tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post3396503458851415305..comments2024-03-20T11:09:50.796+00:00Comments on voiceforchildren: A Witch Hunt............In The Public Interest? (2) voiceforchildrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-25141082336373388262014-06-03T22:48:44.044+01:002014-06-03T22:48:44.044+01:00I am yet to see any of these blogs have an impact ...I am yet to see any of these blogs have an impact on this Government, the judiciary or the civil service though.<br />So much talk about changes coming and how people are being badly treated but nothing ever happens and its 2 years since the Pitmans lost their case.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-89882460797358833672014-06-03T01:01:38.058+01:002014-06-03T01:01:38.058+01:00I find it interesting that the Viscount released i...I find it interesting that the Viscount released information about the Pitman's financial affairs although I am not sure, at this stage, whether it should be viewed as malicious and pro-establishment. The Pitman's financial affairs appeared in fairness to be well managed. The main liability, aside from the litigation liabilities, was the mortgage. And the other non litigation liabilities were relatively nominal. Unless all services such as water are pre-paid it is nearly impossible to avoid incurring debts that, in the event of becoming bankrupt, remain payable at the time the bankruptcy is declared.<br /><br />I suspect that the public interest element of the disclosure related more to the obscene cost of the case itself, a case which ought to have been relatively straightforward and low cost to progress as it mainly hinged on whether the advertisement was defamatory. What the Pitman case shows is that the minimum cost of a contested case in the Royal Court is likely to be £100,000 for each party represented.<br /><br />What I think your readers should know is that the government, the judiciary and the civil service in Jersey is facing some very grave problems that are unlikely to get better without positive action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-71635895735109549192014-05-30T23:19:49.294+01:002014-05-30T23:19:49.294+01:00If they were subsequently taken down because they ...If they were subsequently taken down because they broke Data Protection law, then it doesn't say much for the COI lawyers that they went up in the first place.Pólóhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08661092894104384856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-80298867864413392642014-05-30T18:51:31.204+01:002014-05-30T18:51:31.204+01:00I had a look on the COI website yesterday and read...I had a look on the COI website yesterday and read the documents you mentioned. Went on again today in order to study the documents and they had, as you point out, disappeared.<br /><br />Thankfully Stuart (Syvret) took the opportunity, while the documents were up, to download them. I must say that it all appears a tad bizarre. It could be the documents have been taken down because they broke data protection guidelines by publishing people's phone numbers, e-mail addresses, home addresses and so forth.<br /><br />Stuart has furnished a number of us with the documents which we can now study. My initial reading of the "rulings" published (now taken down) on the website did raise some alarm bells and it appears, what you say is correct, in that those who have the most to answer and stand accused of being part of the cover up have been granted legal representation and Interested Party Status. Where those who have been attempting to expose them have been granted nothing.<br /><br />Like I said, I'll need to study the (vanished) "rulings" in order to make a more clear judgement.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-15847479264045569682014-05-30T18:33:13.614+01:002014-05-30T18:33:13.614+01:00Now this is very, very spooky.
The Committee of I...Now this is very, very spooky.<br /><br />The Committee of Inquiry had published on its web site a number of applications for things like 'Interested Party' status, and legal funding, and things like that. <br /><br />In a nutshell, the rulings of the CoI were to, basically, tell every non-establishment applicant to bugger-off, and to say 'yes' to every establishment applicant, including the big powerful players with a direct interest because they look as though they're the 'bad guys' already, going by the long history of already published evidence. So this public inquiry is saying 'yes' to the Jersey Chief Minister, Health & Social Services, the cops etc, and saying 'no' to people like Mike Higgins, Syvret, the JCLA, Daniel Wimberley etc.<br /><br />But why have those applications and the rulings that were published by the CoI on their web site now suddenly gone? <br /><br />There's only one real answer to that, their spin-doctors told them their rulings were too embarrassing and too incredible. <br /><br />But isn't it a bit too late for that now? Did you VFC or anyone download them? <br /><br />Like Syvret would have said, Couldn't. Make. It. Up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-60997196033471218852014-05-30T12:33:06.470+01:002014-05-30T12:33:06.470+01:00'Repeated appeals'? One actually. And this...'Repeated appeals'? One actually. And this had to be done via the friends of one Michael Birt who had allowed the non-Article 6 ECHR compliant court to sit. Remember the Jersey 'appeal court' not only stated that it was none of their business to consider the evidenced fact of Jurat Le Breton's dishonesty in refusing to consider evidence against a paedophile friend (non ECHR compliant in itself) in the same document they criticised us for not initially appealing to them! Incredible. They even lied about the extent of Le Breton's involvement in the Jervis-Dykes cover-up seeking to play down the extent to which he was highlighted in the Stephen Sharp Report - never mind the 6 appendices. Then you had the Privy Council falsely claiming that they had no jurisdiction to look at the legal failings of Birt and his 'court'. Just simple facts I'm afraid. They call it 'the Jersey Way'.Trevor Pitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15197434138079787935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-73461324373861010222014-05-30T10:51:10.255+01:002014-05-30T10:51:10.255+01:00Corruption complicit creditor...How do you make th...Corruption complicit creditor...How do you make that assumption?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-71551856627900963922014-05-30T08:45:11.142+01:002014-05-30T08:45:11.142+01:00Read the intro, above the video...the topic clearl...Read the intro, above the video...the topic clearly is about the "decision to force them in to bankruptcy"...not the validity of the case. Surely a well trained legal mind understands the concept of answering the question that's been asked? Also - the repeated appeals have already dealt with the suggestion of bias, unconscious or otherwise, and considered the points before dismissing them. If, as claimed, this is an obvious and overt corruption of justice than Strasbourg will respond accordingly and the Pitmans will be exonerated and reparation will follow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-91009341672671488872014-05-30T05:33:09.122+01:002014-05-30T05:33:09.122+01:00Re: some comments posted here.
It's a bit fri...Re: some comments posted here. <br />It's a bit frightening to learn that having a dirty court and backroom deals between creditors, officials and the media is not as important to some as the idea of the plaintiff's resultant inability to repay a corruption-complicit creditor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-42300772697250563732014-05-30T05:27:22.849+01:002014-05-30T05:27:22.849+01:00They didn't need to ask you specifically about...They didn't need to ask you specifically about trust in the local mainstream media. Everyone already knows what you would say and think because your comments are a robot-like regurgitation of the party line. Believe it or not, most things are not even about you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-7110989974693463162014-05-29T20:49:54.333+01:002014-05-29T20:49:54.333+01:00Stuart's evidence will be submitted to the COI...Stuart's evidence will be submitted to the COI, how it is submitted is still a little unclear. Yes I will be interviewing him soon.voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-80857789643987012372014-05-29T20:35:08.015+01:002014-05-29T20:35:08.015+01:00VFC.
Changing the subject a bit. Would you know if...VFC.<br />Changing the subject a bit. Would you know if Stuart Syvret will still be giving evidence to the COI, now that he has been refused legal representation? Also as agreed, is he still going to give you an interview on this subject?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-45280450822021701152014-05-29T17:58:06.668+01:002014-05-29T17:58:06.668+01:00That isn't the topic actually. It is what you ...That isn't the topic actually. It is what you & the Jersey establishment spin-doctors would like the topic to be, but it isn't.<br /><br />The topic of these recent postings is, 'is the judicial apparatus of Jersey free of bias, non-partisan, non-politicised, are all people treated equally by the said apparatus and does it deliver proceedings that comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention?'<br /><br />The questions of whether the Pitmans were correct to have initiated a defamation action, of whether they were correct to have attempted the less severe means of addressing the debt, and of what their present employment activities might be, are all irrelevant to this present discussion.<br /><br />The topic here, and it is a topic of vastly greater 'public interest' importance than the petty details of their finances, is 'did the administration of justice in Jersey treat these two people fairly and objectively throughout the whole process?'<br /><br />If the Jersey judicial system treats anyone unfairly, if it even gives the appearance of treating certain people unfairly, then the administration of justice in your island is failing, and is not performing to established and accepted national and international standards. And that would be a matter of grave and broad public interest importance.<br /><br />My understanding of the case is that it is not in fact usual, in fact it appears to be unprecedented in your island, for the judicial authorities to give pro-active consent to access for publication of the details of the financial statements in a bankruptcy case. That is a prime example of bias by the system. However, of greater concern yet, it is my understanding that one of the members of the tribunal, a so-called 'Jurat' had an evidenced history of involvement in the concealment of child-protection failures, that this history was not declared at the outset and it follows the Jurat did not recuse, and this even though the then Deputy Pitman had a known, active, public role in politically opposing Jersey's history of child-protection failure, thus rendering anyone with an obverse history, such as the Jurat, objectively biased against Deputy Pitman. <br /><br />As a legal practitioner I can state with utter confidence that that was not a fair or lawful process. As another reader has already remarked, what is deeply concerning in this scenario is not, perhaps, that your local and strange judicial cliques should act in such ways, but that Crown authorities in London have permitted even the Jersey Court of Appeal to become so overtly politicised too. The rights or wrongs of the Pitmans' original defamation action are simply immaterial at law. The original tribunal was contaminated, contaminated even if, and this is being very generous to the tribunal, only with 'unconscious bias'. Ipso facto, it's finding was not lawful. And that is an end on it. <br /><br />That your Court of Appeal upheld the finding is in many shocking ways the most damming feature of the whole saga. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-88113172171464591772014-05-29T14:04:13.174+01:002014-05-29T14:04:13.174+01:00Getting back on topic surely the only motivation f...Getting back on topic surely the only motivation for making the Pitmans bankrupt was to divert them from doing it to themselves? The Remise "stunt" would have given them greater opportunity to shorten their length of bankruptcy and also reduce the amount of debt that had to pay back. Why else would they attempt to beat their creditors to it ? the Remise, had it succeeded, would have been more advantageous for them and therefore, less advantageous for their creditors The debt, following their failed case, had been hanging around for over a year and it didn't seem anyone was in a hurry to do anything until the Pitmans filed for Remise, in effect forcing their creditors to take the action in order to protect as much of the liability as possible. From what I can see no one has benefitted from this farce but, in the final analysis, it looks like a self inflicted wound from a pair of politicians that took themselves too seriously but never considered the consequences of their egos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-37958208127216096222014-05-29T09:02:25.149+01:002014-05-29T09:02:25.149+01:00for some views from an anonymous Jerseyman on the ...for some views from an anonymous Jerseyman on the current political scene and more related matters your readers should refer to the current www.tomgruchy.blogspot.com posting...Tom Gruchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01384387998228996741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-2589568876850072762014-05-29T08:59:14.106+01:002014-05-29T08:59:14.106+01:00unfortunately I missed the continuing Social Secur...unfortunately I missed the continuing Social Security Appeal hearing taking place at the Employment Tribunal premises behind the Ann Summers shop at the same time...this was open to the public although it concerned the affairs of a member of the public - not a States Member. Generally such proceedings are not published and the decisions are never made public although they are concerned with policy matters of very great "public interest". Strangely one States Member was present during this hearing - the appeal was rejected - and I hope that he will publish more information in due course and I do not know if the "accredited media" were there. The Social Security Department employed a specialist lawyer from outside the Island to represent their case too - the appellant represented himself....is that non-equality of arms "in the public interest" and should we all be made aware of it?<br />Tom Gruchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01384387998228996741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-1139024853301056942014-05-29T08:37:19.474+01:002014-05-29T08:37:19.474+01:00Sorry, just so I understand this correctly. Are yo...Sorry, just so I understand this correctly. Are you really saying that the reason you can't find a job is that the Establishment' are preventing you from doing so ? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-33344372894590572942014-05-29T08:35:26.107+01:002014-05-29T08:35:26.107+01:00there was nobody in the "press" box but ...there was nobody in the "press" box but a very young chap was taking notes from the public seats - no idea who he was....Tom Gruchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01384387998228996741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-55804031984927407552014-05-28T17:39:00.121+01:002014-05-28T17:39:00.121+01:00Tom Gruchy.
Was any of the State Media present in...Tom Gruchy.<br /><br />Was any of the State Media present in the court?voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-46901664989794135342014-05-28T17:37:24.783+01:002014-05-28T17:37:24.783+01:00Tom Gruchy.
Deputy James Baker is not an oppositi...Tom Gruchy.<br /><br />Deputy James Baker is not an opposition politician, so in the eyes of the State Media, one would presume his, or his buisness' court case, would NOT be in the public interest. Personally I've seen/heard nothing about it in the State Media yet I can read all about the Pitman's financial affairs deemed to be "in the public interest."voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-45862413391859922512014-05-28T17:29:19.007+01:002014-05-28T17:29:19.007+01:00In Royal Court No 1 today the case re Kilhey v Gra...In Royal Court No 1 today the case re Kilhey v Grafters before Commissioner Clyde Smith continued....as always in this court it was almost impossible to hear the proceedings but Deputy Baker (or his double) was present, presumably as a Director of Grafters. He did not speak but his lawyer made several representations regarding summonses made or to be made including one to the Data Protection Commissioner who had failed to turn up be represented for this hearing...the outcome was that the case (2009/474) will proceed at 10 am on Monday 9 June when the DP Commissioner is expected to show up. What it was all about this observer has little idea but feels obliged to comment about the case here "in the public interest" since it appears that a States Deputy is involved. But has the case been reported in the accredited media or elsewhere?Tom Gruchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01384387998228996741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-59085401194381786302014-05-28T16:33:59.421+01:002014-05-28T16:33:59.421+01:00Who did they ask because they never asked me?
This...Who did they ask because they never asked me?<br />This blog and its stories is almost like a virtual reality because if this was a serious posting then where is the legal advice in their counter claim?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-29886663292111331652014-05-28T16:13:04.837+01:002014-05-28T16:13:04.837+01:00I think your commentator deliberately avoids the k...I think your commentator deliberately avoids the key issue you highlight. We had fairly well paid jobs - though not as well paid as the one The individual behind Broadlands and the then editor of the JEP falsely told thousands of people was instead now giving us a fourfold increase in income.<br /><br />What is now stopping us or anyone else just get another one? Possibly your commentator has noticed the two little matters of record unemployment in the Island thanks to the incompetence of our ministers and their policies; and the other reality of anyone who has stood up and rocked the corruption/child abuse cover up boat - let alone well known Left-leaning political figures - getting jobs even when they are well qualified due to the Establishment.<br /><br />The history of this is long and certainly goes back at least - I have some documentation on this - to after the occupation. Another strand of the strategy aimed at driving people away in the hope of silencing them? Fortunately, thanks to the modern day internet links with other justice campaigners voices for truth can be head anywhere.<br /><br />And will continue to be.Trevor Pitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15197434138079787935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-44593147781919223132014-05-28T15:53:45.091+01:002014-05-28T15:53:45.091+01:00Just to correct the comment above the Privy Counci...Just to correct the comment above the Privy Council have refused to examine the case so the next stop is Strasbourg. Of course, their excuse for saying they did not have jurisdiction was incorrect - as actually pointed out by even the Viscount's advocate but there you go. Actually probably a positive thing as, in the words of a lawyer I once spoke to, the Privy Council links to Jersey appeals are not even ECHR compliant and just like buying a very expensive lottery ticket. As for the comment that 'we had better have a damn good case' - we haven't: we have an absolutely brilliant case which exposes just how deep the corruption in Jersey's 'justice system goes.Trevor Pitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15197434138079787935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591695769525894359.post-90673537998561551842014-05-28T15:42:25.768+01:002014-05-28T15:42:25.768+01:00Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?...Do you not see the contradiction in your argument? You say;<br /><br />"You could argue the same case for anybody being declared bankrupt and most jobs will not employ people who have been declared so its part and parcel of being made bankrupt."<br /><br />And then you go on to say they should get new jobs.............After explaining employers don't employ bankrupts!<br /><br />As was said earlier they were employed earning a joint income of around 90k I must ask the question again. "If they owed you 100’s of thousands of £’s would you cause them to be unemployed?"<br /><br />Shall I put it in simpler terms would you like half a loaf or no bread at all?voiceforchildrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.com