“I wouldn’t shut your eyes just yet
I wouldn’t turn the lights down yet
Because there are things you got to see here
There’re things you’ve got to believe with me.”
The quote above is from the song ‘En Diablo En El Ojo’ by Tindersticks – a marvellously lugubrious English group who, through singer Stuart Staples and his baritone delivery of accounts from the front line of drunken misery and ennui, deliver a grown-up commentary on real life.
Actually, that song is one of their more up-beat numbers – even though it does deal with the subject of unknown horrors.
I quote it – because as I work quietly and determinedly on my main task – preparing for the London Courts – those words keep running through my mind.
And those preparations are my main task.
Which is why I’m just doing this very brief post to let you know that I haven’t been terminated, gagged or arrested yet – though that could happen tomorrow - by all accounts of what was said in court today. I can’t say more than that at present, because of reporting restrictions.
No – if I appear to have gone quite on the blogging front – it’s because I’m instead immersed in what is the most important task I’ve undertaken in my life.
As I remarked in the previous posting – we only get one shot at this.
Win in London – and we, as a community, take the first, faltering steps towards the functioning administration of justice and effective checks and balances.
Lose in London – and its business as usual for the Jersey oligarchy.
That’s how important it is.
Which is why I have to put everything into it – everything - if you understand my meaning?
I cannot elaborate any further on these issues until we get to Court.
In the mean-time – bear in mind those words:
“I wouldn’t shut your eyes just yet
I wouldn’t turn the lights down yet”
Stuart.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
136 comments:
Courage mon brave!
We are with you and waiting.
"Which is why I’m just doing this very brief post to let you know that I haven’t been terminated, gagged or arrested yet – though that could happen tomorrow - by all accounts of what was said in court today. I can’t say more than that at present, because of reporting restrictions."
Why stop now? You haven't been bothered by what the courts say before. Have you been threatened?
Eyes wide open - Lights shining brightly!
The very best of luck!
OCCUPO DIES
Go get em Stuart
Good luck
Hi Stuart.
Good luck nah stuff the good luck bit...
Just go give it loads and get a result.
rs
From the outside looking in.
You do not have to be a genius to realise that there are serious problems on your island.
You do not have to be a genius to realise that you have a failing adminstration, a failing Bailiff, a failing Attorney General, a failing Health Service and a failing Justice system. You have elected representatives failing in their Manifestos in representing their electorate.
You do not have to be a genius to realise that there is something very very amiss.
If the Law Courts of the United Kingdom fail in their responsibilities indeed this HAS to be taken to the Court of Human Rights.
You are indeed a very courageous man who has for many months worked hard to support, listen and act for those who have been abused, blown the whistle etc. etc., People must wonder why you do it. Is it a personal quest to be a Hero, not at all. You believe in what most sane people believe in Justice. Sadly not many of your colleagues in the States of Jersey have your qualities or commitment and care even less about Justice for the Abused.
We are with you and waiting.
Arrest you? For What? Honesty?
Have I been threatened?
Yes.
Not by the court - yet.
But by Bill Bailhache - in writing.
Stuart
The light's shining brightly Stuart. We're with you all the way, watching and waiting. Go get 'em and good luck!
he was silly enough to put it in writing!!! best of luck you are doing a great job
Oh - Bill & his puppet have threatend me in writting on many occasions.
His puppet - in case you're curious - is Emma Martins - real-life duaghter of Bergerac TV cop actor John Nettles.
She's Jersey's Data Protection Commisioner - who has harrased me and Bellwood for two years - whilst simply ignoring or rejecting every single complaint made against the Jersey oligarchy.
Incidently, Bill was dumb enough to admit he was "legaly" "advising" her in these matters in an e-mail to me over a year ago.
You might now uderstand just why the so-called public oversight group which was set up to monitor the Jersey Police child abuse invetigation - which she Chaired - was set-up - and why it recently collapsed - with zero credibility.
Perhaps that's why the Jersey oligarchy are so keen to bring back the fictional charachter Jim Bergerac - in the hope that the actor John Nettles might confer some credibility on our establishment - and salvage the shattered proffesional reputation of his daughter.
Stuart
"But by Bill Bailhache - in writing."
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
The smelly old stinker!
Stuart, if you get put in prison (which you won't) but if ever you did, I promise I will come over to the jail, sit outside it wearing my yellow dress, play my mandolin and sing protest songs about these corrupt mobsters, and I will make sure that I sing my new improved version of the bluegrass standard Bill Bailey (Bailhache) as well.
Zoompad
Stuart I worry for you.
What will happen if the oligarchy somehow (God forbid) prevent you from going to court in London? Do you have a back-up plan? Does someone (John Hemming perhaps) have a copy of all the evidence you want to present? Can someone go on your behalf if necessary?
Data Protection Staff
THE COMMISSIONER : Mrs Emma Martins.
Emma Martins
The Data Protection Commissioner acts as an independent statutory authority and has a remit to provide effective regulation and enforcement of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, provide advice/guidance to business undertakings and individuals. Also provides guidance and recommendations to the States of Jersey in response to international data protection legislative developments. Mrs Martins joined the department as Deputy Data Protection Registrar in 2000 and was appointed Registrar in April 2004.
Telephone : 01534 441064
Fax : 01534 441065
E-mail: e.martins@gov.je
The Commissioner has the following support staff :-
DEPUTY DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER : Paul Vane.
Paul Vane
The Deputy Data Protection Commissioner is responsible for the day to day running of the Data Protection Office, and acts for the Commissioner in her absence. The Deputy Commissioner is also the main point of contact for complaints in relation to the way personal data has been handled, and can provide advice and guidance to businesses and individuals on data protection issues.
Paul joined the department in August 2004 from the Jersey Financial Services Commission where he worked as a Compliance Manager. The Deputy Commissioner’s direct contact details are:-
Telephone: 01534 441062
Fax: 01534 441065
E-mail: p.vane@gov.je
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT MANAGER : Miss Vivien Evans.
Viv Evans
The Administrative Support Manager deals with all notification matters concerned with the notification of data controllers and processors that are based in Jersey. She maintains an active on-line database of those notified and provides essential administrative support to the department.
Vivien joined the department in January 2001 and has been a key factor in obtaining a significant improvement in the overall compliance standards of personal data controllers and processors in Jersey. For all notification queries please contact Vivien in the first instance, on:-
Telephone : 01534 441063
Fax : 01534 441065
E-mail : v.evans@gov.je
ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT ASSISTANT : Mr. David Lawson.
David Lawson
The administration support assistant ensures that all administration matters are processed accurately and maintains the considerable reference documentation in an efficient and accessible manner. Since his arrival in September 2002, David has also been instrumental in developing numerous IT solutions to assist in the efficient running of the department and is responsible for keeping our website up to date. David's direct contact details are:-
Telephone : 01534 441064
Fax : 01534 441065
E-mail : d.lawson@gov.je
**************************
Zoompad
"I wouldn’t turn the lights down yet" - not until Earthhour at least. Seriously wish you success in your case in court.
Can't help but be reminded of one of the Duke OF Wellington's less well known quotes:
"Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle one".
Stuart.
Good luck with London. If you want to make a documentary of it all give me a ring.
Is the evidence shared with others?
Oh yes.
In fact, since I was first threatened by Emma Martins & Bill, I've taken great care to ensure all evidence is safley out of reach.
And can another person - like John, for example, deliver the case - if our oligarchy are dumb enough to prevent me from leaving Jersey, in Soviet Union style?
Yep.
Stuart
Stuart,
You say that the court hearing is in London on 17th March. Could you give more precise details; namely, what court, time and how long (1 day or more?) that you expect this initial hearing to last. You might get an audience from someone keen to hear the opposing arguments with an open mind.
"You do not have to be a genius to realise that you have a failing adminstration, a failing Bailiff, a failing Attorney General, a failing Health Service and a failing Justice system. You have elected representatives failing in their Manifestos in representing their electorate."
Now you can also add unmanned borders to our problems.
Our home affairs minister admitted yesterday that we do not have enough customs officers on the island and this will not change until next year at least.
Not enough money you see.
What a shame we can no longer tax the finance industry as we always used to. Some of the problems mentioned above wouldn't exist if the COM had not decided to take from the poor and give to the rich.
Oh well Stuart looks like Bill the Bayleaf wants to take you with him into retirement, I look on it as a form of class war - the boy from Clarence Court versus the landed gentry! Quite clearly you will have breached some law or other and will be penalised - I suggest that here are probably banks of civil servants all gunning for you!
You are not wanting to be a hero or compared to any great activists, are you!
You just want practices that are unfair and unjust exposed for what they are - you just want glass ceilings and old boy networks broken up - you just want blind eyes opened...............I have read a lot of Jersey history and every few decades someone like you comes along and has a go - usually the upper classes keep their veneer of respectability and keep us in our places.
This time the tide just might turn!
Several questions today
Why are the public allowed into a Court to see what's going on, but yet are then warned not to mention on a website what they, as a member of the public, were allowed to hear in that court? Why the double standard? Doesn't that discriminate against those unable to get there in person?
Did Chief Minister Le S really need to attend some far off meeting with 4 others at a total cost in the region of £1250 on chartered flight costs alone?
Why does the BBC moan-in presenter openly sound irritable with Neil and others who dare to question the oligarchy, yet Bridget is never questioned or interrupted and given free reign to espouse her oli-supporting views?
Where are Pitman and Southern being persued through the courts for assisting people in attaining a way to vote, but yet another candidate is not being persued despite a statement against them?
Stuart
The mace in the Scottish Parliament carries the inscription "Compassion, Wisdom, Justice and Integrity." These are the same principles you are fighting for on Jersey. I don't think I am being presumptuous in saying the Scottish nation is right behind you.
"Perhaps that's why the Jersey oligarchy are so keen to bring back the fictional character Jim Bergerac"
Perhaps they would like HDLG to revert to being the fictional "Bureau Des Etrangers" as well and then all the things that really happened in that awful place can be fictional too!!!
With you and your mandolin Zoompad. have a good range of protest songs at the ready!
Proud Survivor
The power play moves on. There is the possibility for a measure of justice but the bad faith of our colonial administrators mean you have a sisyphean task. I think that the most powerful weapon you have is the fact that after every dirty trick, political nobbling, corrupt collusion, time wasting and record-rigging exercise you remind them of the one thing they can't gainsay - "I'm still here you m-f's!"
"Quite clearly you will have breached some law or other and will be penalised - I suggest that here are probably banks of civil servants all gunning for you!"
Stuart,
You will NOT be going to prison, and I will not be wearing my yellow dress or playing my mandolin outside the prison either.
Put that horrible thought right out of your head (I can't play the mandolin too well yet, so it will be a relief!)
If these sleazers try to pull that one, boy oh boy, we will have some fun with them!
This Bill Boneheadache, he really is well out of his depth now, and if he is reading this (which of course he will be then my best advice to him would be to book a nice long tax haven cruise in some nice sunny place, and enjoy his loot oops, I mean honestly earned wages (what an unfortunate typo)while he can, you know, "make hay while the sun shines" that sort of thing. Perhaps Frank Wa*ker might invite him round, have a nice get together, maybe?
The truth is, if these IDIOTS persist in the persecution of Stuart Syvret, one of the most decent men walking about on the island of Jersey, and champion for the survivors of hideous child abuse at Haut de la Garenne, then they are going to rue the day.
You may not be a Christian Stuart, but I am, and I'm not the only one who is praying about this situation by a long chalk. And it's a very funny thing, that sometimes, when we pray, God shows us things that we had not noticed before - revealation, if you like.
What is a court of justice? That's one of the questions that I've been considering just lately. Is a court of justice a place where justice is seen to be done, or is it a network of old men who are on the make?
We've always been told that the courts are proper places of justice. It is a very good idea to find out all about what a courtroom and a judge really is, if you are anticipating becoming party to any kind of judicial proceeding. After all, one must make sure that everything is done in a proper judicial manner!
Don't lose a single wink of sleep over these IDIOTS, Stuart, because all their IDIOT squirming out of trouble plans will ever do for them is to drag them deeper and deeper into the quicksand. The only way these IDIOTS can escape from the justice they truly deserve is to do what rats on a sinking ship do! And when the flea ridden old chancers have all gone, and the dirty perverts are all in jail then perhaps Jersey might have some chance of being a decent place to raise a family at last!
Zoompad
On the day, the room was packed with more than 700 people. Everyone expected a lively debate, but none realised quite how dramatic it would be.
Wilberforce took the podium first. Having eloquently presented his case he attempted to undermine Darwin’s supporters with a provocative question: was Thomas Huxley descended from an ape on his grandfather’s or grandmother’s side of the family? Huxley, another formidable public speaker, responded sharply that he was not ashamed of his ancestry, but that ‘he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth’.
Huxley’s suggestion that he would rather have an ape for an ancestor than a bishop caused an uproar.
Having heard Sarah Ferguson's speech today I know what Huxley must have been feeling.
!'d also rather be related to apes than an ill informed states members.
Sadly this is not possible.
P.Perchard
Stuart
The threatening emails and the threatening letters from Jersey's Bailiff and Jersey's Attorney General are all you really need to take to The London Court. Its criminal!
Data Protection Staff
THE COMMISSIONER : Mrs Emma Martins.
Amazing isn't it! From a little document that Sir Martyn Le Quesne produced in the early 80's, it has not been long for a whole empire to have been built upon it. I seem to recall a desire to curb States' Employees at that time too little did they realise how this would form a Department that would grow like Alice.
I suppose that is progress and in this age and time we do have to be protected.
Protected from what and who I ask? I am sure the person who originally drafted the Data Protection paper could not envisage a time it may be used to impede a good, peoples' politician from conducting a peaceful, legal and lawful fight to gain justice for members of his electorate!
It is wise to avoid physical, mental and verbal violence as the lack of it focuses the soul on the important issues at hand. To those who feel they can only resort to aggression try it - it really works. It calms the soul and helps free one from the hurts of the past. It does not negate the hurts but puts them into true perspective.
The people who are hurt and know their aggressor/s have a focus for their hate. A non-violent focus is better for the sufferer. You are far stronger in some cases than a person who has not suffered at all and as and when you overcome your torment you can use that knowledge to do good.
For those who don't know what to do. Please don't cry alone or in a crowd - find someone to help you to move on and be strong and work towards justice for fellow sufferers and to stop the sort of suffering you went through happening again in the future as I know some of you already are doing.
Maybe someone on this blog knows of a good counsellor. I know I could do it but don't have training so it is not possible. I know it is all a question of trust and it is not easy to trust, especially an annonymous blog poster. In the meantime historic abuse sufferers please take care! The course of true justice does seem slow sometimes.
From the original user of
Truth Will Out
Ahimsa
Stuart,
John Richardson - Ogley's new number 2 - wasn't he the senior civil servant involved in the Connex contract fiasco and the 'flawed' tender process? I recall that Ted Vibert raised serious misgivings about this man's integrity during the inquiry.
Wasn't he also the Chief Officer at Transport and Technical Services, which managed to spend over £4 million on Consultant's fees to persuade States members that this was the only viable source for waste management?
It seem's that we have an obviously suitable choice for Ogley's replacement, when he eventually goes.
Limpet
It's a parliamentary assembly and not a school debating sociey.... bwahahahaaa..... if only he could appreciate just how funny that is!
I wonder if the States will ever collectively act well enough to be considered a proper grown-up government!
John Pinel CEO Jersey Post sacked.
VC old boy must have upset someone to lose his job for life! First to go and by no means last.
It's a parliamentary assembly and not a school debating sociey....
A kind fatherly rebuff would not have been out of place as the gentleman was new - A hint of intolerance maybe? We will have to wait and see.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity but if
you want to test a man's character -give him power!
(Abraham Lincoln, Former US President, 1809-1865)"
None of us are perfect are we Mr B.
Truth Will Out
£12,000,000...
The price of ignorance.
Re charter flight for T le S, Ozouf etc. I may be wrong but I think the pilot (Lee Durrel) only has a private pilots licence and not a commercial licence. Our politicians and civil servants were probably not insured. You may say "so what", but the taxpayers would have to pick up the bill if something had happened.
She shouldn't be doing charter flights and taking money for it unless licensed. Let alone being against Reg of Undertakings and what about conflict of interest? Was the charter flight put out to tender?
This is sooooooo wrong
Excellent video here re:planning application anomalies - well done VFJ
You really are a nasty individual
Anybody who disagrees with you is part of the so called conspiracy
If our judiciary is so bad why are the streets safe at night
If our hospital so bad where are the bodies
You have no proof and all you do is sneer and pout. Grow up and get a life you snivelling, pompous lay about
Linkmeister.
Thanks for putting the link up
BARIO TUNDY
SACK MIKE POLLARD
"You really are a nasty individual
Anybody who disagrees with you is part of the so called conspiracy
If our judiciary is so bad why are the streets safe at night
If our hospital so bad where are the bodies
You have no proof and all you do is sneer and pout. Grow up and get a life you snivelling, pompous lay about"
Well well well, what have we here?
Don't you have a name?
Zoompad
"You really are a nasty individual....etc"
You know, Jimmy, if that's you -you're going to have to try and disguise yourself more effectively - you silly little man.
A number of very obvious flaws in your argument - which is, frankly, pathetic - even by Jersey oligarchy standards.
1: Our streets are not safe at night.
2: Even though they're not as dangerous as some places - an awful lot of other crime - as opposed to street-crime - takes place here.
3: The extremely well-evidenced crooks who are on the side of the Jersey oligarchy don't get prosecuted by our failed excuse for a prosecution service.
4: What passes for a judiciary in Jersey is - manifestly - non-functioning - by the application of all accepted standards of established British jurisprudence and ECHR case-law.
5: I - we - do - as a matter of fact - have very substantial quantities of very hard proof - proof of a variety of extremely serious malfeasances and failings on the part of public administration in Jersey.
6: Evidence I'm so confident of - I'm ready and willing to be cross-examined on it - under oath in court in London.
7: Putting that legal case together - in addition to everything else I do - has caused me to work seven-day weeks for some months. I haven't had a holiday in two years.
8: "If our hospital is so bad - where are the bodies"?
That question - though it be posed metaphorically - will be answered in the fullness of time.
Mark those words; mark them well.
Believe me - the very expensive clowns who occupy the upper-reaches of the Jersey civil service have - this time - wrought their own destruction.
Stuart
Just as George Dubya Bush & Tony Bliar will doubtless face international courts within the decade, so shall many Jersey functionaries be asked more than a few awkward questions in a local context.
Already possessing abundant evidence of bias, discrimination, negligence & criminality among numerous politicians & civil servants, but simultaneously faced with the prospect of local "justice" as administered by the inept & ignorant Bailhache Bros, what is a crapaud to do?
Wait for Spring, that's what...
Best speeches of the day by:
Dan Wimberley, Mike Higgins and Stuart Syvret.
Most ignorant speeches of the day by:
Sarah Ferguson, Terry Le Main and Jimmy Perchard.
The CTV news reports that the incinerator rescindment debate was lost because of the penalty of 50million - however DW was able to quote several methods that would have costs far less than the pup we have been sold - this was conveniently lost in reporting!
No doubt The Jersey Establishment Press - will report in a similar vein - and have another politician in their midst who will be demonised and portrayed as a bumbling idiot.
One actual bumbling idiot is smoothly suited booted and brillcreamed Jimmy Perchard.
He did not execute himslef at all at all well during question time - but in the eyes of our "journalists' he looks the part and no doubt will be portrayed in a good light - what does our media care of substance!
On the incinerator I suspect that the bigger picture is that we will burn Guernseys waste...afterall that island is heading for bankruptcy by all accounts............well at least they have not sold out their island and culture as manifestly a s the borough of Jersey!
As Luke Le Rendu book title rights postures we are an Independant Dependancy!
You really are a nasty individual
Anybody who disagrees with you is part of the so called conspiracy
If our judiciary is so bad why are the streets safe at night
If our hospital so bad where are the bodies
Whoever you are you do not sound particlarly pleasant yourself. Our streets are not that safe now given the cases that appear in the JEP for assault etc.
As for your other comment, well.....let's say that one is one too many.
If your opinion of Stuart is so low and biased, why oh why do you bother to read his blog? or does the truth hurt?
"You have no proof"
There is proof by the cartload!
Proof of state corruption in Jersey, proof of the most dispicable and wicked crimes against vunerable people in Jersey AND in the UK, and proof of the collusion between the Jersey and UK government to blatently cover up the most wicked crimes that a human being can commit.
Those who conspired and are STILL conspiring even now to cover up thoses wicked crimes are just as guilty in the eyes of the law as the wicked scoundrels who actually committed them. That is the law.
So, Jim lad, I hope you are preparing yourself for the plank walk.
"A man of perverse heart does not prosper;
he whose tongue is decietful falls into trouble"
Zoompad
TARIO BUNDY
To reiterate
Before you read this, make a nice cup of tea, and put on the Moody Blues record, "Go Now"
*****************************
Lundy urged to stand down over abuse case
Belfast man’s role as Jersey director of education called into question
By Ciaran McGuigan
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Mario Lundy, director of education, Jersey.
The Ulsterman who heads Jersey’s education system has faced a call for his suspension while a major police investigation into widespread abuse in children’s homes on the island continues.
Belfast-born Mario Lundy, the island’s director of education, faced the call from the floor of the States of Jersey, the island’s parliament, during a bad-tempered parliamentary questions session.
Mr Lundy is one of a string of leading figures in Jersey to have links with the so-called ‘House of Horrors’, Haut de la Garenne, having worked there for a period before it closed. He strenuously denies any suggestion of wrongdoing.
The former teacher also worked at its successor, Les Chenes, where further allegations of physical abuse against staff members are being examined by the probe.
Police continue to investigate claims by more than 160 former residents of Jersey’s children’s homes about decades of abuse — both physical and sexual — stretching from the 1960s until Haut de la Garenne was closed in 1986, at its successor Les Chenes and a number of other children’s facilities.
During their probe launched earlier this year, cops uncovered four underground cellars at Haut de la Garenne, believed to have been used as makeshift dungeons during the home’s grim past. Former residents of the home described them as “punishment rooms” where they were subjected to physical abuse.
Remains believed to have belong to five children aged between four and 11-years-old were also discovered.
Earlier this year the island’s Channel TV revealed the links of a number of Jersey’s most-respected figures with the Haut de la Garenne home, including current education director Mr Lundy. The former teacher — who was raised in the Rosetta area of Belfast and is a former pupil of St Mary's CBS — worked there for a period in the 1980s before moving to Les Chenes.
He is now Jersey’s education minister’s chief advisor.
During the Jersey parliament’s last questions, Senator Stuart Syvret said that it was “totally inappropriate” for the Belfast man to remain at work while the investigation is ongoing.
Senator Syvret is the island’s former health minister, who was removed from that post in September last year after he blew the whistle on a harsh punishment regime in a home where children as young as 11 were kept in solitary confinement.
He has been an outspoken critic of ministers, civil servants and social workers, whom he has accused of failing to protect children, but he was dismissed in September last year after losing a vote of confidence in Jersey’s parliament.
Mr Syvret, under parliamentary privilege, asked Chief Minister Frank Walker: “In the event of a very senior States employee being under serious police investigation for repeated episodes of violent child abuse, would the chief minister consider that to be a sufficiently serious matter and of sufficient reputational risk for the States of Jersey to at least merit suspension?”
Later in the debate he asked: “Does the chief minister really not consider, given the seriousness of the issue and the nature of the investigations that are taking place, that it is wholly inappropriate for Mario Lundy, the chief officer of the education department to remain at work?”
Senator Walker replied: “I need not answer the question, but may I express my abhorrence at the question and the fact that the senator has yet again flagrantly and knowingly broken the rules of this Assembly.”
Sunday Life last week contacted Mr Lundy’s office for comment on the call for his suspension, but a spokeswoman for the island’s Department of Education, Sport and Culture said: “I am afraid we cannot speak on individual cases and Mario is not giving interviews himself.”
Zoompad
May the light be with you.
Stuart.
Just "had my say" here http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/02/26/bbc-admit-we-got-it-wrong/#comment-22725 and I am sure it won't get published by the RAG so hope you don't mind if I put it on here.
MY SAY.
Once more another piece of priceless "Journalism" from the Jersey Establishment Post.
I believe the complainant to the BBC, was none other than Matthew Spurr, isn't he comrade Walker's step son or something?
Furthermore and more importantly, the real message, appears to be getting lost in the JEP's "Journalism"
Senator Syvret said the words "we are talking about dead children here Frank"
Now whether Big Frank said "we are trying to show Jersey off internationally" or "you are trying to SHAFT Jersey internationally" in the context of the conversation, basically appears to amount to the same thing. Which is "never mind the kids, what about Jersey's reputation"?
Frank Walker has left his mark on this island and it's inhabitants, well it's more of a scar than a mark. It will be a very sad day when he returns to these shores and is able to inflict anymore of his will upon us.
SPIKE BOLLARD
Amazing - An item which was broadcast "live" for all to hear - glory be its not what you say it's who you know. Nepitism.
After showing glimmering signs of hope... the rag returns to form.
Anti-Incinerator common sense totally over the heads of most of the gangsters and halfwits.
Big respect to Dan W for all that, shame it was a waste of time.
Stuart, have you heard anything from Jack Straw yet? Because I haven't. I wonder, he is being so quiet on this subject, I hope he hasn't been kidnapped and been replaced with a robotic cardboard cutout of Jack Straw or something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdS3cbZ5FlY
Zoompad
Parallels?
Sun, sea and sewage in the playground of the rich in Dubai
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article5607619.ece
Please take note all who would gleefully further gild our lilly...
Yes - the BBC in Jersey was corrupted - and "went native" - many, many years ago.
Much like Rankine Television - the oligarchy has co-opted them.
You know, BBC Jersey are so corrupt they still have the sheer gall to call me every couple months - when they want to give me a slagging over something - but still - repeatedly - extraordinarily - and in total defiance of broadcasting law and the BBC Charter - will not allow me a balancing appearance on a Sunday Talkback programme to speak about such matters as the solitary confinement regime used unlawfully against children - as confirmed in the Howard League report.
And even one appearance would still not balance out the three dedicated programs they gave to Big Frank Walker last year - during which, incidentally, he was showered with groveling sychophancy and protected from all meaningful challenge.
I guess that's the influence which comes of marrying a senior BBC Jersey staffer, Fiona Spur - who's son can then use her connections to complain to BBC bosses.
Her, her various relatives - and Frank's other cocktail party mates at BBC Jersey - like The Dud -- and Hamish Marrette-Crosby - and their mainland connections - have always enabled BBC Jersey to pull for the oligarchy when the chips are down.
I mean - just how much more extraordinary an example could you imagine than BBC South-West doing what turned out to be an award-winning short documentary on Jersey's illegal solitary confinement regime - and other examples of abuse - only for the BBC Jersey crew to attempt to get it spiked - and when that failed - calculatedly and proactivly give the TV program virtually zero pre-broadcast publicity?
And then - the next day - carrying on with a 2 hour, mundane news agenda on the radio - in which they contrived to make not one, single solitary word of reference to the TV programme?
Frankly - I don't even bother to listen to BBC Jersey radio any more. It's quite bad enough when one can't escape it in the States members' computer room - without voluntarily exposing oneself to the sound of Rogger - 'Rush Limbaugh' - Barra indulging every pro-establishment caller - and angrily interrupting the flow of anyone expressing an anti-establishment view.
In fact - it's fair to say that BBC Jersey only actually did one decent thing during the entire episode - and that was capture Walker's obnoxia and true nature when he thought he was off-camera.
But, hell, they only even did that by accident.
But - should anyone wish to refresh their memory as to what Walker actually said and how he behaved - which is in marked contrast to The Rag angle today - check out this YouTube clip.
Someone else will have to put up a hyperlink for us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VEBZxEnPj4&feature=PlayList&p=5309A592BC3E8FC0&playnext=1&index=5
It called - for reasons which will become apparent - "Shaft".
Enjoy.
Stuart
Hi Stuart.
Frank Walker.. you know and i know and everyone else who has seen it knows...
The utter rubbish on the the rags front cover sums it up really. We are not bloody stupid, this makes me so angry cant the village media idiots not get it into there stupid heads that the internet is here & kicking ass..
Youtube up Jersey Media idiots go to youtube ..
My god
Frank Walker in my opinion Shafting an island near you
rs
Shaft
LARIO MUNDY
SHAFT
In case anyone wants to read the so called BBC's 'damning report' they spoke of in tonight's rag, you'll find it here.
Frank Walker DID say: "You're trying to shaft Jersey internationally" and no matter how anyone tries to dress it up the meaning of what was said is still the same...both the edited and the unedited version. In my opinion the complaint should not have been upheld.
Whilst I'm grateful for the flood of support, as expressed in the many comments - I'm afraid most of them are too defamatory in respect of - err - certain allegations.
By all means - express yourselves robustly - but I prefer to focus my allegedly defamatory comments on child abusers - and those who have perverted the course of justice by concealing child abuse.
I'm ready - and very willing - to see those bastards in court - come and have a go if you think you're hard enough - but I could do without the frankly distracting irrelevance of other matters.
Oh - and just a reminder - whilst I fully understand the recourse to some old fashioned Anglo-Saxon - I think we need to keep the intensity of expletives within bounds suitable for a family site.
Thanks
Stuart
May I suggest that all who feel that the BBC's Complaints Department are guilty of insulting our intelligence and are wrong in their decision to uphold a complaint, regarding the manner in which the brilliant Jeremy Paxman conducted his interview, write to the BBC complaints Department, cc'd to Jeremy Paxman stating that we disagree totally with their findings. Furthermore, we are very suspicious that the actual letter of complaint seems to have come from a very interested party, probably the step-son of the said Mr Frank Walker.
BBC Complaints,
PO Box 1922
Glasgow
G2 3WT
Jeremy Paxman Esq
The Editor
BBC Newsnight
Room G680
Television Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7RJ
Truth Will Out
What a triumph for our esteemed former Chief Minister, eh? Well, at least his reputation is intact and that is what really matters, of course. It must have been quite an ordeal to come up against proper BBC journalism, the poor man.
I'm sure I heard him accuse you, Stuart, of "shafting Jersey internationally", but apparently this was distorted and misleading...yeah right!
It was a PARTIAL APOLOGY..............now please lets desist from referring to the former chief minister - it sullies this fine blog!
Jeremy Paxman saw Frank Walker for what he was, and exposed him, Frank said "You're trying to shaft Jersey internationally" and its caught on camera for the whole world to see. Jeremy and his legal team know that Frank has "friends", and loads of money. They know that the damage that they wanted to do is done, so to stop any hassle, they say OK Frank we must have misheard, you didnt say. "You're trying to shaft Jersey internationally".
what frank walker accused you of stuart was using Haut de la Garenne as a vehicle for your visceral hatred of what you call the oligarchy, (for which read anyone who disagrees with you). In that he was right, as a review of your blog shows.
now let me get this straight - the BBC complaints people uphold the complaint against newsnight, which means they've been got at by the oligarchy, right?
warcup and gradwell - two well respected english coppers - appear on the scene and suggest all was not as honest Lenny said it was, and they've been got to by the oligarchy too.
if you lose your big London court case, I guess that will be because the oligarchy have got to the english judge as well?
my my, their reach really is long isn't it?
is there anyone, apart from you, they just can't corrupt?
you just couldn't make it up ... could you?
Wrank Falker 2 : BBC 2
No public apology
but this was after an appeal on the previous finding
Wrank Falker 1 : BBC 4
Anybody smile ironically at Wrank's recent need to restore his reputation
God he's got a short memory.
Stuart.
Just another "have my say" on the FILTHY RAG's opinion here http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/02/26/a-victory-for-the-truth/
My say.
Sterling "Journalistic" work Shipley and Bright. You are such a credit to "Journalism" you both must feel so proud of the contibrution you have made to your proffession.
Does our ex chief minister wear a pinkie ring like Sir Fred Goodwin.
"What Frank Walker accused me of.....etc"
Facts dear boy - facts.
Most inconvenient things
Let's guide you through it, shall we?
1: The origins of the child protection controversy.
Long before HDLG was on the scene as a controversy - even before I was aware of any covert police investigation - I had concluded - absolutely correctly - that Jersey's child protection system had failed catastrophically.
I even gave an honest answer to that effect in the States.
The culpable civil servants - up to their necks in shared malfeasances - immediately thought, 'Christ - we've got to get rid of him'.
They colluded in approaching Walker & co to have me sacked.
Walker - like the blithering idiot he actually is - let his partisan political instincts run away with him - under the influence of Ozouf and Ogley - and decided it would be an opportune time to mount what was always going to be their inevitable political move against me.
As the very well-evidenced chronology shows - it was Walker and his Council of Minister who initiated the "political" battle - they used the issue in an act of ethically bankrupt - and frankly, stupid - political opportunism to get rid of me.
They used the situation as political capital - and damn the vulnerable kids.
Genuine concern about child protection came a very distant second in their considerations.
The facts were actually the reverse of what you state - in that it was Walker, Ozouf, Ogley - the rest of the clowns - who seized upon, and used as a supposed motive, 'upset civil servants' in order to pursue their "visceral hatred" of me.
It is, in fact - deeply illustrative of just how inadequate people like Walker and the Jersey oligarchy in general are; just consider - would any other cabinet in democratic, western Europe - have chosen to sack a Social Services Minister who had uncovered gross failings in child protection; sack him on the supposed grounds that by objecting to such failure he was "Undermining Staff Moral"? And that was somehow of greater concern than helping children who had been kept in solitary confinement for two months?
No - Frank & Co blew it - they got it wrong - catastrophically.
Backed the wrong horse - even put their shirts on it.
They put cynical political opportunism over and above holding to account expensive senior civil servants who had failed to protect vulnerable children.
Disastrous political errors just don't come much worse.
Frank - in his dreams - harboured some expectation of getting a Knighthood once he'd sailed off on his gin palace.
Well - if such a scenario was ever faintly plausible - he and the would-be 'Lady' Fiona have sacrificed it - in order to protect a handful of grossly incompetent, lying, ethically bankrupt charlatans in the senior reaches of Jersey's civil service - an expensive collection of clowns - who Walker should have sacked - rather than utterly destroying his legacy and political reputation in order to protect.
2: The BBC; - I alone - and I know an awful lot of other people out there in Jersey - have got a files of complaints which have been made by different - read 'ordinary' - people in Jersey concerning the comical degrees of bias - indeed, the open corruption - of BBC Jersey. A catalogue of complaints which have been submitted over a period of many years.
Now, there could be one or two up-holdings of complaints I may have missed - but the fact is every - single - solitary - complaint - made against BBC Jersey by ordinary people, and non-establishment politicians here, has been rejected.
Now - there are two conclusions we could draw from that fact.
A) The law of averages has been utterly trumped - every single ordinary Jo or Johanna have been utterly wrong in their complaints - and only oligarchy members have ever had correct complaints against BBC Jersey?
Or:
B) Being a multi, multi-millionaire ex-media-magnate - with powerful connections and who happens to be married to a former very senior BBC Jersey staffer - finds a more ready audience amongst BBC bosses?
I'd pretty confidently bet on which of those two possibilities is correct.
But - let's put it to the test, shall we?
I haven't bothered doing it yet, because I've had far more important things to be working on - such as protecting child abuse survivors from the biases and corruptions of the Jersey establishment - but I have a semi-completed dossier of complaints against BBC Jersey.
And, in addition to time-pressures - as explained above - the exercise would - and will - be utterly futile.
Even though on a strongly evidenced basis, I can demonstrate far, far worse examples of bias and malfeasance than anything Walker even complained about.
But - maybe in the next week or so - I'll finalise that dossier; indeed - invite others who share my concerns over BBC Jersey to add their complaints as well.
Once I've completed it - I'll even put it on this site as a full blog posting - so everyone can see the complaints and the evidence for them.
And then?
Then we shall wait and see whether BBC bosses attach any importance to complaints from mere plebs - as opposed to well-connected multi-millionaires - married to ex-senior BBC staffers.
It promises to be a fascinating exercise.
3: Warcup & Gradwell: two 'respected' English coppers?
Don't know how the hell you got that idea. Respected - they ain't.
But even if they were - they certainly aren't any more.
Not since they effectively destroyed the possibility of any further prosecutions succeeding - by mounting that insane press conference - which Walker and co wanted them to do - in order to act as a diversion from the imminent publication of the Howard League report.
A report which - most inconviently - demonstrated that everything that Simon Bellwood and I had said about institutional abuse, solitary confinement and other illegal treatments against children in custody were completely true and correct.
And - by the same token - everything Walker, his Council of Ministers - and the civil servants they're terrified of - were saying was complete wrong.
Oh, yes - I almost forgot; there is the inconvenient fact that Warcup - and Gradwell in particular - engaged in an unlawful and misleading leaking of core investigation data to national journalists - as part of a smear campaign against Lenny Harper, and to generally discredit all the prior work.
4: The London court case? we shall see how that pans out.
What I can tell you for a stone fact is this:
Win or lose - we are in possession of a very, very substantial dossier of hard evidence - which shows a huge range of different, and serious, malfeasances on the part of Jersey's oligarchy.
We can't afford a lawyer yet - so I'm representing our case. Not good odds against the UK government and a team of government lawyers.
But - win or lose - our evidence will be out thee for the world to see - and for ordinary people to come to their own judgments about the integrity, competence and ethics of Jersey's oligarchy.
I can't wait.
Stuart
Newsnight interview in full
And should it get taken off youtube I have it and many other jersey interviews on DVD
Audio analysis reveals the truth.
Thanks for the link above.
I'd only watched the full News Night recording once before - many months ago.
Frankly - if I'd been Walker - I wouldn't have mentioned a word of complaint about the program - in the hope it would fade from collective memory.
Rather than resurrecting the train-wreck.
Absolutely every aspect of his performance was disastrous - revealingly so.
Empty rhetoric - making all the right noises - saying there will be no cover up - and anyone who has engaged in cover-ups will be punished.
But the very senior civil servants he and his Council chose to side with were - as has since been proven by material such as the Howard League report - engaging in cover-ups - right up to the present - never mind "30 or 40" years ago.
And - in fact - by acting as he did - he - Frank Walker - his Ministers and the civil servants they were protecting - engaged in a brazen cover-up of their own.
The punitive and coercive solitary confinement regime was harmful, abusive and illegal.
Bellwood took a stand against it - and got sacked by the senior civil servants responsible for it.
He came to me - I took one look at his evidence - and believed him - so I got sacked too.
By engaging in the overtly Political and opportunistic actions they did against me - Frank Walker, Ozouf, Ogley etc WERE engaging in an attempted cover-up.
But - turning to the issue of the misquote by Jeremy Paxman - the true - and funny in a tragic kind of way - fact of the matter is that what Walker actually said was considerably worse than the remark attributed to him by Paxman.
It's feasible to expect - perhaps - a politician - in an unguarded moment - to express a wish to 'protect the reputation of their jurisdiction'.
But Walker didn't say anything so mild. Instead - he was besides himself with barely containable fury - directed at me for the "offence" of having been right - and he having destroyed his standing by being so disasterously wrong.
"Your trying to shaft Jersey internationally".
This remark directed against the one politician who had done the right thing for abused children.
I wish the BBC had filmed the far worse early morning diatribe from Walker - when we were both waiting in the radio studio to go in and record a short head-to-head - for broadcast about 10 minutes later on the Radio 4 Today programme.
He was, alternately, ranting abuse at me - and laughing like some crazed villain from a movie. It really sticks in my mind. It was impossible to have a considered conversation with him.
I really thought he was losing his marbles.
In the final analysis - what is so utterly damning and revealing about Walker's performance - is that he considered it of far greater importance to argue about the semantics of a quote - a misquote which was, if anything, favorable to him rather than what he actually said - instead of just setting that issue aside, saying sorry - and moving on to talk about Jersey's response to child protection failures.
Personally - I think Mr. Paxman's statement of the accurate quote - in his wonderfully dead-pan manner - at the end of the piece - was perfectly fitting in tone and deliberate absurdity - given what we'd just witnessed.
Stuart.
The proof is in the pudding is in the eating. One may suggest Walkers sidekick reads states greffe from early 2007. End of.
Newsnight Paxman says first:
"Were trying to promote the international image of Jersey."
Than Paxman says "Were trying to show off Jersey internationally."
Neither of which is correct!!!
Senator Walker actually said:
“Your trying to shaft Jersey internationally.”
Stuart perhaps you should have agreed with wa*ker Saying"Yes “I am trying to shaft Jersey internationally because of how you Mr Walker and those who's interests you represent have been running Jersey.”
Now there is a greater prominence on what was actually said.
Well done another shot in the foot for the perves
Truth in Jersey comes second to money & reputation, while the damage lies do to others is considered subordinate to the damage the truth would do to the liars.
Every statement I have written on this blog is the truth.
I actually leave out a great deal of testimony becasue I don't have sufficient supporting evidence.
And nothing I write on this blog is protected - if those individuals I've named & shamed whish to dispute it - I ready and willing to see them in court.
But, frankly - if I'm being asked to rank a few dented reputations on the one hand - with decades of largley concealed life-destroying child abuse on the other - I have no doubt which of thos two considerations should be sacrificed.
Stuart
"We can't afford a lawyer yet - so I'm representing our case. Not good odds against the UK government and a team of government lawyers."
Not having access to a lawyer is actually a plus!
You will not have to worry about being stabbed in the back by a crafty corrupt masonic lawyer, which is what happened to me (and many many other people) in the secret family courts.
I won my case, by sacking the lawyer and representing myself. Hee hee hee, the greedy b*gger was so corrupt that he was still claiming legal aid for me nine months after I formally sacked him, which I did in writing, and also face to face, at my house and secretly recorded without his knowledge. I had to write to the legal aid board twice to complain about this, and as far as I know he may still be claiming legal aid to this day for me, as I have had no proper formalisation to prove that he is off my case. Some of these lawyers remind me of those limpets at the sea side; they cling tight to rocks and nothing will budge them. These guys have their hands glued to the cash register! I don't care what he does, it's not my problem any more, if someone wants to commit benefit fraud they will get their just desserts in the end.
Anyway, you could do without being tied to any backstabbing moneygrubbing limpets, so sometimes being poor can actually be a blessing!
You are a very clever man and are more than a match for these villians, and you've got plenty of support from other clever people who will trawl through the small print of the law already, and not need a single penny in payment.
In court, these scoundrels will not stand a chance, and they jolly well know it!
Zoompad
What a nerve these vile men have, coming here and throwing their insults around!
Talk about pouring salt onto open wounds!
We institutional abuse survivors have been through so much, suffered so much. I've been like a pressure cooker for 40 years, I kept trying to tell people what happened, but I couldn't find anyone to listen to my complaints.
All I got all the time was blankness. I thought it was because people didn't believe me, but now I know it was much worse than that - they knew, all right, but they were covering it up!
How could they be so wicked and so cruel? I have suffered the most cruel unlawful vindictive malicious persecution. No wonder I am so bloody angry!
These stupid and insulting remarks about us survivors being golddiggers - I would like to set the record straight on that.
For myself, I do not want a single penny in compensation, not even one penny. I would rather live in a tent and live off fried worms and spiders, like Ray Mears and Gordon, than take any compensation money. Not that I'll have to do that anyway, because the Lord will take good care of me. I lost the chance to have a very fine and well paid career, because of being placed in a pervert Pindown home - my school records prove that I had every reason to look forward to gaining excellent academic qualifications - but child abuse and subsequent depression robbed me of all that. By rights, I should be compensated heavily for what I lost, what was stolen from me. But I do not want a single penny, I would feel deeply insulted by anything I was offered in a court of law for the last 40 depression blighted years of my life. The Lord Jesus will compensate me for all the torment I have been through - He has already, because I did not lose my mind through all this ordeal.
I don't want any compensation money. What I do want is to live in a country that does have proper administration and proper justice, rather than a load of sleazy bumwhacking old farts conning the nation. I'm not an anachist, all I want is PROPER DECENT people in positions of authority, and if people in authority are shown to be committing serious crimes then they should be sacked immediatly! What is so unreasonable about wanting that as compensation?
Zoompad
114,732 now.
There are a lot of people reading this blog!
Zoompad
Interestingly, the worst part of the exchange between Paxman and Blank Frank is his denials. Consider the facts.
Senator Walker said - “No, you’re trying to shaft Jersey internationally.”
Paxman retorted - "You said, ‘We’re trying to promote the international image of Jersey’."
Blank Frank replied (and this is the interesting bit for me) "Mr Paxman, you have not heard me say anything remotely approaching that."
This denial is repeated again in the next exchange.
Paxman - “Mr Walker, I’ll just remind you, you obviously didn’t hear the piece, ‘We’re trying to show off Jersey internationally’ was what you said".
Blank Frank - "I said no such thing today whatsoever. What I said was we’re giving every support…"
Now it seems to me that the difference between -
1. ‘We’re trying to promote the international image of Jersey’ and
2. "you’re trying to shaft Jersey internationally”
is small and irrellevant and for Blank Frank to say "you have not heard me say anything remotely approaching that" or "I said no such thing today whatsoever" is a lie.
My view is that the BBC decision to uphold this Spurr..ious complaint is wrong when Blank Frank had the chance to clarify what he meant. Instead of doing so he simply lied and claimed not to have said anything "remotely approaching" what he actually did so.
In short, he bought it on himself.
'lugubrious'
Great word.
Loving the blog Stuart, even from the other side of the world. Will check out the band too.
I think some of your readers need to understand that reporting restrictions are actually very important, particularly if you ever want to see any of these crooks prosecuted. Basically, it can derail a trial if the judge believes the jury are not 100% impartial, so, obviously, you can't have allegations appearing in newspapers, or online, if there is to be a future trial.
A good defence lawyer would dig out the blog/ newspaper article and then argue that his client will not receive a fair trial - because the jury could have seen it - and bingo, they get off. It's happened plenty of times.
Anyway, good luck in London.
"Your trying to shaft Jersey internationally".
What gives Stuart?..
If-as Big Frank/JEP is now claiming- that you and everyone else was wrong regarding his remark on Newsnight - but you insist on this blog that he did actually say "Your trying to shaft Jersey internationally" then would that not still be damaging to his precious reputation?.
If hes so confident of the words he used then why hasnt he dragged your ass to court?
Also,Im quite certain that there will be a positive outcome in march but what exactly will happen?...what form of result can we expect-will it mean a complete reinvestigation by the UK?.
Good on you Stuart!.
Was reading some of Ben Queree's stuff on the FILTHY RAG's website.
Haven't bothered reading any of his stuff in the past, I had just dismissed him as a cog in the wheel of the propoganda machine.
I have to say, with the little I did read, he does actually appear to be a little critical of the Oligarchy, or at the very least objective.
This, I believe, could enevitably cost him his job as what he has been writing is not in line with the rabid sh1te the Filthy RAG prides itself on churning out for their masters and leaders.
It might be a bit premature of me, or even ignorant, but I think he could be worth taking a punt on, he might just be his own person!
Like I said I've only read a little bit of his stuff and it appears to be "worth reading"
CTV lied brazenly yesterday, saying that Frank had never used the words "shaft Jersey" to Stuart - you only have to watch the original footage to see what lying deceivers they are!
Rob Shipley has a piece at the foot of the Vile Rag today. Says that Jeremy Paxman is not as bright as he thinks he is.
Hello! Pot calling kettle...
Has he not actually read the contents of the BBC complaint report?
The only error Paxo seems to have made is to not let Blank Frank reply in full, which in turn, had the effect of making him look callous.
It does not detract from what he actually said and how he lied to Paxo in an effort to wriggle out of it.
Personally I think Paxo should have let him explain in full and given him as much airtime as he wanted. The buffoon would surely have embarassed himself, and the island, even more than he did.
Rather than complaining, he should really be thanking Paxo for stopping it there; before he made himself look even more heartless and greedy than he had already come across.
Amazing - Bullying in the workplace is a serious offence, however I find it most odd that the ex Jersey Police Officer is making complaint AFTER he has emigrated to Australia and is now employed by the Australian Police. How many more complaints relating to Police bullying will now be made since the Chief of Police is suspended from his job. If someone is being bullied or was bullied they will have evidence to prove it. There is a difference between doing your job properly or failing to do your job properly. If this Police officer had made proper disclosure the matter would be dealt with. It seems most odd that this is now being headlined whilst the Chief of Police is suspended, has no right of reply.
When I was bullied in the workplace I made serious complaint when it started to happen, kept a diary about the bullying Did this police officer do this, or is this yet again another way the establishment are using to Justify their serious maladministrations.
The JEP is being used as a tool to defend the establishment, IT WILL NOT WORK.
"I think some of your readers need to understand that reporting restrictions are actually very important, particularly if you ever want to see any of these crooks prosecuted."
That's true.
But there's more than one way of skinning a cat!
It does not really matter what charge these crooks are brought to trial on, as long as they get punished.
Elliot Ness used tax evasion laws!
These crooks have broken so many laws, and there is a paper trail. For a start, there are the missing children's documentation. Everyone has a birth and death certificate, people don't just dissapear. If they do, the last person who had care of them has to explain what happened.
These crooks are doomed.
Zoompad
Hi Stuart.
Well here we go again the rag has shown its true colors. A huge spread by Elaine Byrne about bullying in the police force. Who is it really having a dig at yup you guessed it Lenny Harper..
This paper should be shut down now, or the Editors replaced. Slowly but surely they are destroying Lenny Harpers reputation its such an obvious plan..
'
Ladies & Gent please don't be surprised if the JEP informs us in the next month that lenny harper infact abused all the children himself & that it was Frank Walker that exposed it, this where we are heading...
Why is this such a big story, did they get both sides of the story did she fly out to australia to land the interview.. The JEP stinks and has offered the Abused nothing absolute nothing..
Stuart the JEP is crap.. & on issues of Health well we will see.. You did the right thing..
I will say this the JEP learnt well from its German Masters during the war Propaganda is an art form & the Herr Editors learnt well.
The Iron Cross first class is in the POST
rs
Listening to the Newsnight interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAZnEP2X7ZE it is clear that Jeremy Paxman did misquote Frank Walker and thereby got it wrong. The JEP report of the Beeb investigation suggested that Paxman had not seen the Radio Jersey interview footage in which the remarks were made - probably the "mishearing" was done by someone else at the Beeb and given to Paxman in his briefing notes for Newsnight. If so, then the Beeb themselves were responsible for the problem.
To those of us who live here it is also clear that Frank and co. WERE extremely concerned about the damage to Jersey's international image and also were in "get Stuart", shoot-the-messenger, blow-up-the-whistle-blower mode which led Frank Walker to say what he said.
Paxman understood that FW said "We're trying to show off Jersey internationally"
versus what was actually said "You're trying to shaft Jersey internationally"
Show-off vs shaft - quite easy to mishear, particularly with FWs Jersey accent
Having made that mistake unknowingly, what Paxman said afterwards was fair, and expected Paxman'ish behaviour. I do think that the correction, at the end of the interview, of what FW did actually say was too cursory and should have pointed out that the error had led to inappropriate Paxman'ish haranguing which should have been withdrawn and apologised for there and then.
Incidentally, does anyone wonder why whistleblowers and people who "stick their heads above the parapet" so frequently get sacked? To be fair, it is sometimes the case that whistleblowers etc have often gone outside the terms of their contract or have side-stepped established procedure or have broken contractual "confidentiality" rules etc to get what they are concerned about out in the open, or properly acted upon. Is this so bad though?
Unfortunately in Jersey, established "procedure" etc appears to be seen as overwhelmingly important by those in the corridors of power. They see that breaking procedure is a terrible crime for which the miscreant must be punished according to the "letter of the law". What about the situation where slavishly following procedure does not lead to the best (or any) beneficial outcome? There can be a glaring "evil" result by mindlessly following procedure. The "establishment" view tends to prejudiced towards believing that any systems complained about must be functioning well and run by competent, conscientious people. They assume that any fair whistleblowing should lead to a fair and just outcome and that the occurrence complained about will be speedily and competently addressed by the "hierarchy". When this idealistic, frankly unrealistic, view is challenged by reality their kneejerk reaction is to want to shoot the messenger.
Whistleblowers who break procedure, confidentiality etc in those circumstances where the hierarchy is fair and manned by competent, conscientious people should then genuinely be punished and cannot complain. If there is something rotten in the system, then they should be protected.
In the real world, what happens when somebody attempts to blow the whistle, or get something done or attended to, because the people above them in the hierarchy are not running things properly, or are not conscientious or competent and are more concerned with their position within the hierarchy and the protection of that hierarchy rather than what the hierarchy was actually set up to do? Should the boy who pointed out that the emperor was naked have been sued or imprisoned for bringing those above him in the hierarchy into disrepute because, obviously the emperor's new clothes were magnificent according to the courtiers? I think not. In storyland the population laughed at the emperor - as they should. I wish that would happen here.
In Simon Bellwood's case, the function of the hierarchy should have been to look after and treat vulnerable, damaged and dangerous young people properly. Sometimes, in extremis, people can be forced into breaking the chain of command by going to outside people against their contract and thereby committing a breach of their terms of employment, sometimes unknowingly, because they sincerely believe that going through the established procedure would not lead to a correct result or may result in nothing being done, or the wrong thing being done due to long experience. Sometimes, there is a greater good to be considered, the greater good of society and a few, a very few, brave people think that outranks petty compliance with stultifying procedure. Sometimes it's necessary for Batman to park on a yellow line to save the city. Unfortunately, in Jersey, we seem to have far too many "jobsworths" who would book him. The spirit behind all laws should be the same - the protection of the vulnerable, the protection of the rights of the individual and the protection of the greater good of society. There can obviously be conflicts in the application of these various principles and that is what "judging" should all be about - whether it is in the public interest to prosecute at all - whether the letter or the spirit of the law should predominate in legal interpretation and assessment of culpability and the eventual degree of punishment. I believe that the application of the law in Jersey sometimes loses its way by over-concentration on the brute letter of the law whilst occasionally losing sight of the principles that that law is based on. These agreed moral, humane and just principles are what validates the law and why the people allow the law, and those who apply it, to have power over them. Without those principles underlying it the law is simply brute authoritarianism. In exactly the same way that we should not prosecute police officers who break the speed limits (and thereby cause some danger to the general public) in genuine pursuit of criminals who are causing a greater danger, so too should whistle-blowers not be sacked or discriminated against in the way they too frequently are when their relatively slight transgressions were sincerely done in pursuit of the much greater good of society.
The desire to shoot the messenger is a great corruption of fairness and reasonableness and accountability and needs rooting out wherever it is found.
Anybody reading this believe that there are fewer people willing to stick their heads over the parapet here in Jersey compared with elsewhere, and that the vast majority of local residents say nothing and do nothing because they believe it would affect their jobs or position?
For me the jury is still out on Lenny Harper. Having spoken to many serving officers, views seem to be quite polarized; certainly on this blog he is deified as the Christ incarnate - history will tell.
and whilst bullying in the work place is unaceptable it bothers me that an experienced police officer, a firearms instructor, cannot effectively defend himself and waits until he is half way across the world before making his allegations.
please put a persisting rumour to bed... it is widely stated that nobody has tried to sue you for defamation because your blog site is administered overseas - thus rendering litigation futile - can you disprove this theory??
Southern and Pitman's disgraceful attempt to repeal the law which they stand accused of breaking deliberately. If they want to make a stand against a bad law they shouldm have the balls to make their case in open court.
The pair of them looked like stunned mullets when their latest legal device, sanctioned by Phil fell at the first hurdle.
Um, about this "shaft" business. The question which remains perhaps unasked, let alone answered, is "Stuart, have you shafted/would you like to shaft Jersey and, if so, to what end?" I mean, what is the end game here? I accept that perhaps this is something for Jersey Charter but how do you really think it will serve the ordinary hard working tax payers of our fair isle for us to be yet further vilifed in the London Courts and no doubt the gutter press?
I'm sorry, but I can't see how this helps to improve things which as far as I can tell are in any event "on the mend" although not yet at that state of perfection you appear to seek. There are now more eyes and ears open in relation to child protection than for many years for which you are to a certain extent responsible and good on you for that. But (and there's always a but)how does continuing what sometimes seems to be a vendetta help us, or you for that matter? I really am bemused and am coming to the conclusion that there is some other agenda of yours to which we are not privy.
PS I hope you've got deep pockets for London, if you haven't got a fighting fund you might consider setting one up - it never hurt Private Eye when Maxwell was on their case!
No ambiguity at all...
You're Trying to shaft Jersey internationally
I am really disappointed in Elaine Byrne (newish JEP, no Rag reporter), (ex 103 reporter). I thought that she joined the rag to move it with the times and save it from going under,a breath of fresh air. But not to be, her report in the rag tonight is disgusting, shame on you Elaine.
Would I be correct in assuming a Nintendo Brother violently abused children in France on a Monday?
Is it not sad that these Police Officers are crawling out the woodwork . I know what some of these sacked or allowed to resign police officers actually got up to and the public would be shocked.
Lennie tried to chop the rot out of the Police Force to get rid of the corrupt jersey way officers and now is being made a scapegoat
Paxman heard "show off" rather that "shaft", so he was right to admit to mishearing, but he was also right to correct himself at the end of Newsnight when he realised it was "shaft" rather than "show off" which was really said by Frank.
One could also ask the question did the JEP send it's roving reporter on a 1st Class All Expenses Paid trip to Australia to do this interview. Or was it financed by another organisation.
Was it set up to co-incide with other events. Who else has this roving reporter interviewed for later headlines.
It is so nice to learn in these days of financial crisis a small Island Newspaper can afford to send reporters to far off lands to do a second class interview. Woops.
"Bullying" in the Police.
Let us engage our brains, shall we - and think for ourselves?
Bullying in the workplace happens everywhere - no matter how the organisation in question is managed.
Bullying behaviour is, unfortunately, one of those genetic human traits that some people cannot help themselves but exhibit.
If any one imagines for one instant that a large organisation - such as a hospital or a police force - can safe-guard against all bullying - then they're living in a dream-world.
But then - especially in the context of the Jersey Police Force - we have to consider the fundamental question - "what constitutes bullying?"
As is perfectly well known to anyone familiar with the history of the organization, the States of Jersey Police Force proceeded along for decade after decade - quite happily accommodating and tolerating a perpetual low-grade corruption - really, as a cultural feature of the organization.
Then - Culture Shock! - people like Graham Power and Lenny Harper come along - and start pointing out to police officers that the following routine behaviours are actually corrupt, a betrayal of all police ethics, a danger to the public good - and criminal:
Tipping off friends and family as to where speed checks will be.
Letting off fellow Masons, friends and family members when you caught them drunk driving.
Routinely and chronically lying in court - rather than act professionally - in order to secure your convictions rates.
Breaking the Data Protection law by furnishing confidential police information to friends, "business associates", family - etc - so that they may advance their interests.
Selling number-plate data to your mates in exchange for the odd bung.
Taking quite brazen bribes from tow-truck operators in exchange for them getting all police call-out work.
Getting caught on CCTV actually taking and copying highly confidential data - of the kind that might have been helpful to terrorists - from secure areas.
Engaging in sex with junior colleagues in said areas - where you've taken them to look all "impressive" and "important".
Running de facto protection rackets - by letting it be understood that X or Y individual would attract unwelcome attention - if they didn't stay off your mates' turf - who, in exchange, buys you the occasional holiday.
Etc.
Etc.
Well - actually - the above-described ingrained culture of corruption had to be stamped out - so being suspended, investigated, charged or discplined - because you were engaging in the above activities - does not constitute "bullying".
It constitutes being held accountable for your own despicable malfeasances.
As a commenter has remarked - Lenny tried to chop the rot out - so, naturally - he is hated by a significant number of Jersey cops who were used to the tradition of "The Jersey Way" in undertaking their jobs.
Interestingly - and in contrast to the impression given by The Rag - moral within the force is in a state of deep flux - and very heavy division.
The younger, decent cops have been profoundly demoralised by the obstructions of Bill Bailhache, the abuse heaped on Lenny and the ludicrous action against Graham Power.
Just when they thought the Jersey Police might be getting civilised and law-abiding - suddenly it looks as though it's back to business as usual.
Of course - those who preferred the old culture - are, indeed, feeling a lot better with the "New Management".
Give it another year or so - and they'll be able to start taking bungs again and beating-up intoxicated children.
As for the comments of the ex-Jersey firearms officer - Jesus wept! - what was such a character doing in firearms?
Don't the police nationally gun to death enough innocent people as it is - without storming the barricades with your AK or whatever it is - and blowing away some poor, drunken bastard who's gone off the rails - and has an air-rifle?
The strong desire to brandish and use actual, lethal firearms - under comparatively trivial circumstances - as displayed by that cop, frankly, makes me very, very glad he doesn't live in Jersey any more.
The "moral" in the police force will - forever - be divided - between those who want to be good, professional cops - and those who think that a bit of graft is just 'The Jersey Way'.
Unfortunately for this community - it would appear to be the latter grouping which is in the ascendancy at present.
Stuart
The JDA 2 - as did a number of other members - make it clear months ago - before the elections - that the law in question was simply a shameless example of pro-oligarchy gerrymandering - designed to keep the voter turn-out amongst the poor and elderly as low as possible.
They said at the time that, as the law was - plainly - not compatible with the ECHR - they would both defy it - and try to get it repealed as early as possible in 2009.
It's obviously a deeply profound culture shock for the Jersey oligarchy to encounter people who are prepared to disadvantage themselves - in pursuit of a matter of principle.
Stuart
I knew an ex Jersey police officer who "left" and then worked as a nurse.
"Why haven't I been sued for defamation?"
Not only have I not been sued for defamation - I have not received as much as one, single, solitary lawyers' letter - let alone a summons.
Why?
Because the especialy disgusting objects of exposure and damnation named by me on this blog know perfectly well they wouldn't win.
Because what I've written is true.
And I could adduce a very large cohort of witnesses.
The fact that the blog is based on a USA server in no way provides me with any kind of protection from being sued.
The only advantage of using a USA based system is that one of the great things about that country is its powerful tradition of free-speech.
Therefore - whilst I could be sued here in Jersey (although they'd have to produce a court competent to try the matter) it would be extremely difficult and immensely expensive to achieve a 'take-down' of the information, give the USA base.
But - to the Pinball Wizard, Lundy, Pollard, Marnie Baudains, Skinner, Wherry - etc, etc - bring on those writs.
I'm waiting you maggots.
Stuart.
"Ex-Jersey Police Officer who left the force to become a nurse".
Whoever made that reference will - I'm absolutely certain - fully understand the relevance of the quote I used from the Tindersticks song, 'En Diablo En El Ojo'.
But - that is a far as that topic goes - for the time-being.
Stuart.
Power and Harper, were taken on for the top jobs in The States of Jersey Police Force, because they were the best applicants for the job. So who, why, or what is to blame for choosing these two "extremely bad characters" to control our Police Force?!
Stuart, This tangled web THEY are weaving, is this to protect one of the mighty from falling into disrepute. ie. Is there a person or persons who are being protected by the establishment?
Are there names that are not in the public domain which are known to you, Lenny and the Chief of Police? relating to child abuse. Sorry to ask the questions however it seems that all the stops are being pulled out at present to undermine your forthcoming court appearance.
It could also be said that the media ie CTV, BBC and JEP are working with the establishment.
Maybe the rag has said too much truth in the last few weeks, and they have had to choose between their sales, which have gone up, or their support from the establishment, which has gone down, and decided that the establishment can give them more money that a few more measly sales.
The Establishment have 18 days left, and counting.
"Would I be correct in assuming a Nintendo Brother violently abused children in France on a Monday?"
Whats all that about then?...please explain.
Yes - a deliberate attempt by the JEP to smear Lenny Harper's name even more.
However bullying went on in the force long before Mr Harper's time, in fact when the Chief of Police was a Jersey man. The JEP should confirm that it's report did not refer directly to Mr Harpers time as it was very misleading, and just shows how half truths can be very damaging.
Shame on you RAG!
"Kafkaesque" is an auctorial descriptive which is used to describe concepts, situations, and ideas which are reminiscent of the literary work of Prague writer Franz Kafka, particularly his novels The Trial, The Castle and The Metamorphosis.
The term, which is quite fluid in definition, has also been described as "marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity: Kafkaesque bureaucracies" [1] and "marked by surreal distortion and often a sense of impending danger: Kafkaesque fantasies of the impassive interrogation, the false trial, the confiscated passport ... haunt his innocence" — The New Yorker. [2]
It can also describe an intentional distortion of reality by powerful but anonymous bureaucrats. "Lack of evidence is treated as a pesky inconvenience, to be circumvented by such Kafkaesque means as depositing unproven allegations into sealed files ..." Another definition would be an existentialist state of ever-elusive freedom while existing under unmitigatable control.
The adjective refers to anything suggestive of Kafka, especially his nightmarish type of narration, in which characters lack a clear course of action, the ability to see beyond immediate events, and the possibility of escape. The term's meaning has transcended the literary realm to apply to real-life occurrences and situations that are incomprehensibly complex, bizarre, or illogical.
DT
"Would I be correct in assuming a Nintendo Brother violently abused children in France on a Monday?"
Nintendo brother = mario
Monday in France = lundi
The JDA 2 - a rcent letter from a small group of supporters within the states applaudes the JDA 2 for placing the issue (an un-deniably bad law) before the Royal Court.
However, if that was their intention, why did Southern try to have the said law repealed before he got to court...??
JDA 2
The date of repealing the law is entirely immaterial to the court case.
Both have pleaded guilty, and are going to court for sentencing.
Even if the States were to come to it's collective senses - and repeal this disgraceful example of gerrymandering - such a change in the law would NOT apply retrospectively.
Thus, until its repeal came into effect, the law - and any breaches of it up to that point - remain matters for what passes for a justice system in Jersey.
So even if the law were repealed first thing Monday morning - such an event would still be completely immaterial to the sentencing.
Stuart
Is this post a wind up?
"but how do you really think it will serve the ordinary hard working tax payers of our fair isle for us to be yet further vilifed in the London Courts and no doubt the gutter press?
I'm sorry, but I can't see how this helps to improve things which as far as I can tell are in any event "on the mend" although not yet at that state of perfection you appear to seek. There are now more eyes and ears open in relation to child protection than for many years for which you are to a certain extent responsible and good on you for that. But (and there's always a but)how does continuing what sometimes seems to be a vendetta help us, or you for that matter? I really am bemused and am coming to the conclusion that there is some other agenda of yours to which we are not privy."
On the mend?
You would be a great lawyer, "well yes your honour, my client did rape and assault the victim. But as we can all see the physical wounds have healed and the victim is recieving support and counselling. That being so, I fail to understand why the prosecution insists on pursuing this rabid vendetta against my client. Surely it would be better for everyone to carry on as though nothing had happened. Or is there another more malicious purpose behind the embaressment being caused to my client, who may I remind the court is very rich."
Is this post a wind up?
"but how do you really think it will serve the ordinary hard working tax payers of our fair isle for us to be yet further vilifed in the London Courts and no doubt the gutter press?
I'm sorry, but I can't see how this helps to improve things which as far as I can tell are in any event "on the mend" although not yet at that state of perfection you appear to seek. There are now more eyes and ears open in relation to child protection than for many years for which you are to a certain extent responsible and good on you for that. But (and there's always a but)how does continuing what sometimes seems to be a vendetta help us, or you for that matter? I really am bemused and am coming to the conclusion that there is some other agenda of yours to which we are not privy."
On the mend?
You would be a great lawyer, "well yes your honour, my client did rape and assault the victim. But as we can all see the physical wounds have healed and the victim is recieving support and counselling. That being so, I fail to understand why the prosecution insists on pursuing this rabid vendetta against my client. Surely it would be better for everyone to carry on as though nothing had happened. Or is there another more malicious purpose behind the embaressment being caused to my client, who may I remind the court is very rich."
"It could also be said that the media ie CTV, BBC and JEP are working with the establishment"
Nothing new here, but it is now becoming increasingly embarrasingly so, quite blatant in fact. Overheard in the JEP newsroom last week, an advertising manager approaching the news editor telling him not to print a report about a 'certain high profile figure' as he spends a lot on advertising and would withdraw all future advertising with the subsequent loss of revenue to the RAG. Is this really the sort of newspaper we want in Jersey? We want to know the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The above says it all!
" Overheard in the JEP newsroom last week, an advertising manager approaching the news editor telling him not to print a report about a 'certain high profile figure' as he spends a lot on advertising and would withdraw all future advertising with the subsequent loss of revenue to the RAG. Is this really the sort of newspaper we want in Jersey? We want to know the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The above says it all!"
That's how it works.
Classifieds only make so much money and every unsold paper is a notch in the debit column of the jep accounts. So big spending advertisers will be immune from criticism or, at the very least, ample time and space to counter any negative publicity.
The establishment members in the states get the same easy ride. Because without press releases and spoonfed stories appearing on their desktops our ace reporters would be lost and the jep would have to fill it's pages with even more filler from HQ.
Armed response incident - Grand Vaux - volatile suspect with high powered air rifle which could easily kill. who's advice do I trust - that of a highly trained firearms officer at the sharp end, or a tough old street cop hiding behind his car mmmmm let me think......
JDA2
I think we miss the point that if the law was repealed the Court Case would stand but, importantly, there would be huge mitigation if the offence for which one is charged has just been repealed.
Armed response incident - Grand Vaux - who's advice do I trust - that of a highly trained firearms officer at the sharp end...
umm...except for the police bullet which was handed in at the police station later that day having been found by a member of the public at Troy Court!
"Oops, I appear to have lost a lethal round of ammunition while I was at the sharp end Sarge.."
"Never mind son, we have thousands more"
How very highly trained...
I think it was on this comments section that I wrote an angry post after the incinerator vote claiming that, inter alia, "…The level of stupidity and incompetence on view was just incredible…". I wish to withdraw those comments (and have already deleted them). I may have been mistaken and I would wish to apologise to anyone who was offended by my intemperate language and insinuations, particularly any States Member who is not stupid or incompetent (or both) who was offended. Also a big sorry to any States Member who is stupid or incompetent or both (if there are any) who was offended. I cannot see any reason, other than those I mentioned, to explain the majority decision but that is probably my failing. Perhaps there are hidden factors, that people outside the States don't know about, which would explain their stance, which we would understand if we were told.
The trouble with this hypothesis is that, over the years, numbers of people *inside* the States have said much the same sort of thing as I said about their colleagues, so who knows where the truth lies? Truth will out, as they say. I have a standing £10 bet with Frank Walker that the decision to go for a huge incinerator will be see as a disastrous one within ten years
Re the JDA 2
Human Rights (Jersey) Law
(1) So far as it is possible to do so, principal legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights.
This means that the law has to be human ruights friendly. What if it is considered not to be?
Declaration of incompatibility
(1) If in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of principal legislation is compatible with a Convention right, the court is satisfied that the provision is not so compatible, it may make a declaration of incompatibility.
(3) In this Article “court” means –
(a) the Royal Court sitting otherwise than as a court of trial in criminal proceedings;
(b) the Court of Appeal; or
(c) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
So, if the law is not considered HR friendly, a court (not the trial court) can declare them to be unfriendly.
As the court making the declaration cannot be the trial court, an application must be made to have the matter considered by a differently constituted court.
Right of Attorney General to intervene
(1) Where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, the Attorney General shall be notified in accordance with Rules of Court made by that court.
(2) In any case to which paragraph (1) applies, the Attorney General (or a person nominated by the Attorney General) shall, on giving notice in accordance with the Rules referred to in that paragraph at any time during the proceedings, be joined as a party to the proceedings.
As soon as an application is made, the AG becomes a party to the proceedings and is required to 'defend' the law.
4) A declaration of incompatibility –
(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and
(b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.
The effect of this is that even if successful a ruling would not make the JDA2 any less 'guilty' but would provide very powerful mitigation for them. It would be very difficult to punish them if a Court has declared the law unfriendly to human rights.
Here lies the rub....
Can it be said that Jersey can consitute a court which may provide, in essesnce, a legal let off for 2 non-establishment politicians?
That said, an individual can still take his case to the Strasbourg court as a last resort.
Re the JDA 2
Indeed - therein does lie the rub.
No Jersey court of first instance nor appalet court - as presently structured and appointed - could remotely constitute a fair and impartial tribunal.
Not only in respect of the JDA 2 - but, frankly, in any matter - civil or criminal - in which the Jersey oligarchy had some form of reputational or political stake.
The good and impartial administration of justice simply cannot be found in Jersey.
Your reference to the powers of the Attorney General are also highly relevant to the issue - this is the man who has decided to prosecute the anti-establishment JDA 2 - and not prosecute at least three candidates who might be described as pro-establishment.
And yet - if the fundamental question of whether the law he has used to politically harass these anti-establishment candidates is ECHR compatible, is raised - he has the right to defend the principle of the law.
Yet another example of his many unsustainable conflicts of interest.
I have tried - on many - many - occasions to engage the Attorney General on these questions - and he simply refuses to engage in discussion and debate - instead simply dismissing any such correspondence from me because he does not consider it "possible" to engage in debate with me.
His assessment and objection appears to be based - much like his brother's - on the grounds that I argue back - as opposed to passively deferring to whatever cobblers they trot out.
As I've remarked previously, the hubris of these people has been the cause of their downfall.
Stuart
Stuart,
Having a quick look at the law, what is required is for someone to make a representation to the Royal Court in the first instance to have the law declared incompatible.
This, in England at least, can be done by a minister or someone acting on the ministers behalf. There does not seem to be a legal mechanism to indicate who can bring the representation in Jersey but it does appear that there is at least 1 minister who signed to say that the law was incompatible.
On that basis I would conclude that Alan Breckon is the appropriate person to bring the representaton to the Court, although it seems that anyone could.
This would at the very least set a test for the court and may reveal more of the political underbelly of the Jersey courts and might give more ammunition to present to the UK Courts in your other battle.
It must be challenged at all costs and it must be challenged now.
"No Jersey court of first instance nor appalet court - as presently structured and appointed - could remotely constitute a fair and impartial tribunal."
Thank goodness I chose the decision to be a law abiding citizen.
What if I had been charged but totally innocent of any crime?
Would I be able to chose to be tried in any other jurisdiction? NOPE!
I also have to make sure I can travel if I become ill and need to be hospitalized. Aaah! But it is only a short hop to Guernsey if I can afford it.
Believe me people are chosing to have their treatment outside of the island.
Truth Will Out
Re Armed Incident at Grand Vaux
in the simple mind of your commentator, a single bullet becomes a round of ammunition and whilst two wrongs do not make a right - the bullet should have been accounted for.... it's another case of exagerated hysteria to portray Lenny as a mthyical God like creature.
He is a very nice man but NOT The Messiah
Not sure what the point is in your own simple mind but...
A single bullet IS a round of ammunition.
Definition:
"round, unit of ammunition, one shot; a charge of ammunition for a single shot"
How exactly I am exaggerating a single unit by refering to it as a single unit is beyond me.
A lost bullet is not such risk. You could only cause it to off, if you were trying very hard, and deliberately.
All the same, if a private gun owner left ammo in a public place, they would most definitely lose their licence. So, it's not surprising that a firm arms officer could be removed from fire arms duty for doing the same thing.
Post a Comment