Tuesday, 29 October 2019

Advocate Philip Sinel Gives his Reaction to the (infamous) Speech of William Bailhache. (Part one)


Advocate Philip Sinel


On Tuesday 8th of October 2019 the retiring Bailiff, WILIAM BAILHACHE, abused his dual position as the Head of Judiciary, and Speaker of Parliament, to launch a political and personal attack on the Chairman (Francis Oldham QC) of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. He did this in the now infamous SPEECH and by abusing the "Communications by the presiding Officer" element of the States Sitting he could NOT (like any elected non-conflicted) be questioned on his speech/statement.

We called this speech a personal VENDETTA carried out on behalf of his brother (and former Bailiff) Philip Bailhache. Where William Bailhache used the words of Francis Oldham QC against her where she wrote of Philip Bailhache (about his equally infamous 2008 liberation Day speech) in her 2017 REPORT:

FRANCIS OLDHAM QC:

“We cannot accept that a politician and lawyer (Philip Bailhache) of his experience would inadvertently have made what he told the Inquiry was an “unfortunate juxtaposition” of words. We are sure that the way in which Jersey is perceived internationally matters greatly to him. His linking of Jersey’s reputation to the child abuse investigation was, we are satisfied, a grave political error,”

WILLIAM BAILHACHE:

“I cannot accept that a lawyer of the Chairman’s experience would inadvertently have drafted such an unfortunate juxtaposition of words. I am sure that the way in which Jersey receives her panel’s report matters greatly to her. Her linkage of allegations of lack of fairness and transparency in decision taking, by the Bailiff to historic (sic) Child Abuse was a grave error.”

As readers would expect the William Bailhache statement/speech sent ripples (Tidal Waves) across New and Old Media and we sought the reactions of the Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec which we published HERE. The former Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Police Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) Mr. Lenny Harper, who William Bailhache (unbelievably) seemingly couldn't praise enough for his investigation. We published Mr. Harper's response(s) HERE and HERE.

We also sought the reaction from local constitutional expert, and Advocate, Philip Sinel (video below), who in his trademark fashion told it how it is (from his point of view) and he didn't hold back. He made a few interesting observations, not least, that former Bailiff, and Senator, Philip Bailhache, was pushed, and didn't jump, from the role of Bailiff. It does seem a little bizarre that he allegedly "retired" as Bailiff through "ill health" but felt well enough to run an election CAMPAIGN. Not only run an election campaign but once elected becomes External Relations Minister jetting all over the world. But he felt too ill to be the Bailiff?

Former SIO Lenny Harper

As readers would expect, The Bailiff's apparent total VINDICATION of former Senior Investigating Officer, Lenny Harper, and indeed Operation Rectangle, does not tally-up with his actions/in-actions during his time as AG (during Rectangle) and Advocate Sinel points a number of these out. Including, apparently, having the former Police Chief, Graham Power QPM unsuccessfully criminally investigated as part of the Curtis Warren "car bugging incident" which we reported on HERE, and HERE. We further Exclusively published the BARTON REPORT which was the disciplinary investigation into the cops involved in the Curtis Warren case. The cops were all exonerated but the Law Offices' Department were left with some very uncomfortable questions to answer.

Quote from Barton Report:

"I do find it odd that having asked the Hampshire Police to 
investigate the matters surrounding the Curtis Warren police operation, the
 authorities in Jersey did not co-operate fully in the way that I would have expected
 given that it was they that asked for the enquiry to be carried out. Mr. Cessford made 
this very clear and I have no reason to doubt it and that caused me some
 considerable surprise. I maintain that this lack of co-operation or, perhaps more 
accurately, lack of complete co-operation, can only have compromised the
 Hampshire enquiry and limited the full facts available to me to make a decision in this
 case..................."

Further discussed in part one of this interview is the burning question as to why no Jersey Law Firm has ever taken up the cause for Abuse Survivors? Advocate Sinel HAS given (pro bono) advice to survivors where he can, but as he says in the interview, this is not his legal expertise and there ARE Law firms/lawyers who do specialise in this field yet Survivors have to rely, pretty much one ONE Lawyer from the UK, Alan Collins.

Current Bailiff Tim Le Cocq

We ask Advocate Philip sinel, among much more, is it the fact that Crown Offices' SG/AG/Deputy Bailiff/Bailiff and the Law Offices Department act they way they do because they are totally unaccountable? Is "THE JERSEY SITUATION" because of The Bailhache Brothers or because of the Office of Bailiff itself? Are things going to be any different under the rein of newly BUGGINSESS TURN SYSTEM OF PROMOTION elected Bailiff Tim Le Cocq? Can the UK legislate for Jersey? Whose "interests" are the Lieutenant Governors looking after? We have previously SUGGESTED that he be called as a witness to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. (That never happened)

We hope that readers with an interest in "The Jersey situation" or "The Jersey Way" or local constitutional issues find this interview of interest.

Part two coming soon..........................................




39 comments:

  1. That is a very measured thoughtful interview with Advocate Sinel and I couldn't disagree with anything he said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The part that former Deputy Shona Pitman played in getting Sir Philip Bailhache removed by bringing the first ever vote of no confidence in a Bailiff following his disgusting Liberation day speech is often overlooked. It shouldn't be. She had the guts to do what not one other States Member in 2008 was brave enough to do. Well done Shona. Some us remember you hear as you should be remembered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Easy to forget Shona amidst all the posturing men. But she was a gem. It was her who stood up and said what she thought about Walker the very night she got elected. Then she stood up against the great Untouchable Bailhache. Wish we had her back.

      Delete
  3. Good interview Voice. Look forward to Part two.

    Suggesting that the Bailhache years will be seen historically as a "dark period" is being far too polite.

    A Dark Age would be more accurate - all aided and abetted by Birt and Jersey's sorry excuse for a MSM.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is bang on the nail. So many serious Jersey establishment corruption issues mentioned in one short video. Is there a chance for more interviews please Philip? Preferably on each topic in turn and each in good depth. Philip's knowledge, his first-hand experience and his understanding and clarity of these issues are all immensely useful for ‘the cause’, the long awaited victory and the history books. Can the bucket full of correspondence that’s ignored or fobbed off by the Privy Council be shown too? Please get as much of this stuff out there as possible. Thank you Philip and VFC for another excellent interview.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good stuff, with several witty one liners, especially the comparison of Trump and the Bailhache brothers. The role of the state media to defend government and its authority is perceptive. That said, we have heard it all before...and nothing changes; somehow no one cares. The debate stops for a few moments and carries on.

    Whilst the William Bailhache speech in the Assembly was opportunist, the panegyric from Deputy Russel Labey at the end of the session was simply sycophantic – a litany of privilege from Charterhouse to Bailiff. These speeches were, so to say, the bookends to the day. Arrogance on one end; deference on the other.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A comment has been submitted that names an alleged well known local pedophile. Sorry I;m unable to publish the comment. If the commenter wants to redact the name it will be suitble for publication.

    The comment starts:

    "I saw William Bailhache in town the other day. Next time, I have that misfortune I'll ask him a few questions like;"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whoops- I'm sure we all know the redacted name but here is my comment with this particular scum bags name removed.

      I saw William Bailhache in town the other day. Next time, I have that misfortune I'll ask him a few questions like;
      Are you pleased 'the Bailhache era' is already regarded as Jersey’s darkest post war period? Also, why did you fail as Attorney General to prosecute well-connected child abusers like (name redacted) ? Are you comfortable knowing you and your bro are so utterly despised in Jersey and internationally? How can you and your bro sleep at night after the way you treated Graham Power?

      Delete
  7. Can I ask anonymous.

    Anonymous at 13.22 - Why didn't you just ask him the other day?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe it is the 'fear factor' which permeates Jersey and was also discussed at the IJCI, and which sadly means that a lot of comments are left anonymously. Luckily Philip Sinel has the 'cohones' to speak out truthfully. I think the interview was straight to the point and needed saying. Bring on Part Two.

      Delete
  8. On the 16th May, 2011, Stuart Syvret wrote that The-Jersey-Situation was 'worse-than-Watergate', as it so obviously is'

    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/private-eye-and-jerseygate/

    Could someone make that link clickable?

    This is what Advocate Sinel says in this interview of some of the relevant conduct of William Bailhache: -

    "You’ve got to remember that Graham Power was pushed out because - and with Bailhache’s help - because was not going to play politics - and the politics that William Bailhache was urging was to sit on the child-abuse inquiry - AND get rid of Stuart Syvret for agitating because of it.”

    Worse-than-Watergate. This wasn't merley high level political corruption and burglary against democratic opponents, it was all of that, for the added objective and motivation of covering up child abuse & murder.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Advocate Joshua Poingdestre was actioned in the Jersey Royal Court in 1743 following information that he had made "injurious reflections against the person of Lt Bailiff Philip Le Geyt and Mr Francis Guillaume Le Maistre" - another Advocate - by which Poingdestre was sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000 livres. One third was to be the king's share, one third to be given to the poor of Jersey and one third towards the repairs of the prison. Poingdestre appealed against his sentence to the Privy Council and the case was still being considered a few years later. If I discover the final outcome I will report back but I don't think it will add much to our knowledge of the Jersey justice tradition - aka the Jersey way eh

    ReplyDelete
  10. The manner in which you conducted your public inquiry in Jersey is proving to be problematic. Regardless of whether it appears credible for local consumption, it's now recognised here as not able to be a credible point of reference for IICSA, for the many obvious reasons.

    Problems, problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recognised by whom exactly?
      Please don’t answer something like ... ‘ by any intelligent, clear thinking person’ ... because that says nothing but, on the other hand, it simply displays a lot of arrogance.

      Delete
    2. I think the inquiry has benefited Jersey immensely and I am really surprised we still read rubbish on here trying to pull it to pieces. If you think something better can be done then let's hear it. Then give us a time frame.

      Delete
    3. Well said anon at 17:52 ... there really are so many positives that have come out of the care inquiry.

      Delete
    4. Interesting little rash of comments at 17:36, 17:52 & 18:09
      The Jersey Child Abuse Enquiry (which was ironically called the "Jersey Care Enquiry" cost £23,000,000 and purposefully excluded key witnesses.
      Someone is either very easily pleased or Jon is still doing PR for the establishment incompetents and child abusers.

      Perhaps 21:07 would care to expand on their statement "it's now recognised here [in UK?]as not able to be a credible point of reference for IICSA, for the many obvious reasons."
      Yes the reasons are obvious and the UK's entire IICSA is dead in the water if it accepts Jersey's fake Child Abuse Enquiry . Children were trafficked between UK and Jersey.

      This empty handwringing cost us £23,000,000 and while being superficially critical it technically exonerated the Jersey authorities for the decades of abuse they enabled and oversaw. The non prosecution decisions were "procedurally correct" (as opposed to being correct) and even the observations on the "Jersey way" were technically observations on the *perceptions* of the Jersey way and not of the observations on the "Jersey way"  itself.

      We paid for a Porsche but we got a bicycle. Bicycles are great but are poor value at £23,000,000
      The CoI was a £23,000,000 exercise in PR and weasel words. These children and young people were not damaged by "perceptions of the Jersey way", they were damaged by the Jersey way itself.
      £23,000,000 gave victims their chance to be heard but this could have been done cheaper with actual prosecutions and the conduct of that £23,000,000 CoI starkly confirms that the bad people and indeed the Jersey way is very much still in complete control as was predicted by Advocate Sinel in his evidence.

      Delete
    5. Give it a rest.
      The CoI finished 2 years ago. Yes it was expensive. Yes monies could have been used for other things. But they had a Terms of Reference to follow and the States now have a list of recommendations to implement. That is where we are and that the only show in Town.

      Delete
    6. "the only show in Town" That is correct Jon-boy. The £23,000,000 CoI was indeed just a "show", a pantomime, a mummers farce…..a big budget flop that purposefully excluded the good actors and let the bad actors run riot under two or even three secret identities.
      Indeed "they had a Terms of Reference" but they ignored the ones which did not fit their script.
      The cut scenes of the supposedly "public inquiry" included the investigation of the non-prosecution decisions of multiple bad actors such as the Maguires. This was "investigated" in secret by subcontractors who found that the decisions by the Bailhaches and others were "procedurally" correct.

      Amongst all the mock sympathy, handwringing and vacuous words of disapproval the fake CoI found in favour of their Jersey paymasters at every juncture, but wrapped these findings in weasel words like "PROCEDURALLY correct and the "PERCEPTION" of "the Jersey way".

      A proper CoI could have been carried out (without excluding witnesses) for less than half the cost. At least the conduct of this fake CoI was so bad that when proper administration and law finally come to Jersey the taxpayer will be
      able to recover the £23,000,000 from Eversheds and the individuals responsible.

      In the meantime children are not safe and unprosecuted abusers are walking the streets of this small island.
      Indeed, for the moment these people are celebrating that it is "the only show in Town". £23,000,000 has bought them a little time, that is all.

      Delete
    7. It is the only show in town because until the critics put words into action what else is there?

      Delete
  11. Nicholas Fiott was a Jersey merchant who featured prominently in the reform riots of 1769. It was said that he should be appointed as Constable of St Helier by the protestors. But he was protesting and persecuted by the acting Bailiff and his cronies over many years.
    He was sentenced by the Royal Court in 1764 "for behaviour alleged to be disrespectful and injurious to the jurisdiction of the court." He was ordered to ask for the pardon of God, His Majesty the King and the court and to pay a fine of 300 livres tournois. He then asked for an appeal which was refused and he was sent to prison. By way of a doleance he sought an appeal to the Privy Council and to be granted bail. Still in jail he appealed to the Privy Council and so it went on....
    We need to know about Jersey history and the traditions that are claimed to be so wonderful and cannot be changed. Such behaviour is not unique to Jersey of course but we must be aware that the struggles of the 18th century are still very much with us and all this needs to become part of the educational system.


    We need to know what the traditions of Jersey

    ReplyDelete
  12. When's the 2nd part going up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharrock J Spanker7 November 2019 at 18:18

      Yes when will it be up? We don't want to miss out on commenting first

      Delete
    2. Down in the basement with a flickering lightbulb7 November 2019 at 18:49

      Could you possibly inform us how long the next video interview will last? I just don't want my comment slating it to appear earlier than it would take me to watch the thing. Which I won't because nobody is interested.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Spanker and Mr. Lightbulb. Hope to have part two of the exclusive interview with Advocate Sinel posted after the weekend. Looking forward to your well reasoned and informed comments.

      Delete
  13. Sounds like you are talking to one person VFC.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A short (14 sec) clip of part two interview with Advocate Philip SINEL.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would like to see Philip Sinel and Stuart Syvret hold a Press Conference and show the Island everything they have got.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Give me the name of your landlord!8 November 2019 at 19:30

    Really? I would not want to see either of these fine but no longer young men naked!

    ReplyDelete
  17. So Deputy Rob Ward tells us in his report that there is concern the Jersey Way still exists. The man catches on quick doesn't he?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and it has also been picked up that it's Sam Mezec's job to sort it all out!!!
      And he's doing sweet FA!

      Delete
    2. Makes you wonder what the position of Minister of Children actual is.

      Delete
    3. No need to wonder. You can look it up.

      https://statesassembly.gov.je/assemblyreports/2019/r.124-2019.pdf

      I don't see "the Jersey Way" on that list, but I did see him on this blog speaking out against the Bailiff.

      It's always strange how some of you seem to hate the politicians who are on your side on this issue more than you hate the ones who are against you.

      Delete
    4. Young Mezec is the Minister of Children and he should be kicking a$$ to get this Jersey Way sorted out with power he supposedly has....or is that a faint facsimile....?

      Cause all I ever hear on the news is young Mezec trying to pass the responsibility of children onto all States Members by calling them a corporate parent....

      Well that's wunderbar, but then I question what is the point of having a Minister of Children if all he ever does is pass ultimate responsibity on to the whole Assembly, and soon after we hear the Jersey Way is still alive and kicking because nobody is doing anything about it...?

      Delete
    5. You seem a very confused person.

      If you're on this blog, it's presumably because you care about the welfare of children, yet you think it's bad for the Children's Minister to want to ensure that every politician is legally a corporate parent and required to protect children, rather than that incredibly important responsibility be vested in one here today gone tomorrow office.

      You might want to think this through a bit more.

      A good start would be to read the Care Inquiry report which itself, as you clearly haven't.

      Delete
  18. Noticed how the JEPaedo has kicked everybody off and the message "Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article." is on every story.
    Or can they not staff the website anymore due to silently reported cuts????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The JEP has been on a downward spiral for a while.
      They have been letting people go without replacement, the paper has been getting thinner and gradually more expensive and their Guernsey subsidiary has been sold. I agree that they probably no longer have anybody to moderate the comments and have decided to stop it.

      Delete
  19. Part Two of Exclusive interview with Advocate PHILIP SINEL.

    ReplyDelete