry' which met their primary 'mission-statement', that of 'holding a make-believe public inquiry that we can then successfully con the local population with' has been a huge success. 'Mission-accomplished', as it was always easily going to be.

      But - but - but.....

      What does permitting the holding of such a obvious fake do for the medium and long-term interests of Jersey as a whole?

      Nothing good. That is for sure.

      The short-term self-interest of a handful of corrupt, criminal and inadequate individuals who should have all been put out to grass years ago, has been permitted to jeopardize the future of the island.

      Running overt, undisguisable cover-ups does not lessen international scrutiny. Rather, it amplifies it.

  18. New Blog Posting

    Deputy Mike Higgins and The Jersey WAY."