THE E-MAILS;
THE LEGAL FIGHT-BACK.
As I laid upon the hard and too narrow bunk of my prison cell during the night of Wednesday the 17th November – I thought of Wendy Kinnard.
When we used to be States members, Wendy was a friend and political ally of mine.
Contemplating the vast, memorised cataloguing-system of the evidence to be used in the coming months and years – only a tiny part of which is referenced in the Order of Justice I publish below – I couldn’t help but recollect the specific e-mail – also published below – sent by Graham Power to Wendy Kinnard at 17:18 on the 25th July 2007.
I wondered – as I cast my eyes over the hardened grey plastic of the table, the manky floor, the reinforced glass and steel of the window, through which, even at 1.00 in the morning a harsh, sodium light burned – where Wendy was?
In which of her several, multi-million pound houses – the luxury converted farm-house in St. Lawrence – with indoor swimming-pool - the huge, tax-efficient tenement property with surrounding lands in Sark, the luxury Covent Garden apartment – she was residing in at that moment?
Perhaps she was on the beach in Mauritius?
I thought of Wendy – because – back in the day – she used to share my views about the protection of vulnerable people – children and women. As someone who helped to establish the Women’s Refuge in Jersey, she certainly wouldn’t have wanted vulnerable, terminally ill women in private-sector nursing homes to be at risk of being raped by maniacs such as nurse M.
Nor would she have wanted frail, elderly ladies to be murdered in their beds at 3.17 a.m through the use of massive diamorphine overdoses.
OK – as I lay there, speculating – I could imagine her not necessarily agreeing with my Wikileaks-style methods. She would – I thought – almost certainly prefer the “official” approach. But – by way of counter-argument – as I stared at the built-in plastic toilet – the words, ‘that does, of course, assume the “official methods” to work’, drifted idly through my mind.
In my thought-experiment, I imagined Wendy, sternly disapproving of my public-interest disclosures and saying - “There’s no need for that. The appropriate public authorities and safe-guards can be relied upon to protect elderly patients – and vulnerable children.”
‘Well’ – I thought – ‘you would certainly hope so – wouldn’t you?’
For example – in the protection of vulnerable children, if the person with the relevant public authority discovered a series of appalling examples of child abuse and resultant cover-ups – then that authority could use his or her legal powers to expose the truth and fix the system.
Vulnerable children could be protected – without such an extraordinary thing occurring – as an evidenced criminal plot - engaged in by the culpable civil servants – to obstruct the public authority.
‘Why – surely if any such plot came into their knowledge – all decent people in authority would immediately oppose it?’
They would have to – if there were to be any chance of the “official approach” to dealing which such wrong-doing ever working.
And it was at that point that my thought-experiment repeatedly foundered upon the rock of that e-mail.
Because as I lay there - in my prison-cell – I just couldn’t square Wendy’s ‘right-on’ politics – and her likely condemnation of my public-disclosure methods – with the brutal reality – that she had received – the evening before the Council of Ministers’ meeting on the 26th July 2007 - an e-mail from the Chief of Police, Graham Power – in which he drew to her attention the plot by the civil servants to unlawfully engineer my dismissal in their attempt to conceal child abuse.
She knew.
Even before the whole criminal enterprise had really taken off – Wendy Kinnard – my friend and ally - knew.
And if Wendy – of all people – couldn’t be relied upon to speak-out against such improper attempts to obstruct the “official systems” of protecting the vulnerable – especially as I was a friend and political ally of hers – then could - and can - the “official systems” ever be relied upon?
Well – I just never could make sense of her conduct – ever since seeing the e-mail – so perhaps Wendy will give us the benefit of an explanation?
Preferably before I get jailed again for having tried to stop vulnerable women from being abused by a psychopath.
And whilst we wait - as desperate as the Jersey oligarchy is to “draw a line” under the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, the real task of exposing – and fixing – the rotten, broken system that permitted decades of child abuse to be unlawfully concealed, is scarcely just beginning.
I publish the first legal action below.
During the coming months – and years – in various legal and political forums – a lot of people are going to have a lot of questions to answer.
Not just Wendy.
And I don’t refer to only the obvious culprits – the well-documented usual suspects from within the Jersey oligarchy.
When the inevitable detailed examination occurs of the systemic child protection failure – an examination of all parts of the system, including the political – one of the most stark and accusatory questions that stands to be faced is this:
Where have the political ‘opposition’ been?
Certainly, it’s true that there have been two or three debates on different aspects of the whole disgusting scandal; questions get asked, and a couple of States members – noticeably Bob Hill and Simon Crowcroft - have fought resolutely to expose the criminally improper suspension of Graham Power.
But given the nature of the disaster – its overt criminality – its sheer scale – and the huge mass of documented evidence available – in reality, Jersey’s self-styled ‘progressive’ politicians have been stunningly ineffective - and absent – and silent.
Those politicians – some of who sought election on expressions of concern for vulnerable children – are going to have some explaining to do.
Because when reading the Order of Justice I publish in full below – it will be seen that the evidenced nature of the scandal is – indeed – the kind of thing that would bring down a government in any other western democracy.
Any ‘opposition’ would have – and should have - eaten a government for breakfast in the face of such a collection of atrocities.
It is nothing short of staggering that 99% of the culpable individuals remain un-touched and armour-plated.
But in addition to the Order of Justice – I am publishing three other examples of the evidence.
They being an e-mail from Detective Inspector Alison Fossey, to Marnie Baudains, the Directorate Manager of Social Services – Baudains’ response to DI Fossey – and the e-mail from Graham Power – to the then Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard – as referred to above.
Wendy Kinnard.
A person who has some explaining to do.
Whilst there are certain aspects of the whole saga that are justifiably confidential – the political scandal – and the unlawful cover-ups – are not.
The criminality of Jersey’s senior civil servants – the conduct of people such as Frank walker and Bill Ogley - of William Bailhache – of events surrounding the unlawful suspension of Graham Power – and those events in July 2007, which Mr. Power’s e-mail to Wendy Kinnard deals with – all are matters that require – in the public good – thorough examination.
Why has she refused – to this day – to speak-out concerning the improper political pressures she was placed under to interfere with and obstruct the historic abuse investigation?
Why has she not spoken publicly in defence of Graham Power or Lenny Harper?
Why has she allowed the dysfunctional power-structure responsible for the abuse of vulnerable children – to remain in place and unchallenged?
And why – I am personally interested to know - did she receive the apocalyptic e-mail from The Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force – informing her of a criminal conspiracy by civil servants to engineer the dismissal of a Health & Social Services Minister – and she fail to speak-out about it?
Why – when the civil servants in question were breaking the law in an anti-democratic attempt to conceal their many gross child protection failures – did she not even have the decency to inform me – a political ally – and supposed friend of hers?
It may be that she does have an explanation for such extraordinary conduct?
If so – I’m quite sure we’re all looking forward to reading it.
And it had better be a very, very convincing explanation.
Because - in light of the evidence published here – her reputation depends upon it; and that quite aside from the possible legal ramifications.
Former Senator Kinnard was one of those kinds of States members who like to imagine themselves as being ‘progressive’ – of being a 'reformer' - of being some kind of fearless campaigner for the broad public good, against the stagnation of the traditional oligarchy. In her case, an avowed feminist and campaigner against the abuse of women, a ‘right-on’ Open University lecturer – who didn’t even need the excuse of having to worry about money, as she is married to a multi-multi-millionaire tax lawyer; a bit of an all-round Bollinger-Bolshevik is Wendy.
Moreover – she is a card-carrying member of the Labour Party.
But – these days – that is a fact I find far more disturbing – than I do reassuring.
My own politics are on the centre-Left. There was a time – God, how innocent and foolish I was – when I used to assume Labour, the unions, and the Left in general – to be on the side of the powerless and the weak.
The last four years have disabused me of that notion.
Today I can state with absolute confidence that a majority – a clear majority – of the culpability for the criminal concealment of child abuse in Jersey during the last four years, lays with the traditional Left – and with the union-movement in the island.
The nakedly self-interested protectionism of public employees – of all grades – the ruthless closing-of-ranks, the absolute rejection of any concept of accountability – the frequently criminal concealment of wrong-doing and incompetence – the bullying and victimisation of employees who try to do the right thing - the sheer, a-moral corruption by which the broad public interest is trampled into the dirt – has been nothing less than frightening.
Employee representatives and the union movement in general have – in the course of these last four years – actively striven to criminally conceal the abuse of children in Jersey.
And that influence has not been confined to these shores. Union and Labour Party contacts were actively lobbied – to prevent the recently departed – Labour – government from properly intervening – as it should have done – to restore the proper rule of law and good administration of justice in Jersey.
Yes, the atrocious history of child abuse in Jersey was able to be finally exposed during these last four years.
However, the corrupt, dangerous and lawless public administration of Jersey responsible for the child abuse disaster has escaped the necessary exposure and reform – ironically – because of the bent protections of the Labour / Left.
Perhaps – with hindsight – not entirely surprising – when we observe creatures such as Jack Straw – having been in the post of Justice Secretary.
Who knows – perhaps a few hefty “donations” were made to Labour Party coffers during recent years? It isn’t as though there is a shortage of money amongst the powerful in Jersey.
This being British ‘power’ at work – in all its toxic and varied stripes - it is going to be interesting to observe the award of future ‘honours’.
Perhaps it isn’t only the likes of Mick Birt and Bill Bailhache who have been hoping to secure the proverbial ‘gong’?
Perhaps Jersey readers will now be able to understand a little bit more, just why I grew sickened of politics – and would never seek election again.
The political environment is no place for an honest person.
It is bad enough when a deeply corrupt, all-powerful oligarchy is forever trying to do you down.
When it is also routine for your own supposed political allies - and friends - to utterly betray you and the causes they themselves effect to support – politics is simply not endurable.
But that doesn’t mean I’ve given up fighting for what is right.
The documents published below – are free to be legally used by Jersey child abuse survivors in the legal claims they can – and should – bring against the States of Jersey, and, if need be, those in power in London, who have protected the Jersey oligarchy.
The e-mails re-produced below – as with a very significant amount of other documents - are verifiable.
The facts as laid out in the Order of Justice are likewise evidenced.
I – and a number of other significant witnesses - are prepared to attend in court – and give evidence under oath on behalf of the justifiable claims for damages that Jersey abuse survivors will rightly wish to bring.
All of the many, many items of documented evidence published on this blog during what is now approaching three-years can be adduced in court on behalf of any such claims.
I strongly advise all survivors of Jersey’s child abuse, no matter where they now live, to think seriously – I mean, really, really seriously – about whether they can actually be certain that “their” lawyers are on their side?
Believe me – you would be amazed at just who you can’t trust.
When the very system that Jersey tax-payers spend millions of pounds on each year for the supposed “protection” of vulnerable children – is – in itself – often the greatest danger to those children – we cannot rest.
When the response of the Jersey child protection apparatus to child abuse – is to immediately focus almost entirely upon protecting itself from scrutiny – children are going to be abused.
The dangers are self-evident.
Here is Graham Power’s e-mail to Wendy Kinnard.
And – below it – is a further e-mail exchange between DI Alison Fossey – and Marnie Baudains – THE civil servant most culpable for the systemic child protection failures.
“From: Graham Power
Sent: 25th July 2007 17:19
To: Fossey, Alison; Du Val, Shaun
CC: Harper, Lenny
Subject: Fw: Child protection and the comments of the Health Minister
Sensitivity: Confidential
For your interests.
Graham Power
Chief Officer
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Power
Sent: 25th July 2007 17:18
To: Wendy Kinnard
Subject: Child protection and the comments of the Health Minister
Sensitivity: Confidential
Wendy, Alison Fossey and myself have both this afternoon independently withdrawn from meetings at which the above was discussed. Allison withdrew from a meeting of the Child Protection Committee. I was asked to leave a meeting of selected members of the Corporate Management Board after I indicated I wanted nothing to do with what was under discussion. In both cases the reason was the same. We both while attending independently and without any pre-knowledge felt that we were being unexpectedly being asked to add our names to a statement or resolution which might have serious implications for the position of the Health Minister. This was in response to recent critical comments he has made regarding the standards of child protection arrangements in the island and the competence of some of the parties involved. (It is also fair to say that understandable points were made regarding the manner and tone of his comments.) In both cases our line was that as police officers we can have no part in such political controversy and cannot be associated with any representations of the kind which appeared to be envisaged. I do not believe that it was coincidental that these two separate meetings addressed the same issue on the same afternoon and it was clear to both Allison and myself from comments made that there had been political discussions outside the membership of the meeting. Both Allison and I have separately made notes as a record of our experience and of the lines taken.
So far as what is the subject of the controversy I have the following comments which are mine alone.
1: The Serious Case Review report is an interesting document with some valid points but some hard questions are missed. It could not be described as either thorough or penetrating.
2: The Minister’s point that there is a lot of focus on what happened after the matter was reported to the police but little on the years preceding the report, when it was clear that that there was some manner of problem is a fair comment. There might be a perfectly good answer but I see nothing wrong with a Minister making this challenge.
3: Likewise in respect of the Children’s Service not prioritising the case. There may be a good answer but it is a fair question.
4: There is little critical comment of substance relating to the Police. Our position is that we have nothing to fear from any enquiry.
I hope this is helpful. I understand that the matter will be on your agenda tomorrow. That being the case I naturally wanted you to be fully sighted on an unusual afternoon’s events.
Best wishes and enjoy your day.
Graham.
Graham Power
Chief Officer”
“From: Fossey, Alison
Sent: 25th July 2007 16:38
To: Marnie Baudains
Cc: Kate Rogers
Subject: Meeting of JCPC on 24th July
Dear Marnie
Following my attendance at the meeting and subsequent early departure I have had an opportunity to consult with Mr. Power and I would like to ensure that my abstention from the decision of the meeting is formally recorded. I fully support the JCPC and its aims and objectives, however, my role as a Police Officer requires me to be independent and impartial in particular from political matters. I hope you understand.
Alison.
Detective Inspector Alison Fossey
Public Protection
States of Jersey Police
-----Original Message-----
From: Marnie Baudains
Sent: 26th July 2007 08:52
To: Fossey, Alison
Subject: Re: Meeting of JCPC on 24th July
Thank you Alison
I can confirm that Iris that the following phrase be inserted in the list of representatives present at the meeting: ‘States of Jersey Police representative was present to observe but was unable to contribute to the decision of the Committee due to the requirements for the Police Service to remain independent and impartial’.
Regards
Marnie Baudains
Directorate Manager, Social Services
Maison le Pape”
The gravity of the situation revealed by the above correspondence cannot be over-stated.
What we have evidenced here is without precedent in any modern democracy on the face of the planet.
Here you have the senior civil servants – including THE civil servant with overarching responsibility for child protection in Jersey – Marnie Baudains – engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - and committing misconduct in a public office – and directly attacking and undermining the very basis of representative and accountable democracy.
In order to conceal child abuse and child protection failures.
And all witnessed and recorded by senior police officers.
Bill Ogley has only been right about one thing during his criminal and destructive tenure at the head of Jersey’s civil service.
When he and Walker were told by the Police of the historic child abuse investigation – he said to Lenny Harper – “you realise this could bring down the government?”
In Ogley’s statement – we see embodied the entire motivation – the real priority – the entire – disgusting conduct of the Jersey establishment – explained.
The entire wholly bizarre and disgraceful farrago – explained in those few words.
But – as things stand – the decadent system – and the corrupt individuals within it – have survived.
The system remains rotten – the individuals remain corrupt.
There has been – so far – no accountability.
Vulnerable children remain at risk.
The Order of Justice below represents the first serious attempt to expose and then fix that broken system, since I attempted to do so in 2007.
The evidence published here – and my personal testimony – are at the disposal of all the survivors in any legal actions they take against the States of Jersey.
I was - for eight years - the head of Jersey’s so-called child protection authority; I carried the relevant legal powers and responsibilities. But unbeknownst to me until January 2007, the entire child “protection” apparatus of Jersey was in the habit of routinely concealing child abuse and child protection failures – and had been acting in that criminal manner for decades.
I consequently became the first ever Jersey politician to recognise and speak-out against the many decades of concealed child abuse.
But the system – far from responding lawfully – not only betrayed children yet further – actually set about oppressing me in a criminal attempt to keep the decades of abuse hidden.
Everything I know about that gross and corrupt conduct by the States of Jersey is evidenced – and I am prepared to provide a detailed affidavit – and be cross-examined under oath – as a witness against the island’s authorities.
The States of Jersey:
Guilty.
All public authority in this island – at one time or another – and in one way or another – culpable.
Decade after decade of incompetence, neglect and abuse towards vulnerable children.
Not only is it entirely right and justifiable that survivors should seek some kind of justice from the States of Jersey – it is also massively in the interests of current and future child-protection that they should do so.
Why?
Because notwithstanding some of the truth being exposed – and some of the abusers being brought to justice – the Culture of Concealment has survived. It remains largely in place – and zero meaningful scrutiny has been brought to bear upon its criminal malfeasances.
The very systemic failures – the very ‘culture’ – in many cases, the very individuals - responsible for criminally brushing child abuse under the carpet for decades – have escaped challenge and accountability.
And in Jersey – that dangerous and criminal culture of invulnerability has been held in place by a toxic pact of mutual protection, between the Left and the Right.
Under those circumstances – no vulnerable child in Jersey can be regarded as being truly well protected.
Together – we will fix the broken system. We must. Because if we don’t – children will remain at risk. Most States members remain in a state of perverse immoral denial. As Rico Sorda wrote on his blog: -
“These States members are a Danger to Children in Care, the reason for saying this is simple. Who now will be prepared to blow the whistle in Jersey if they see malpractice towards Children? Do these States members not recognise the magnitude of what they are doing?”
Until – and unless – we make the system itself accountable - sadly, the atrocities will occur again.
Stuart.
LEGAL ACTION AGAINST JERSEY AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE CORRUPT CONCEALMENT OF CHILD ABUSE.
IN THE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY
(Samedi Division)
BETWEEN: STUART SYVRET
Plaintiff
THE CHIEF MINISTER
First Defendant
AND
THE STATES EMPLOYMENT BOARD
Second Defendant
AND
STATES OF JERSEY
Third Defendant
AND
HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Fourth Defendant
ORDER OF JUSTICE
1. The Defendants
2. The four Defendants were at all material times in positions of direct or indirect authority, control, power and/or influence over the child protection systems of the island of Jersey and/or those public functions which bore upon matters related to the proper and lawful functioning of Jersey’s child protection systems.
3. The four Defendants have each – in their official, public and/or statutory roles – done wrongs to the Plaintiff that are unlawful, and which have caused the Plaintiff suffering, harm and damage.
4. The wrongs inflicted upon the Plaintiff were so caused in respect of his efforts to secure lawful and effective standards of child protection in Jersey.
5. The First Defendant is the Chief Minister, leader of the island’s political executive, the Council of Ministers. He is responsible for the conduct of his department, including those senior civil servants who work within it, its Communications Unit, and all functions associated with the Office of Chief Minster. He is also head of the States of Jersey Employment Board. He was also, for a period of the relevant time, the Deputy Chief Minister.
6. The Second Defendant is the States Employment Board. It is the public authority responsible for the employment, performance, conduct, discipline and legality of the conduct of public employees. In the context of these pleadings, such responsibilities are especially relevant in respect of senior civil servants, including departmental Chief Officers and the Chief Executive.
7. The second Defendant carries vicarious liability for wrongs engaged in or committed by its employees.
8. The second Defendant has a clear duty of care to ensure standards of basic competence and lawfulness in the conduct of its employees.
9. The second Defendant has a clear duty of care to ensure that its employees do not act in improper and/or unlawful ways that cause harm, suffering and damage to any person, such as the Plaintiff.
10. The Third Defendant is the States of Jersey, being responsible for legislation and policy matters in respect of the governance of the island. The Third Defendant has a duty to ensure its Ministers, Departments and employees act lawfully in the discharge of their duties and that the general interest of the public is the overarching priority. The States of Jersey owes a duty of care to the population of the island. It also owes a duty of care to ensure that its elected members are able to undertake their democratic functions freely, fully and without molestation, harassment or oppression. It is responsible for ensuring that the democratically chosen representatives of the population of the island are able to fulfil the people’s fundamental right to be represented by those they have elected. It has a duty to ensure that minority or opposition members are able to freely express themselves and pursue the policies for which they were elected without being subjected to oppressive tyranny by the majority grouping. It has a duty of care to ensure that in discharging their democratic duties, elected members are not subjected to unlawful actions and pressures that may be harmful, damaging or injurious to them.
11. The Fourth Defendant is Her Majesty’s Attorney General, the sole prosecutory authority in Jersey – the de facto director of public prosecutions, the principle legal adviser to the island’s parliament, the principle legal adviser to the island’s cabinet - the Council of Ministers, and the head of the island’s 12 honorary police forces.
12. The Plaintiff
13. The Plaintiff was, at the material times, a Senator of the States of Jersey. He was elected to the island’s parliament as a Deputy for St. Helier in November 1990, and elected by the whole island as a Senator in October 1993. Throughout his near-twenty years as a States member, the Plaintiff consistently opposed the traditional political/judicial ‘establishment’ of Jersey and consistently argued for different political policies, for improvements in public administration and for the introduction of effective checks and balances.
14. The Plaintiff had very substantial public endorsement for his political views, his policies and his fearless approach to challenging entrenched power in Jersey. This is evidenced by the fact that in the last two general elections he contested, in 1999 and 2005, the Plaintiff came first in the island-wide poll. Until recently being unlawfully driven from Office, he possessed the largest political mandate in Jersey, and was the only member of the States assembly to have been elected on a clearly and openly declared intention to seek appointment to the post of Chief Minister.
15. The Plaintiff, therefore, had a highly credible political mandate; one that had been hard-earned during the preceding twenty years, during which the honesty and integrity of the Plaintiff won the acknowledgment of the public, and, conversely the consistent hostility of the political ‘establishment’.
16. The Plaintiff has, therefore, often been subjected to political hostilities and obstructions by those in power in Jersey, certain of which harassments have been unlawful.
17. The unlawful oppression suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of his lawful attempts to expose child protection failures was an extreme example of the political obstructions he has endured.
18. The illegalities, torts, malfeasances and injustices raised in this Order of Justice were first made officially known to the Plaintiff on the 21st November 2007, when – in response to an e-mail from the Plaintiff - the then Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, informed the Plaintiff that he had been present, and witnessed several very senior civil servants engaging in an unlawful plot to engineer the dismissal of the Plaintiff from the Office he then held as Minister for Health & Social Services.
19. In addition to the wrongs pleaded in this Order of Justice, the Plaintiff has further been the victim of numerous other unlawful acts committed by a number of different public authorities in Jersey. For the avoidance of doubt, those wrongs will be subject to separate, distinct proceedings in due course.
20. In summary, the plaintiff is the victim - as is pleaded in detail below - of many unlawful acts, inter alios: -
20.1.1. Various breaches of his Human Rights, contra the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000;
20.1.2. Incidental breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002;
20.1.3. Various conspiracies to pervert the course of justice;
20.1.4. Various Torts;
20.1.5. Various breaches of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law 2005;
20.1.6. Various examples of misconduct in a public office;
20.1.7. Various examples of misfeasance in a public office.
21. As a victim of these unlawful acts, the Plaintiff has suffered wrong, harm and injury, the destruction of his career and of his family life, personal financial ruination and great suffering and mental anguish, and seeks appropriate reliefs from the court.
22. Background
23. From December 1999 until December 2005, the Plaintiff was President of the then Health & Social Services Committee.
24. Following a change to a Ministerial system of government, the Plaintiff became the Minister for Health & Social Services from December 2005 until 11th September 2007.
25. Unlawful Obstruction of the Plaintiff in the Discharging of his Lawful Responsibilities and Obligations as Minister for Health & Social Services.
26. In addition to the broad common law responsibility to ensure a public department such as Health & Social Services (H & SS) operates lawfully and to a high standard, the Office of H & SS Minister carries with it a number of statutory duties, obligations and consequent powers.
27. For the purposes of these proceedings, the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 is specifically cited.
28. The Children Law.
29. The Minster for Health & Social Services is the public authority with responsibility for child protection in Jersey, with the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 being the primary legislation defining such responsibility and conferring the relevant powers.
30. Of particular, but not exclusive, relevance to these proceedings are the following Articles and relevant Paragraphs: -
30.1.1. “Article 42: Minister’s duty to investigate: -
31. Where the Minister –
31.1. is informed that a child is the subject of an emergency protection order or is in police protection; or
31.2. has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,
31.2.1. the Minister shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as the Minister considers necessary to enable the Minister to decide whether he or she should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.”
31.2.2. “Article 42, Paragraph 8: -
31.2.3. “8: Where the Minister is conducting enquiries under this Article, it shall be the duty of any administration of the States to assist the Minister with his or her enquiries (in particular by providing relevant information and advice) if called upon by the Minister to do so, unless it would be unreasonable to do so in all the circumstances of the case.”
32. In early 2007, the Plaintiff began to receive information from unofficial sources; information which should have been fully and frankly reported to him by the relevant senior States of Jersey employees.
33. This information, when combined, in some cases, with certain information made officially known to the Plaintiff, caused the Plaintiff to be seriously concerned that a number of examples of poor practice, and of child protection failure had occurred.
34. The Plaintiff became alarmed and concerned with what he was discovering, as it was very clear that a number of important facts, and a number of general failures on the part of child protection standards in Jersey, had been improperly and unlawfully withheld - over a period of decades – from the relevant political authorities of the day, including himself.
35. The Plaintiff, as H & SS Minister, having reasonable cause to suspect that children had suffered, were suffering, or were likely to suffer significant harm, sought to fulfil his legal obligations – as defined in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 - by pursuing several lines of enquiry into a number of different examples of child protection failure with a view to protecting children from harm and determining what action he should take to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
36. In seeking to discharge this fundamentally important and unambiguously stated lawful duty, the Plaintiff had a right to expect full and honest support, co-operation and assistance from all relevant States employees, States departments and Ministerial colleagues.
37. Further, the Plaintiff was guaranteed such support as the Minister for H & SS, it being a statutory obligation upon “any administration of the States” to provide such assistance, as described in Article 42, Paragraph 8 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
38. The Plaintiff, following, and during, his enquiries into child protection issues, began to express his concerns to relevant public employees, and to express his concerns publicly when providing an honest and frank answer to a question asked of him in his capacity as H & SS Minister during a meeting of the island’s parliament on the 16th July 2007.
39. The Plaintiff, rather than receiving the assistance and support he could properly expect from the relevant public employees, and receiving the statutory assistance, as guaranteed by Article 42, Paragraph 8 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, was, instead, subjected to a criminal conspiracy to obstruct him in the discharge of his duties, harass him, to damage his public standing and to unlawfully engineer his removal from Ministerial Office. These actions all caused great personal harm, damage and loss to the plaintiff.
40. The action against the Plaintiff being – unambiguously – an attempt to sabotage effective child protection in Jersey, thus permitting, failing to prevent, sustaining and concealing the abuse of children.
41. The Plaintiff, being lawfully engaged in attempting to expose several criminal offences against children, the obstructive and sabotaging actions taken against him constituting a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
42. Further, given that many, if not all, of those so acting to obstruct and sabotage the Plaintiff’s lawful duties, being the holders of ‘public office’, the actions against both him and the vulnerable children of Jersey amounting to the common law offence of ‘misconduct in a public office’.
43. The aforesaid criminal conspiracy against the Plaintiff is evidenced and demonstrated by Exhibit 1, appended to this Order of Justice.
44. Exhibit 1 being a file-note written by the recently retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Mr. Graham Power, on the 25th July 2007. Mr. Power wrote and filed this note immediately following a meeting of some senior civil servants at which Mr. Power was present.
45. Involved in the meeting in question – in addition to Mr. Power - were: -
45.1.1. Bill Ogley, Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and the Head of Jersey’s Paid Services.
45.1.2. Mike Pollard, the then Chief Executive of Health & Social Services.
45.1.3. Tom McKeon, the then Chief Executive of the Education Sport and Culture department.
45.1.4. Ian Crich, the then Director of States of Jersey Human Resources.
46. Exhibit 1 is self-explanatory, but particular attention is drawn to this sentence of Mr. Power’s file note:
46.1.1. "I was left with the clear impression they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office."
47. It is plain from this evidence from an authoritative and highly credible witness that a conspiracy was undertaken against the Plaintiff in order to prevent him from discharging his lawful duties in respect of child protection.
48. Further, similar evidence exists in the form of the corresponding file note and e-mails written by Detective Inspector Alison Fossey, who was present at the contemporaneous meeting of the then Jersey Child Protection Committee, which was likewise involved in the criminal conspiracy against the Plaintiff.
49. Also particularly involved in the conspiracy against the Plaintiff were, inter alios: –
49.1.1. Marnie Baudains, the Directorate Manager of Social Services;
49.1.2. Richard Jouault, the Deputy Chief Executive of H & SS.
50. The criminal conspiracy against the Plaintiff representing nothing less than a complete breakdown in the rule of law, of democracy, of accountability and of functioning child protection in Jersey.
51. The criminal conspiracy against the Plaintiff by the senior States of Jersey employees in question, was joined by the then Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, who agreed to undertake the necessary procedures to have the Plaintiff dismissed from the Office of Health & Social Services Minister.
52. Further, the then Chief Minister and Council of Ministers acted unlawfully in inappropriately assuming to themselves the legal powers of the Plaintiff to investigate child protection issues, by usurping his statutory powers, ideas and intentions to commission an external, independent investigation.
53. The Chief Minister and Council of Ministers instead chose to appoint a tame placeman in the person of one Andrew Williamson, who proceeded to produce a profoundly defective and dishonest report into Jersey’s child protection failures.
54. That Mr. Williamson produced a dishonest and defective report is evidenced through comparing the Williamson report, with profoundly shocking evidence submitted to him, his final report being anodyne and equivocating when – had it been honest – it would have reported the evidenced truth, namely that child protection standards and practices in Jersey were in a state of catastrophic failure.
55. The aforesaid failure of the Williamson report to reflect the truth is evidenced and demonstrated by Exhibit 2, appended to this Order of Justice.
56. Exhibit 2 being a report written by the then Police lawyer, Bridget Shaw, and submitted to Mr. Williamson during his inquiry, in which she itemised an extensive and deeply shocking catalogue of very serious child protection failures.
57. In acting in that way, the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers were acting criminally, and in direct contradiction of child safety and the public good.
58. The above described malfeasances were compounded by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers in the unlawful ‘fast-tracking’ of the Council of Ministers’ meeting at which a Minister is required to have an opportunity to defend himself – as prescribed by law, namely Article 21, Paragraph 6 (a) of the States of Jersey Law 2005.
59. Rather than the scheduled date of the next Council of Ministers’ meeting, the Chief Minister and other Ministers decided to hold an extraordinary meeting, of which the Plaintiff was only given five days notice, and which he was unable to attend.
60. Further, this malfeasance and abandonment of due process was compounded by the Plaintiff only receiving the written ‘case’ against him – less than 24 hours prior to the unscheduled meeting, when the relevant documentation was e-mailed to him.
61. The Plaintiff sought a ruling through the States Greffe of the vires of such ‘fast-tracking’. His request was forwarded by the States Greffe to the Deputy Bailiff – at that time Michael Birt - who was asked to rule as to the legality of this denial of an effective opportunity for the Plaintiff to defend himself, as prescribed in the States of Jersey Law 2005, and as in keeping with the Plaintiff’s rights under Article 6 of the ECHR.
62. Mr. Birt, presently the Bailiff, failed to declare his very significant conflicts of interest in this matter, and, instead, proceeded to wrongly rule that the Council of Ministers could abandon proper due process.
63. The meeting of the Council of Ministers duly took place, without the Plaintiff being able to be present and to properly represent himself. The meeting agreed to table for debate in the Jersey parliament, a proposition for the dismissal of the Plaintiff from the Office of Health & Social Services Minister.
64. The following five paragraphs are include to further show and contextualise a consistent pattern of oppression against the Plaintiff; it is not argued that the court can intervene in the internal business of the States legislature.
65. Notwithstanding the fact the Plaintiff had, before this decision, tabled for debate a vote of confidence in his position, the States assembly refused to debate it, instead choosing to debate the proposition of the Council of Ministers first.
66. The Plaintiff carefully prepared, as he was entitled to, a set of ‘official Comments’ in response to the dismissal proposition; these Comments being reinforced by a substantial body of documentary evidence in the form of a series of appendices.
67. The then Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, brother of then Attorney General, now Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, unlawfully prevented the Comments from being officially published and lodged.
68. In acting in this way, the then Bailiff failed to declare a serious conflict of interests, in that a significant part of the evidence in question demonstrated a child protection failure in which he had been involved, namely an abuse episode at the Jersey school, Victoria College when he had been a member of the Board of Governors.
69. The dismissal debate against the Plaintiff was chaired by the then Deputy Bailiff, who prevented the Plaintiff from fully arguing and evidencing his case during the proceedings. The debate resulted in the Plaintiff being dismissed from the Office of Minster for Health & Social Services.
70. In every important sense, the Plaintiff was pro-actively prevented from undertaking and fulfilling his statutory duties, he was obstructed in his efforts to further the cause of child protection, he was denied natural justice, denied his human rights, and, in general, subjected to political oppression and harassment, all of which was unlawful and served no legitimate purpose.
71. Enduring this catalogue of unlawful oppression and abuse has been immensely demanding and a very damaging experience for the Plaintiff, who was simply attempting to undertake not only his statutory duties, but also to act ethically and address the unacceptable sufferings of vulnerable children in Jersey.
72. The Plaintiff has effectively had to pay with his welfare, his career, his family life and his health, for having become the first ever Jersey politician to recognise and speak-out against the child protection failures and the accompanying culture of concealment.
73. Since the summer of 2007, the Plaintiff has suffered a deliberate campaign of misinformation, often peddled by the Defendants – designed to portray him as some form of “troublemaker”, who has either exaggerated – or completely invented – the child protection failures and the long-term practice by public administration in Jersey of unlawfully concealing such failures.
74. Such dishonest campaigns against the Plaintiff and others are unlawful, as they constitute an inchoate part of a broader unlawful exercise designed to thwart the right and proper purposes of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
75. The Plaintiff will prove the honesty, public importance, and veracity of his concerns in respect of child protection failures and the unlawful concealment of such failures, by demonstrating – on an evidenced basis – a consistent pattern of failure, neglect, abuse and harm towards vulnerable children in Jersey, as seen in the conduct of the island authorities over a period of many years.
76. The Plaintiff will also evidence a number of examples of the deliberate and unlawful concealment of child protection failures by the Jersey authorities.
77. In doing so, the Plaintiff will establish before the Court not only the legal correctness of his concerns and actions, but also the inescapable public interest need to have exposed and rooted-out the culture of concealment. Thus the wrongs suffered by the Plaintiff will be seen in context as the unlawfully motivated consequences of a broader conspiracy to disguise failures towards children.
78. A Pattern of Misfeasance:
79. Victoria College
80. For a number of years, child abuse was being committed against children who were pupils of Victoria College. An abuser, one Andrew Jervis-Dykes, was eventually charged and convicted.
81. However – as is evidenced in the “Sharp report” numerous complaints of abuse were made to staff and governors at the school, but were - for many years – simply ignored.
82. However – as is evidenced in the Sharp report, the approach of the school authorities to the abuse was far worse than failing to take the complaints seriously. Instead, pro-active decisions were made to disregard the complaints – and even to humiliate and intimidate some of the children concerned in attempts to make them drop their complaints.
83. The evidenced conduct of senior figures at the school in seeking to conceal – over a period of years – complaints of child abuse is an evidential example of the same culture of concealment that has striven to unlawfully obstruct and oppress the Plaintiff, with the resultant wrongs suffered by him.
84. The Victoria College abuse is of further – and especially relevant – evidential importance to the case of the Plaintiff, in that several of the senior figures who failed to properly discharged their duties towards the protection of children during that episode, are senior figures in the conflicted judicial / political environment of Jersey – and have, notwithstanding their involvement with that episode, persisted in involving themselves in child protection matters in their official capacities – including many of the malfeasant and unlawful acts committed against the Plaintiff.
85. For example, the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache was a member of the Board of Governors of Victoria College for a period of time when abuse was occurring and was being ignored by the school authorities. Yet he unlawfully and improperly prevented the formal publication of the Plaintiff’s Ministerial Comments in response to the dismissal proposition tabled against him by the Council of Ministers.
86. Sir Philip Bailhache engaged in this unprecedented interference in the publication of a parliamentary document – notwithstanding the fact he was personally and directly conflicted, given that one part of the evidence the Plaintiff had attempted to publish was the Sharp report into the Victoria College abuse episode.
87. At the time of the abuse episode in question, the Vice-principal of the school was one John Le Breton – now one of the twelve Jurats of the Royal Court, a colleague and associate of the other Jurats, and of the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, and present Bailiff, Michael Birt.
88. Also involved in the unlawful attempts to conceal the child abuse occurring at that time was the then Deputy Bailiff, one Frances Hamon; Hamon having advised the then Principal of the school – one Jack Hydes – to ignore the complaints of abuse; this advice offered during “a game of squash”.
89. Closely involved in the unlawful concealment of child abuse committed against pupils of Victoria College was one Piers Baker, a senior member of staff who accompanied the abuser, Jervis-Dykes, when taking pupils on sailing trips.
90. According to the Sharp report, Baker consistently obstructed the Police investigation, and sought to protect Jervis-Dykes.
91. According to Police sources, Piers Baker – upon being shown by the police, seized video footage of acts of abuse being committed against intoxicated pupils, responded with the words, “teacher’s perks”.
92. The Principal, Jack Hydes, was permitted to resign with a substantial pay-off, rather than being prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and for breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.
93. The Vice-Principal, John Le Breton, was likewise permitted to resign, rather than being similarly prosecuted – and was subsequently elected as a Jurat of the Royal Court.
94. Piers Baker was also permitted to resign, again rather than facing the appropriate prosecutions, and was subsequently employed by the States of Jersey in a senior post in the Harbours Department, where, amongst other duties, he has responsibility for maritime child protection issues.
95. The Plaintiff, upon discovering that Baker had the aforesaid responsibility for maritime child protection issues, complained to the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers, Bill Ogley and the then Economic Development Minister, Philip Ozouf, and required that Baker be dismissed from the post he occupied.
96. The Plaintiff’s complaint – made in his formal, lawful capacity as H & SS Minister, was not only dismissed by the aforesaid relevant public authorities; his complaint was then improperly used as a ground for seeking the dismissal of the Plaintiff.
97. The subsequent dismissal debate being the occasion when the former member of the Board of Governors of Victoria College – Sir Philip Bailhache – improperly prevented the Plaintiff’s formal Ministerial Comments from being published as a States document.
98. These events show the culture of concealment to be powerfully embedded within Jersey public administration - often with the pro-active involvement of senior figures. The maintenance of malfeasant concealments that were begun in the past is a clear motivation for many of those who have unlawfully oppressed the Plaintiff, given how high the reputational, legal and political stakes are. These unlawful and improper acts have caused actual harm to the Plaintiff.
99. Les Chenes
100. Throughout much of the 1980’s, the 1990’s and early into the 21st century, Jersey’s principal child secure unit was Les Chenes, a converted farm house at Five Oaks, St. Saviour. The name of this institution was changed to Greenfields, and a new, purpose-built facility was constructed immediately adjacent to the old building.
101. The regime used against children in care at Les Chenes – in particular the male children, was routinely barbaric, abusive and unlawful.
102. The unlawful conduct towards children frequently included long periods of punitive and coercive solitary confinement.
103. It was also the practice of certain staff members to routinely engage in seriously violent criminal assaults against the children in care.
104. Amongst the staff who were abusively violent assailants were one Tom McKeon, and one Mario Lundy. McKeon earned the nick-name “The Pinball Wizard” due to his habit of grabbing children and swinging them violently across his office, to impact from walls and furniture.
105. McKeon and Lundy progressed over the years, through the ranks of the Education Department, to the point at which McKeon became the Chief Officer of the department, and Lundy his deputy.
106. Following the retirement of McKeon, Lundy succeeded him as Chief Officer of the Education department.
107. McKeon was one of the senior civil servants who participated in the unlawful conspiracy to engineer the dismissal of the Plaintiff as H & SS Minister, at the meeting led by Bill Ogley, as witnessed and recorded by Graham Power on the 25th July 2007.
108. The involvement and actions of McKeon against the Plaintiff were unlawful on several grounds, and led to harm being caused to the Plaintiff.
109. Although Lundy was a suspect in the historic child abuse investigation – and the police issued a Disclosure Notice to his employers – the States of Jersey – in the authority of the States Employment Board, as chaired by the Chief Minister, and administered by the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley – not even a suspension – as ‘a neutral act’ was conducted in respect of Lundy. This evidenced protection of Lundy – when contrasted with excessive actions taken against other public employees – for example, Graham Power – shows inconsistency, discrimination and bias on the part of the Jersey authorities, of the kind that has been unlawfully manifested against the Plaintiff.
110. Greenfields.
111. The child secure unit underwent a name change, from ‘Les Chenes’ to ‘Greenfields’. In due course the old building was replaced with the modern structure.
112. However, whilst still operating within the old building, multiple examples of unlawful practices against children were committed.
113. Amongst such practices were violent assaults, the failure to provide proper education, the failure to protect and maintain the health and welfare of the children, and psychological and emotional abuse.
114. Of particular note was the unlawful and criminal practice of the use of sustained periods of punitive and coercive solitary confinement against already troubled children.
115. In some cases, the periods of unlawful solitary confinement continued for months.
116. A whistle-blower member of staff – one Simon Bellwood, drew these practices to the attention of the Plaintiff as H & SS Minister in early 2007. Although having been provided with no training by the States of Jersey, and having been unlawfully prevented from receiving professional, ethical and objective advice from his senior civil servants by the negligence of the States Employment Board, the Plaintiff immediately recognised the validity of the concerns raised by Mr. Bellwood, and the abusive and unlawful nature of the practices employed against vulnerable children in Greenfields.
117. Mr. Bellwood had been unlawfully oppressed and sacked from his employment at Greenfields because of his opposition to the unlawful practices employed.
118. The Plaintiff took up Mr. Bellwood’s case – and, even more so, the question of the unlawful, abusive and damaging practices used against children.
119. Even though he was the Minster – and thus the lawful public authority, the Plaintiff was lied to, misled, obstructed and pro-actively undermined by senior civil servants of his own department, when seeking to discharge his lawful and proper duties.
120. Such unlawful obstructions were conducted by, inter alios:
120.1.1. Mike Pollard;
120.1.2. Marnie Baudains;
120.1.3. Richard Jouault;
120.1.4. Phil Dennit;
120.1.5. Linda Dodds;
120.1.6. Ian Dyer.
121. The unlawful and damaging obstructions conducted against the Plaintiff were, in part, motivated by the wish to prevent him from discharging his lawful duty in recognising the veracity of the concerns brought to his attention by Mr. Bellwood, and thus addressing the question of how it was senior staff had been able to oppress Mr. Bellwood in order to conceal their malfeasances in running an unlawful regime against children in secure care, contra the professional purposes for which they were employed.
122. Notwithstanding the success of the unlawful plot to obstruct and oppress the Plaintiff, he succeeded in inviting the Howard League for Penal Reform to come to Jersey and undertake their own independent review of child justice and custody practices.
123. The Howard League proceeded with this work, notwithstanding unlawful efforts by the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, to smear and hamper the Plaintiff.
124. The report of the Howard League, when published in November 2008, roundly echoed and endorsed the concerns of Mr. Bellwood, the Plaintiff, and several of the Plaintiff’s former constituents who had drawn their experiences to his attention.
125. The obstructions and oppressions suffered by the Plaintiff – and all of the resultant wrongs and harm to him - whilst discharging his proper duties in an effort to halt a set of practices that were self-evidently criminal, were unlawful and extremely damaging to the Plaintiff.
126. Haute de la Garenne.
127. Haute de la Garenne (HDLG) a former children’s home, was closed in 1986.
128. In recent years, following the first ever wide-ranging and generalised Police investigation in Jersey into historic cases of child abuse, HDLG has attracted world-wide notoriety as an institution in which many examples of child abuse occurred over a period of many decades. Several individuals having belatedly been prosecuted and convicted for such crimes.
129. It remains the factual case that certain remains of children were recovered from the site following an extensive police investigation; such remains including a significant quantity of children’s teeth, and a number of bone fragments, some of which have been identified by forensic anthropologists as having been cut, and partially burnt, with the attempted burning having taken place when the bones were still “fresh and fleshed”.
130. The remains of children recovered were insufficient to mount an actual homicide investigation, a fact made clear in public statements by the then Senior Investigating Officer, Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper. However, the possibility of unexplained child deaths having occurred at HDLG remains unresolved.
131. What is factually established is that numerous examples of child abuse, of varying kinds, were committed at HDLG over a period of decades, but yet virtually all such cases of abuse remained unexposed and unpunished by the Jersey authorities, with the clear pattern of crimes against children only being seriously addressed from 2006 onwards by the States of Jersey Police Force under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper.
132. In all of the post-war years, no Jersey politician had publicly recognised and spoken-out against the systemic child abuse that the States of Jersey had unlawfully permitted to occur in its children’s homes until the Plaintiff did so. Yet the Plaintiff was unlawfully oppressed and harmed by the Defendants for attempting to fulfil his statutory duties.
133. The Blanche Pierre Group Home.
134. The Blanche Pierre Group Home (BPGH) was a family-scale foster home, operated by the States of Jersey, and staffed on a full-time residential basis by a States of Jersey employee, one Jane Maguire, and her husband, Alan Maguire.
135. Throughout much of the 1980s, the Maguires routinely subjected the vulnerable children in their care to psychological and physical abuse and torture, often to a horrifying degree.
136. Alan Maguire also engaged in sexual abuse of children.
137. Much of the abuse committed by the Maguires was known to their employers, the States of Jersey. However, senior managers regularly ignored expressions of concern by more junior staff members, and failed to obey the law, and protect the children in care from such criminal conduct.
138. Amongst those senior managers who failed to prevent, or halt the abuse of the children were: -
138.1.1. Geoff Spencer;
138.1.2. Anton Skinner.
139. Eventually, in 1990, the abuses became too well-evidenced to continue to ignore, so the aforesaid two mangers conducted an internal investigation into the matter.
140. Even though it was clear that the Maguires had committed many criminal offences against the children, the managers concerned failed to report the matter to the police, instead merely permitting Jane Maguire to ‘retire’ from running the BPGH, and, instead taking up employment in the Family Development Centre.
141. The politician in charge of the then Children’s Service was one Iris Le Fevre, the then President of the Education Committee. Mrs. Le Fevre wrote, at that time, a letter of thanks to the Maguires.
142. In 2007, Mrs. Le Fevre was the Chairperson of the Jersey Child Protection Committee. In league with, and co-operation with, Marnie Baudains, Mrs. Le Fevre acted unlawfully in causing the JCPC to engage in the improper attempts to obstruct and oppress the Plaintiff.
143. Following a meeting of the JCPC, a letter was faxed to the Chief Minister, via the Chief Executive Bill Ogley, which letter demanded the dismissal of the Plaintiff. Both Ogley and Walker were active participants in the unlawful conspiracy against the Plaintiff.
144. The Police only became aware of the abuses committed at the BPGH by happenstance, in or around 1998; a discovery which led to the arrest and charging of the Maguires.
145. However, the attempted prosecution was then abandoned under the authority of the then Attorney General, Michael Birt – currently, the Bailiff. Amongst the reasons for abandonment discussed by the prosecuting authorities at that time was a supposed ‘terminal illness’ of Alan Maguire. No attempt at all was made to verify Maguire’s alleged illness. It is clear that Maguire was feigning illness, as he lived for another decade in retirement in France, and was in sufficiently robust health to attempt to assault a cameraman from BBC Panorama when confronted by journalists from that program in 2008.
146. The Plaintiff, through his own investigations, became aware of the true nature the BPGH abuse episode, and the associated history of concealment in or around August 2007. This led the Plaintiff to track-down and make contact with the survivors of the crimes of the Maguires.
147. In his capacity as H & SS Minister, but only shortly before his dismissal, the Plaintiff was able to obtain and read the BPGH files as held by Social Services. He was also to later be able to listen to the survivors own accounts of what they suffered.
148. The Plaintiff found every aspect of the BPGH episode – and the various unlawful concealments of those crimes, to be deeply shocking, disturbing and distressing.
149. In November 2007, upon being made aware of the existence of the historic abuse investigation being conducted by the Police, one of the very first cases the Plaintiff asked them to address was the BPGH episode, with the Plaintiff informing the police of the existence of the files at Social Services.
150. Throughout much of 2008, the Police re-investigated the criminal actions of the Maguires, and were of no doubt the two abusers should be extradited from France, and prosecuted for the original offences, and further offences which had come to light. However, the police were repeatedly obstructed by the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, brother of the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache and Crown Advocate Stephen Baker.
151. It is evidenced that the Maguires could have, and should have been prosecuted, and that the Police regarded the various failures and obstructions to the prosecution of the Maguires to be improper.
152. It is clear that the BPGH episode, and the Maguires, represented another embarrassing history of child abuse – and the sustained and repeated unlawful concealment of child abuse - by the Jersey authorities, and like many other examples of child abuse in Jersey, so long-term and extensive have been the cover-ups, the authorities generally, and the Defendants, have a powerful political and reputational stake in maintaining the unlawful concealments.
153. It is that well-documented culture of concealment that the Plaintiff was attempting to expose and halt, when being unlawfully obstructed, oppressed and harmed by the Defendants.
154. 42 Don Road Family Group Home.
155. The Don Road Family Group Home (DRFGH) was another States of Jersey operated family-scale orphanage, run by a Mr & Mrs Bonner.
156. The Bonners – like the Maguires – routinely inflicted savage assaults and other abuses upon the children in their care.
157. The States of Jersey Police Force, as a part of their historic abuse investigation, attempted to have the Bonners charged and prosecuted.
158. However, notwithstanding that they had received advice from a lawyer employed by the then Attorney General William Bailhache, that sufficient evidence to charge was present, and having arrested the Bonners, the Police were forced to release them without charge following interferences by Mr. Bailhache.
159. Like the BPGH episode, the DRFGH episode shows a systemic failure on the part of the Jersey authorities to protect vulnerable children, and an ingrained culture of concealment.
160. In becoming the first Jersey politician to attempt to address such crimes, the Plaintiff was unlawfully obstructed, oppressed and harmed by the Defendants.
161. Former Home Affairs Minister.
162. During 2007 and most of 2008, the Home Affairs Minister was the then Senator Wendy Kinnard.
163. The Minister was supportive of the historic abuse investigation being conducted by the Police Force – yet such was the degree of extreme political hostility to the investigation by the then Chief Minister and other Ministers, she was bullied, harassed and placed under intolerable pressure to unlawfully politically interfere in the investigation, for example, by undertaking some form of spurious and illegitimate “disciplinary” action against either the Chief Officer, Graham Power or the Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper.
164. The then Senator Kinnard rightly and properly resisted such unlawful interferences, but eventually resigned from the Office of Home Affairs Minister in late 2008, with the post being taken over by her Assistant Minister, the then Deputy Andrew Lewis.
165. The unlawful conduct towards Senator Kinnard being an example in kind, of the same unlawful and oppressive obstructions engaged in against the Plaintiff by the Defendants, with the principal difference being the extraordinarily extreme nature of the unlawful and harmful conduct pursued against the Plaintiff.
166. Jersey Care Leavers Association.
167. Following approaches from representatives of a UK-based organisation for people who had been in care as children – the Care Leavers Association – the Plaintiff assisted in the establishment of a Jersey equivalent organisation, the Jersey Care Leavers Association.
168. However- it has since become clear that the organisation had become subverted, run in ways that were not lawful by the terms of its constitution, that legitimate members and committee members were being obstructed and prevented from being properly involved.
169. The JCLA has since – after a long and difficult struggle – been restored to the proper and lawful control of its membership.
170. During the period when it was not being run correctly, significant sums of public money, provided to the organisation by the Health & Social Services department, were improperly and fraudulently used.
171. This criminal activity was reported on several occasions by legitimate, concerned members, to the H & SS department, however, no appropriate response was forthcoming as having the JCLA run in an improper – and ineffectual manner – suited the purposes of the H & SS department, given their concerns that an effective campaigning organisation may expose further child protection malfeasances by the department.
172. The unlawful use of public money has been reported to the Police by the properly elected and recently empowered Chair of the JCLA. The Police, however, in a reversion to the culture of concealment that was dominant before Mr. Power and Mr. Harper were employed, have declined to even investigate the matter, instead informing the complainant that “she would have to investigate and find the evidence”.
173. Such official tolerance of criminal acts when those acts or the concealment of them suite the purposes of the Jersey authorities, is a further illustration of how the unlawful conspiracy against the Plaintiff arose.
174. The Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, QPM.
175. The then Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power QPM was unlawfully suspended from his post – without the benefit of proper due process – on the 12th November 2008.
176. The suspension was conducted in the presence of the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, and the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis.
177. The suspension conducted against Mr Power was improper, unjust and unlawful.
178. It was a politically motivated act - undertaken by an organisation – the States of Jersey – which was at that time under serious criminal investigation for many decades of concealed child abuse and attendant conspiracies to pervert the course of justice.
179. The action taken against Mr. Power was, itself, another example of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
180. The investigation into the allegations against Mr. Power has been slow, partial, biased and of questionable competence in many respects.
181. Further, the exercise has been delayed to so great an extent as to improperly deny Mr. Power his lawful right to mount a defence against the allegations prior to his retirement. However, even though, in light of the failure of the exercise Mr. Power is totally exonerated, the Jersey authorities have chosen to publish certain - highly redacted - documents arising from the failed and incomplete investigation in what is plainly a politically motivated attempt to diminish the value of the historical child abuse investigation in the eyes of the public.
182. It has since been officially determined in the Napier report that the suspension action conducted against Graham Power was unlawful.
183. The unlawful oppressions suffered by Mr. Power were of a similar kind to those suffered by the Plaintiff, and, indeed, were not unrelated.
184. The Deputy Chief Officer, Lenny Harper.
185. The former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Lenny Harper, had numerous experiences of improper attempts to obstruct his work from certain of the island’s traditional authorities.
186. Before the historic child abuse investigation became public, Mr. Harper’s attempts to root-out what was almost routinely practiced corruption had made him unpopular amongst certain traditionalists.
187. However, the degree of obstructions, abuse and lies he was subjected to by the Jersey authorities dramatically increased in respect of his leadership of the historic child abuse investigation.
188. Many direct and highly improper obstructions were placed in the path of Mr. Harper and fellow Police officers in the course of their efforts to fully investigate child abuse and to bring perpetrators to justice.
189. Mr. Harper at least had the protections of the Police Force, his Chief Officer and the then Home Affairs Minister; the Plaintiff, having no such protections, suffered highly unlawful and harmful obstructions in his efforts to fulfil his statutory duties.
190. Deputy Paul Le Clair.
191. Deputy Paul Le Clair was present in the States building on an occasion before the unlawful suspension conducted against Mr. Power.
192. On that occasion he overheard a conversation between the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker, and the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, in which they were discussing ways and means of attacking and obstructing the leadership of the States of Jersey Police Force.
193. Deputy Le Claire heard them discuss the possibility of suspending or sacking the then DCO, Lenny Harper, but Mr. Harper’s retirement rendered such an action redundant. Instead, the conversation turned towards the taking of some kind of “disciplinary” action against Graham Power.
194. This is further evidence of the criminal conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants for the purposes of obstructing and suppressing the investigation, exposure and punishment of child abuse, and – as such – it demonstrates their motivations in their unlawful and damaging and harmful actions against the Plaintiff.
195. Criminal Complaints by the Plaintiff.
196. The Plaintiff has – in respect of many of the criminally unlawful acts described above – made several formal criminal complaints to the States of Jersey Police Force; these have involved the giving of several signed statements.
197. It is clear on the available evidence that several serious criminal acts have been committed, of which the Plaintiff is aware, and for which more than prima facie evidence is available.
198. The offences complained of, include: -
198.1.1. Breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969;
198.1.2. Breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002;
198.1.3. Conspiracies to pervert the course of justice;
198.1.4. Misconduct in a public office.
199. The individuals complained of include, inter alios: -
199.1.1. Mike Pollard;
199.1.2. Bill Ogley;
199.1.3. Marnie Baudains;
199.1.4. Tom McKeon;
199.1.5. Mario Lundy;
199.1.6. John Le Breton;
199.1.7. Piers Baker;
199.1.8. Frances Hamon;
199.1.9. Emma Martins;
199.1.10. Frank Walker;
199.1.11. William Bailhache;
199.1.12. Iris Le Fevre.
200. Notwithstanding the powerfully evidenced case against these individuals none have been charged. Indeed, the Plaintiff is unaware if any of them have even been interviewed.
201. The failure to prosecute those who have – prima facie – committed criminal offences against the Plaintiff and others is unlawful.
202. The Plaintiff enjoys – as do all people – the protections described in the European Convention on Human Rights. Many of those fundamental rights have given rise to case-law which shows a right to be protected from criminal acts.
203. The same failure to prosecute those who have committed offences against the Plaintiff, is of a very similarly kind to the politically motivated and contaminated decisions to not prosecute States employees who have abused children, those in positions of authority who have concealed child abuse, and public departments of the States where such departments have – as public authorities – broken the Children Law themselves.
204. Jersey does not possess regional Crown Prosecutors, overseen by a central Director of Public Prosecutions.
205. In Jersey the Office of Attorney General is the sole public authority with the power and responsibility for decisions upon prosecutions – and for the conduct of prosecutions.
206. It is also the case – in a further example of the extraordinary concentration of power the Office holds, that in Jersey it is not possible at law to mount private prosecutions for alleged criminal acts.
207. It should also be noted that the role of Attorney General in Jersey is not limited to only prosecutions.
208. The post-holder also enjoys an automatic, non-voting, but un-elected and speaking seat in Jersey’s parliament, where the custom and practise is for the Attorney General to make both political and legal speeches and interventions, thus exercising great influence upon proceedings in the assembly.
209. Further – the Attorney General also enjoys an automatic right of attendance at all meetings of the legislature’s Privileges and Procedures Committee, where the post-holder dispenses “advice” and contributes to discussions.
210. Of even greater conflict in the role of Attorney General in Jersey is the fact the post-holder enjoys an automatic right of attendance at all meetings of the island’s cabinet – the Council of Ministers - where he participates in the political discussions of the executive – in addition to acting as the legal adviser to the said body.
211. The Office of Attorney General is also responsible for providing legal advice to the States of Jersey Employment Board.
212. The Office of Attorney General is also responsible for legal advice to individual departments of the States of Jersey.
213. That latter point obviously leading to dramatic conflicts of interest, with the Attorney General’s Office being responsible for determining whether to prosecute those same departments of the States to which his Office has been providing legal advice.
214. It can be seen, therefore, that the post of Attorney General in Jersey carries with it immense power and influence – both legally and politically.
215. It is equally unarguable that the multiple roles and functions of the post make it a profoundly politicised – and deeply conflicted – Office, and one which is, therefore not presently lawful.
216. The politicised and conflicted nature of the prosecution system in Jersey has the effect of denying to the public the protections of one of the very fundamental checks and balances that respectable, modern democracies have traditionally enjoyed: the objective and impartial enforcement of the law.
217. That lack of protection is further compounded in the unusual circumstance of Jersey by the broader absence of many of the normal checks and balances that would be found in functioning democracies.
218. The present – profoundly conflicted – nature of the role and Office of Attorney General in Jersey is not lawful.
219. It is not capable of meeting established standards of objectivity.
220. It is not capable of fulfilling – nor being seen to fulfil – those requirements that are placed upon a prosecutory authority through the practical application of the ECHR as applicable to all public authorities.
221. Moreover - in the specific case of the Plaintiff, and as pleaded in this Order of Justice, the conflicted role and powers of the Attorney General have given rise to – and enabled the continuance of – many unlawful breaches of the Plaintiff’s rights by the defendants, and has enabled various torts against the plaintiff.
222. Further, the Plaintiff is the victim of breaches of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, which states: -
222.1.1. A person who blackmails or attempts to blackmail or who offers any threat, assault, obstruction or molestation or attempt to compel by force or menace any member of the States, member of a committee of inquiry established under standing orders or officer of the States in order to influence him or her in his or her conduct as such member or officer, or for, or in respect of the promotion of or of opposition to any matter, proposition, question, bill, petition or other thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the States, the Council of Ministers, the Chief Minister, any other Minister, an Assistant Minister or any committee or panel established under standing orders, or who is a party to such an offence, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of 5 years and a fine.
223. The Plaintiff was – in respect of several important aspects of his duty as a States member – and in respect of his statutory duties as the then Minster for Health & Social Services – subjected to threats, obstructions, molestations, attempts to compel by menace – in order to influence him in his conduct - in respect of propositions, questions, bills and other things submitted, or intended to be submitted to the States, the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister.
224. The committing of these criminal offences against the Plaintiff has caused him hardship, suffering, harm and loss.
225. The Plaintiff has also not received the proper protections of the law in respect of these unlawful acts against him, given the exclusive power of the conflicted Attorney General’s Office to authorise prosecutions.
226. The States of Jersey owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff to have protected him from any and all unlawful obstructions and molestations engaged in against him in response to his efforts to fulfil his lawful duties. The States of Jersey failed in that duty of care.
227. The actions of the Defendants
228. The First and Second Defendants - the Chief Minister – and the States Employment Board – failed to properly and lawfully discharge their duties.
229. Both failed to require proper, ethical, competent, honest and lawful conduct from their employees; in particular, those senior civil servants named above who unlawfully obstructed, misled, lied to, hampered and undermined the Plaintiff.
230. Such failure was so gross it goes very substantially beyond mere negligence.
231. Rather than merely negligent, the repeated and very extensive derelictions of duty by the First & Second Defendants occurred as pro-active malfeasances designed to thwart the Plaintiff in the proper and rightful discharge of his statutory duties.
232. Further – rather than only failing to properly control their employees – the First and Second Defendants instead pro-actively joined in with the unlawful conspiracy to engineer the dismissal of the Plaintiff as H & SS Minister.
233. Such conduct was a direct breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
234. Further, the First Defendant has responsibility and authority for the Communications Unit. This publicly funded unit was repeatedly involved in partisan political attempts to publically undermine, smear and damage the Plaintiff. This activity constitutes an unlawful use of public funds, as the Communications Unit is funded by tax-payers to assist with legitimate communications that serve the broad needs of the community – not politically partisan spin-doctoring.
235. All of the above actions of the First and Second Defendants were and are unlawful and all caused great harm, suffering and damage to the Plaintiff.
236. The Third Defendant – the States of Jersey.
237. The Council of Ministers as a body, in acting improperly – in flagrant contradiction of the rules of natural justice - and in obstructing and menacing the Plaintiff – and, in particular, unlawfully usurping his statutory powers as described in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, were acting unlawfully.
238. This unlawful conduct of the Council of Minsters was further amplified by becoming parties to the criminal enterprise being pursued by the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley and other senior civil servants against the Plaintiff.
239. These manifestly unlawful acts have caused damage, suffering and harm to the Plaintiff.
240. The Third Defendant has a duty of care in addition to statutory obligations, to ensure the free and safe discharge of the duties of its elected members.
241. In particular, it is bound to ensure that the democratic and human rights of the public to participate in the free expression of the legislature are protected.
242. The States of Jersey are culpable Defendants because of their failure to have in place proper procedures, safe-guards and checks and balances to ensure that those charged with discharging statutory duties – as in respect of the requirements of the Children (Jersey) Law, in the extant case of the Plaintiff – are able to so discharge such duties without suffering intimidation, oppression, obstructions and harm.
243. The failures of the Third Defendant to provide such protections is unlawful – and has caused very real and serious suffering, damage, harm and loss to the Plaintiff.
244. The public interest has been profoundly damaged by the malfeasant actions committed against the Plaintiff. He has, in effect, been made an ‘example of’ – which has the effect of intimidating other politicians and potential politicians from speaking-out against malfeasances that have been committed by, or with the knowledge of, senior civil servants.
245. The Fourth Defendant - the Attorney General – unlawfully supported – and pro-actively engaged in – the criminal obstructions placed in the path of the Plaintiff when he was attempting to discharge his statutory duties as described in the Children (Jersey) Law.
246. The Attorney General has unlawfully failed to prosecute those who have committed criminal offences against the Plaintiff.
247. The Attorney General is unlawfully conflicted as a public authority – in seeking to discharge the mutually exclusive functions of legal adviser to the legislature, the executive - and that of prosecutor.
248. The unlawful acts of the Fourth Defendant have caused real harm and suffering to the Plaintiff.
249. The Plaintiff has suffered emotional and psychological injury as a direct consequence of the systemic culture of concealment to be found at a high-level in public administration in Jersey in respect of child protection failures, and – expressly and in particular – as a consequence of the unlawful actions conducted against him in attempts to maintain that culture of concealment.
250. The concealments – and the overt obstructions and oppressions inflicted, or caused, or permitted to be inflicted, upon the Plaintiff by the Defendants directly resulted in the Plaintiff having to shoulder and carry the burden – virtually single-handidly – of investigating many examples of child protection failure and of concealed child abuse.
251. The Plaintiff had been provided with no training of any description in respect of coping with the emotional and psychological impacts of often harrowing interviews with the survivors of child abuse.
252. The Plaintiff had been provided with no support, assistance, counselling or respite in respect of engaging in such work.
253. The systemic failures of public administration in Jersey to correctly address child protection, and the pro-active efforts to obstruct and oppress the Plaintiff, had the effect of making the burden upon the Plaintiff of undertaking work which would have been immensely demanding at the best of times, dramatically more difficult, damaging and harmful to him.
254. In addition to the unlawful harms inflicted upon the Plaintiff, it is obvious and undeniable that a number of profoundly important public interest considerations arise from these issues, and in respect of the pleadings made by the Plaintiff.
255. All public authority in Jersey is prone to engage in mutual protection – and the closing of ranks in the oppression of dissidents – rather than fulfil the established functions of the three arms of the state – legislature, judiciary and executive – and the expected roles of acting as a check and balance upon each other.
256. The extant case powerfully illustrates the inimical detriment to the public good of having all meaningful power in Jersey effectively concentrated into the hands of the same narrow power-clique. If people in comparatively strong positions – such as the senior Senator, as the Plaintiff used to be, and the Chief Officer of the Police Force, can be so brazenly and unlawfully oppressed as has evidencedly happened, then ordinary members of the public – let alone the more vulnerable, such as children – will never be able to look to authorities and champions to protect and defend them from the self-serving abuses and malfeasances of those who control all power in the jurisdiction.
257. The manifest failures of functioning checks and balances in Jersey – and the clear oppressions of those seeking to properly discharge their statutory duties on behalf of the vulnerable, is unlawful.
258. The evidenced unlawful conduct of the Defendants - res ipso loquitur – could not be other than damaging and harmful to the Plaintiff.
259. The Plaintiff has – therefore – been the victim of a variety of torts.
260. Of misfeasance in a public office.
261. Of misconduct in a public office.
262. Of abuses of his human rights.
263. Of offences against Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.
264. Of conspiracies to pervert the course of justice.
265. These wrongs are all foreseeable, unlawful and, variously, the direct responsibility of the Four Defendants, whose torts and various misfeasances and malfeasances have caused suffering, damage, harm and lose to the Plaintiff.
BY REASON OF THE MATTERS AFORESAID – the Plaintiff seeks general damages, exemplary damages and actual damages.
WHEREBY the Plaintiff has suffered wrongs.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff claims against the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants:
1. Damages;
2. Interest on the said damages;
3. Declarative judgment against the actions of the Four Defendants;
4. Declarative judgment, where applicable, of non-compatibility with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.
5. Costs.
SAVING ALL JUST EXCEPTIONS
Stuart Syvret
E-mail: st.syvret@gmail.com
Posts
537 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 537 Newer› Newest»Re Bailhache
Beautifully put, Stuart.
The first person to draw a link between Christmas -Hand -French in a meaningful way will receive a numbered Swiss account as well.
Rudolph
Now then let me see Christmas reminds me of the Carol
Noel Noel.....
and if my schoolboy French is accurate then the translation would be Le Main
Not sure about the big houses thought most of them were Cat A?
I had heard that the banking was in the caymen rather than Switzerland so I am confused.
"Activists Risk Death"
Ian says:
"If a man lives, it is of certainty he will die. Therefore, it is foolish to think of death as if he were a foe to be vanquished. He will come when he will come."
"The fear of death, is the shadow of the fear of life."
Wish someone would take their warnings to those who are intimidated by them!!!
Poor old Billy Ballache,
he,very publicly, helped pervert the course of justice for the sake of political "stability".
He stifled the rights of an elected politician to serve his community and has been bleating on and on about independence from the UK.
He has proved to the world that the position of Bailiff is ridiculous in a democracy.
And he will know, deep down of course, that he was the cause of the change.
"That an individual who is so self-regarding as to openly believe that the high-office he so poorly occupied, should remain unchanged, merely in order to "maintain its appearance of importance" can be so ignorant of basic constitutional history shows how wrong it is to have such power vested in one, fallible human being"
To be fair that sentiment also applies to the role of chief minister and his manic friend in the treasury.
Rob Duhamel,
Proof that the human body can live without a brain.
Really?
He could make a speech about anything, even just a word of thanks to the states workers who still have a job, but the best he could do was to quote the last christmas lyrics he heard when shopping.
I hope he has a donor card at least, as he will be good for something eventually.
"I thought of Wendy Kinnard as I lay on my prison bed"
Well I suppose it would have made homosexuality a bit more appealing.
No need for homophobic comments my friend.
I'm sorry, but I did not in any way see the remark as being homophobic.
Somewhat tasteless and insulting to Wendy Kinnard - yes, but not homophobic.
To regard the comment as homophobic, surely you would have to consider there to be some thing 'wrong' or 'bad' in having homosexual thoughts or inclinations?
I have a number of gay friends who are a great source of support.
I can assure you, some of their jokes and observations are a good deal stronger than the comment in question.
Stuart
(When will they ever learn)I came across a Jersey In Your Pocket Free guide for 2011 and in it I note. Hands Around the World Charitable Trust, "Mission Statement" (Hands around the world seeks to help vunerable children around the world, incouraging enthustiastic and well prepared volunteers to offer practical help skill-sharing support and friendship)Of which The Jersey Chairman is no other than "Teachers Perks" Piers Baker. I give up.
Piers Bakers old mate !Jarvis Dykes,
Used to like a bit of overseas aid volunteering
I wonder if he was involved in any way with hands around the world charitable trust
"Of which The Jersey Chairman is no other than "Teachers Perks" Piers Baker. I give up."
None of us can give up though, not now. Could you imagine how it would feel?
The biting anger we all feel against this seemingly endless corruption is almost unendurable, but we all have to keep going somehow, no matter how useless and lop sided and corrupt.
One thing these corrupt creeps can never take away from any of us is our own integrity, try as they will. They have tried to smear all of us with false allegations (the children in the abuse homes "were no angels"), but none of it will stick, no matter how hard and fast they sling it. Everyone knows that Stuart Syvret was put into jail for trying to get justice for the victims of child abuse, sorry that you were treated badly Stuart but it is the biggest mistake those child abusing gangsters could have made, because it is so transparently unjust.
Just keep going, and take all the maliciousness and setbacks with a belly laugh, and make sure that every single thing they do to you is recorded and dated, and every ridiculous corrupt thing they do in the big house is likewise recorded!
Ok some people, normally older folk like the pomp and ceremony, the colourful but expensive pantomime, allowing so called VIP's to spend lavish amounts on sell serving outings.
The lower and middle class earners may be taking a different view of our very own, I want to be boss Bailhache. How much did all those consultants reports on independencey for Jersey cost tax payers ?
More to the point, trying to cancel transport services for the old and out patients , kids milk, lack of nurses, hydrotherepy pool closed, longer waiting lists a long list of tax increase, on the way for 2011.
But lets get back to the point. Can Jersey afford the Pomp including a Governor to open civil functions and sit as bored as hell in the States.£760,000 the Dean paid £26,000 whats the hell Jersey paying him for. Crown officers lunches and expences £2,000 each and every week of the year.
You can clearly understand why states members and these people love pomp and free dinners around the world meeting other free loaders.
One does wonder, come next years elections, and when the cuts have really hurt the budgets of " normal " working people " whether Phil and his crowd will be so vocal and if the candidates standing for election make an attempt to make cutbacks at the top of the tree.
Anonymous
Stuart, I left as message on the VFC website as I thought something had again happened to you. I visit your blog daily and on Monday and Tuesday I couldn't see any new comments. Must have been a blip.
Take good care and keep up the good work.
Stuart,
How did it go today?
UK top barrister!!! They must be worried to bring top man to deal with you!
"The first person to draw a link between Christmas -Hand -French in a meaningful way will receive a numbered Swiss account as well."
Le Main - Noel.
Do I get my prize in the magistrates court at 10.00 tomorrow morning?
Stuart
Jonathan Sumption, QC, has been involved in a string of high profile cases, most notably, he represented the UK government in the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly,
we all know where that went!!!
Bailhache is somewhat deluded he is still living in the days of The Empire the days of white arrogance where certain attitudes insisted that their ways ere correct and should be adopted by the masses. Mr Bailhache please move into the 21st century I know that might be difficult for you and your cronies but people are no longer impressed with flowing robes and mad hats. The days of pomp are ending thankfully imperialism is out your attitude is becoming farcical out dated and I would really like to know why you are so desperate for Independence ???
Shouldnt be you in Court getting a prize but the names you mention through the link.
There has been no news on the enquiry is it still happening or has that been canned as well???
I'm not familiar with Jonathan Sumption QC's work - other than to know he has a reputation for great intelligence.
Let us give the gentleman a chance before we tar him by association with former clients.
He may yet turn out to be the judge who - by exhibiting the necessary wisdom - finally causes the population of Jersey to enjoy the protections of effective checks and balances - 250 years after the rest of the western world.
A full trial of the matters in the Order of Justice could not but lead to the long overdue reforms.
Stuart
I have recived a comment that refers to relatives of a regular target of criticism from readers.
Please note - unless there is some compelling public-interest reason for doing so - I do not bring relatives into these debates.
Thanks
Stuart
'Do I get my prize in the magistrates court at 10.00 tomorrow morning?'
No as it has already been collected.
The important thing to get over that I was not previously aware of ,was the potential for a 'non-cash' transaction to have occurred in the past with an unexpectedly strong correlation. Although it should always be remembered that 'correlation only implies causation'......but in this case!
Good Luck and fair wind tomorrow! (or just wind would do).
Stuart.
Have I got this right?
Today The Solicitor General, Howard Sharp, said that all your allegations contained in the Order of Justice are going to be proved not fit for a full trial because they will be answered with evidence such as "affidavits"?
If I have got that right then surely it is a contradiction of terms. A sworn affidavit from our former two most Senior Police Officers, and our former longest serving Politician is not viewed as evidence. Basically they're not worth the paper they are written on.
So if there is anything that resembles consistency, then those affidavits that are to be relied upon by the Solicitor General are totally meaningless aren't they?
Stuart.
This is an absolutely fascinating documentary and suggests, if not proves beyond doubt that the "accredited" main stream media just cannot be trusted to broadcast the "truth" and uncomfortable "facts".
And who should turn up on this documentary? well none other than that esteemed "accredited" "journalist" that trashed the Haute de la Garenne Child abuse investigation one DAVID ROSE Mr. Rose's contribution is 26 minutes and 47 seconds in. The whole documentary is a must view. But for those who are only interested in the calibre of Mr. Rose, that too is a must view.
How is this for CHEEK ?
I am aware that Jonathan King is a convicted child abuser.
It is not, however, the policy of this blog to publish unevidenced allegations against individuals.
Therefore comments naming King - but which include references to third-parties - will not be published.
This blog has always followed a policy of being robustly evidenced before going to press.
If readers have serious and credible allegations of wrong-doing against agencies or individuals - please e-mail me - in strict confidence - here:
st.syvret@gmail.com
Thanks
Stuart
Was the delay done to ensure you did not offer the assistance you intended, to victims of abuse!!
Re hand and Christmas. People are innocent until proven guilty where is the evedence? There is none. It is wrong to make wild accusations. That is what is wrong with this site.
Le Main - hand, Christmas - Noel
The issues in question are not "wild accusations".
The are significantly witnessed and evidenced.
The evidence known to me is in safe-keeping - in another jurisdiction.
But even then - it's nothing that the police could not re-gather and amass themselves - were they and the Jersey Attorney General even vaguely interested investigating the whole, sleazy mess.
They aren't - of course - so the material in question will - at the appropriate time - be adduced as another crushing black-mark against Jersey's public authorities.
In any event - I spoke in detail during the hustings campaign of the by-election about the corruption in question - as "official" attempts to maintain the cover-up were a significant motivation behind the massed, unlawful police-raid conducted against me.
You know - the sheer quantity of politicised, inconsistent and biased non-prosecution decisions by Jersey's politicised prosecution apparatus - now forms an impressive and startling body of evidence.
Stuart
VFC
Yes - the very same point occurred to me immediately when Mr Sharp was describing the approach he and his clients intend to take.
After overcoming my surprise that - against all authority from both Jersey's Royal Court and UK case-law - they intend to attempt to run a strike-out application on what they assert will be an evidenced answer to the Order of Justice - the reliance upon affidavits seemed both lame - and profoundly inconsistent.
After all - the Jersey oligarchy - in various forums - have attempted to utterly dismiss the significance of affidavits when - as your rightly remind us, they were the product of the former Chief Constable, the former Deputy Chief Constable and the former Father of the House.
The directions hearing on the 19th is going to be quite fascinating.
Especially when considering the perverse and irregular attempt by the Jersey oligarchy to effectively run a strike-out application as a mini trial-within-a-trial.
The very practice that all case-law on strike-out runs against.
If a defendant to an action has a credible argument against it - then the defendant makes that argument at trail - not via a procedural device.
But - nevertheless - if it is a war of affidavits they want - well, I shall certainly be adding Graham Power's and Lenny Harper's and mine into the mix.
Along with a few others.
After all - if the Jersey oligarchy have changed their minds - and do now regard affidavits as evidence - happy days.
Things they've previously dismissed and ignored - will now have to be faced-up to.
Interesting times - as the saying goes.
Stuart
Re hand and Christmas. Publish the evidence if there is any, which I doubt. You blublished the Nurse M email.Accusations are not evidence.
All in good time - all in good time.
There's a time and a place for everything:-)
Stuart
A small group of corrupt, moderately intelligent men, based around Victoria College, Hill Street, Stopford Road Temple, the United Club and a few other local locations/institutions have been running this island into the ground for a number of decades. They are not above the law, they are the law. Unfortunately for them, they have become accustomed to power in such a blind, vulgar way, that they cannot see a Jersey Railway locomotive thundering down the track towards them. History will be their judge.
A generation is passing & a new set of 21st century community led values is in the ascendant.
Their grandchildren face an unenviable legacy.
I do not think you have any "secret hidden evidence", I suggest to you its all a big bluff. Otherwise why hold back? Bring it out now because for timing you actually need it.
No, I don't.
Jersey oligarchs and their groupies really must start getting their heads around the fact that this is all a long, long process.
There are many different legal cases - paths that must be pursued - causes of action to be followed - criminal appeals - civil actions - appeals on those.
Be under no illusions - the toxic landslide the Jersey oligarchy triggered upon themselves has scarcely started.
These matters will be live, active and being fought ten years from now.
As much is the local spivs and robber-barons would like those of us who are fighting to clean-up Jersey to show all our cards now - we are not going to.
On the contrary - it suits the causes of the rule of law and of good governance, to sit back and observe - for a few years, perhaps - just whether the Jersey oligarchy actually has amongst its senior ranks as much as one - single - solitary - rational, dispassionate intelligent person.
Because at present they appear to be wholly devoid of as much as one such wise head.
I any event - the planning corruption is not actually of particular direct relevance to either my criminal appeal, nor the extant civil action.
There's time enough to get around to all of these other matters.
Time enough, to be sure.
And - of course - I have to keep a great deal of material over for the book!
Hell - it's going to need a second volume at this rate!
Merry Christmas.
Stuart
Syvie, run yourself a nice hot bath, get in, then slit your wrists and just fade away.
It'll just be like going to sleep.
I know how miserable you are, Syvie. You must long for death. Take the peaceful and dignified way out. There's nothing to be ashamed of.
"today The Solicitor General, Howard Sharp, said that all your allegations contained in the Order of Justice are going to be proved not fit for a full trial because they will be answered with evidence such as "affidavits"?
you have got to be kidding me right. TLS and his crew have been dismissing affidavits for the past 2 yrs. I have a blog posting called : "Affidavit Chief Minister? No thanks this is Jersey"
I think this is a brilliant move and a desperate one. So someone will be lying under oath.
You just cant get your head around what is happening over here.
Slowly but surly this toxic elite are getting exposed. What we must do is keep going.
LOL Affidavits, cant wait to read TLS'S or Marnie Baudains
2011 WHAT A BLAST
RS
"Syvie, run yourself a nice hot bath, get in, then slit your wrists and just fade away."
Been at the booze a bit too much again, eh Jimmy?
You should purchase one of those home-breathalyzers - and test yourself before opening your mouth or hitting the return-key.
It would save you such a great amount of embarrassment!
Merry Christmas!
Stuart
IEA say peak oil occured on 2006. Its downhil all the way now.
peak oil
Is inciting someone to kill themselves against the law?
Jimmy Perchard
"Is inciting someone to kill themselves against the law?"
Yes it is.
Anon Quote
Syvie, run yourself a nice hot bath, get in, then slit your wrists and just fade away.
Stuart you certainly attract the occasional scum to your site the person who wrote the above is a very very sick person
Have a good Christmas
"Is inciting someone to kill themselves against the law?"
Yes it is.
But the sleaze bag who posted that aint got the cojones to identify themselves.
Syd
It stands to reason that the AG is desperate to have it thrown out of court. Before affidavits from his side have to be given.
He [AG]is banking on Jonathan Sumption QC being on his side.
All will be revealed on Sumptions decision.
"In any event - I spoke in detail during the hustings campaign of the by-election about the corruption in question" -
I woz there @ st saviour hustings & when you spoke of it pip ozouf was bang at it on his blackberry then lo & behold next day El Tel resigns strange!!!
"I do not think you have any "secret hidden evidence", I suggest to you its all a big bluff. Otherwise why hold back? Bring it out now because for timing you actually need it."
someone seems desperate for you to show your hand!!!
Hi Stuart
So the battle lines are drawn. What an amazing effort you have put in. We the bloggers do our bit and will continue to do so. The battle will always be won in a court of law.
Your pursuit of Justice is exposing the way the Judiciary works over here. Just by going through the whole court process is challenging them, the OJ is another challenge. Back in 2007 no one would have known what was coming. Now there is talk about affidavits, they don't want to give affidavits but you are forcing the issue.
It is a game of attrition, who will back off first, who will give up, that is why we carry on. I will not stop asking the questions thats for sure. The Voice is preparing for next year, and the many questions we will be putting to the new police chief Bowron.
Can you summon witnesses on the OJ? if so can you call Lenny Harper or Graham Power?
I have been talking about the english judge today. Now I want to believe that this is an honest straight guy. I cannot and will not believe that everyone is corrupt nor one of their guys. If you have any problems or concerns with this judge stuart then please make it known and get him removed.
Let the evidence be heard and let it be so compelling that this Judge would look like a complete fool for towing an establishment line. The more you carry on the more people take an interest and the harder for a Bridgit Shaw type farce
rs
Stuart.
Case Closed?
At present I have no reason to doubt the objectivity & professionalism of Jonathan Sumption QC.
In these cases - all of these cases arising out of the stagnation of the Jersey oligarchy - there are so many of us - with so much knowledge - and so many causes of action.
Sooner or later - justice will prevail.
After all - this is the 21st century - and the information age.
The truth cannot be hidden as it once used to be.
Stuart.
04. Amongst the staff who were abusively violent assailants were one Tom McKeon, and one Mario Lundy. McKeon earned the nick-name “The Pinball Wizard” due to his habit of grabbing children and swinging them violently across his office, to impact from walls and furniture.
105. McKeon and Lundy progressed over the years, through the ranks of the Education Department, to the point at which McKeon became the Chief Officer of the department, and Lundy his deputy.
Now please forgive me if the above is rubbish why did ML'S name keep coming up in a court of law about alleged child battery
Hope you LIKE the picture.
So here we go. I was way back in 2007 that stuart answered that question from Deputy Martin i believe.
But first i noticed wendy kinard removed herself from the debate into your removal.
The Deputy Bailiff:
There are no matters under J or K so we come now to public business and following the decision earlier this morning, the first item is Projet 115 Minister for Health and Social Services dismissal lodged by the Chief Minister and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.
The Greffier of the States:
The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion in accordance with Article 21(4) of the States of Jersey Law 2005 to dismiss Senator Stuart Syvret as Minister for Health and Social Services.
6.1 Senator W. Kinnard
I wonder if I might just declare a conflict that I believe I have. Senator Syvret has raised serious concerns about child protection services and made allegations of some possible criminal conduct which if founded would obviously have to be investigated by States of Jersey Police. Therefore as a member of the Corporate Parent and as Home Affairs Minister I feel I have a conflict of interest in relation to my ministerial duties. I also feel that I have a personal conflict in that Senator Syvret was proposed by my husband at the last elections in 2005. Therefore, Sir, I will withdraw from this debate about the Senator’s future, but will, of course, answer any questions in relation to child protection matters within my remit at the appropriate time and place.
And so it begins.
Please comment on parts you deem important stuart
rs
6.5 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister):
I referred to this in my opening speech, but can I reiterate, first of all, how much I regret having to bring this proposition. This is the last thing I ever wanted to do in relation to one of my Ministers and to me this not only represents a failure, there is no win in this debate today no matter what the result. It also represents, I think, the lowest point of my near 17 years in the States. Secondly, can I reaffirm what the debate is about and what it is not about. This debate is solely about whether or not the Health Minister’s conduct over the last seven or eight weeks or so is acceptable. Whether the standards of behaviour he has shown are compatible with those necessarily expected of a Minister. The debate today is not about our standards of child protection. The Council of Ministers has taken Senator Syvret’s concerns and allegations, even though - and having skimmed through the documents he distributed today, I maintain this statement - they are not supported by any current evidence of failure against staff currently providing child protection services. We have taken his concerns and allegations very, very seriously indeed and we announced 3 separate investigations into them. The first was a recent case identified by Senator Syvret which initially at least appeared to spark the whole incident. I will come back to that later. Not in a question of whether the child was protected or not, but in relation to how the Senator’s approach to it has not been supported by the evidence"
So Frank is saying this is not about child protection failures but undermining staff moral, I think. As we progress how bad were those emails you sent stuart?
"We have taken his concerns and allegations very, very seriously indeed and we announced 3 separate investigations into them"
But this is not about child protection issues?
rs
Rico
Yes - just more evidence - as though more evidence was needed - of what a pathological liar and idiot Frank Walker was.
The evidence I produced then - even before I was aware of the historic abuse investigation by the police - was simply and crushingly overwhelming.
Although there are - actually - when you cut through the propaganda and lies of his own media and the rest of Jersey's msm - zero good achievements on behalf of this community by Walker - and rather dozens upon dozen of disasters - his legacy - the crowning condemnation of his chaotic, disgusting and disastrous years in political office - will be that he was the only senior politician - in the entire history of modern, western democracy - who sacked a Social Services Minister for trying to protect vulnerable children.
Yes - that posting I wrote - titled "The Horsfall / Walker Years" - says all we need to know of modern Jersey political history.
Stuart
Frank says..
"Now, as Members know it all started with an answer given by the Health Minister in this House to a question put by Deputy Martin on 16th July and if it had stopped there - the Senator did in his answer make accusations about the performance of staff involved in child protection"
Deputy J.A. Martin:
The Minister might not have exact figures for what I am interested in; could the Minister inform the House since the Kathy Bull report recommended at least one of our children’s home were closed down and as many children as possible put into foster care, hopefully good foster care as well, if there is a date for closing one of the homes? If he does know, could he tell us exactly how many children are in each home? Are they at capacity at the moment?
Senator S. Syvret:
I do not have the precise figures because, again, as with other issues, they will change on a day-to-day, perhaps even hour-by-hour basis. But to get to the heart of the question, are we anywhere near -- is there any prospect of shutting down one of the homes yet, I have to say, no. I have serious concerns, to be honest, about the whole child protection, child welfare standards of performance of Jersey, not just within my own department, Social Services and the Children’s Service, but across the board. I am aware of a number of issues, this being one of them, a number of cases, a number of incidents that lead me more and more strongly to the conclusion that we are failing badly in this area. I am probably going to be seeking to initiate a major independent review into the whole sphere of child welfare, child protection in Jersey. So if you are asking me honestly, do I believe the performance of certain senior individuals within this field and of the departments generally is acceptable, no, it is not.
Now i would say that is a very reasonable answer and little did anyone know that the police were investigating the very same thing. Frank then placed a lot of faith in the Williamson report, which you question on points 54. 55.56 of your OJ.
Thankyou webguru for doing the link properly re TLM data scandal..
This comment copied from wikipedia is by John Pilger (an excellent journalist in my opinion)
"Many journalists now are no more than channelers and echoers of what George Orwell called the 'official truth'. They simply cipher and transmit lies. It really grieves me that so many of my fellow journalists can be so manipulated that they become really what the French describe as 'functionaires', functionaries, not journalists. Many journalists become very defensive when you suggest to them that they are anything but impartial and objective. The problem with those words 'impartiality' and 'objectivity' is that they have lost their dictionary meaning. They've been taken over... [they] now mean the establishment point of view... Journalists don't sit down and think, 'I'm now going to speak for the establishment.' Of course not. But they internalise a whole set of assumptions, and one of the most potent assumptions is that the world should be seen in terms of its usefulness to the West, not humanity." (2002)[37]
Frank says.....
And it is important that people hear what he says
Can I make the point that the Andrew Williamson review will be fully independent; it will be probing and it will be transparent and it will be all of those independent probing and transparent ways to investigate all child protection provision in Jersey, including Greenfields; including bullying in schools. If there are examples of unacceptable behaviour - and the Senator’s allegations in this respect are by no means proven or supported by any firm evidence - if there are now or in the past, they will be uncovered and action will be taken on the back of them. Mr. Williamson has confirmed that he has no political constraints, no political constraints have been placed upon him in any way whatsoever. He is free to visit, free to meet, free to read, anyone or anything he feels appropriate and equally Members of this House, staff or any member of the public is free to arrange to meet him or submit evidence to him. So, there are no constraints on him at all and crucially his report will be his report, unedited or abridged in any way by anyone else and of course it will be published in full. Members who may have their own concerns for whatever reason should arrange to meet Mr. Williamson and put those concerns to him face-to-face or alternatively by submission. They can also of course should they wish, when we know what the Howard League are going to do and when, approach the Howard League as well. So, there can be no question that there is going to be anything other than a full opportunity for all concerns to be investigated, particularly if as announced by the Council of Ministers as the third stage of the review, members decide they want a full committee of inquiry with full legal powers. So, Sir, there can be no suggestion of cover-up, collusion or lack of will to get right to the bottom of the Health Minister’s most serious allegations. But as I have already said, this debate is not about those allegations or not about the causes for those allegations. It is about the way the Minister has gone about expressing his concerns so vigorously and in such a defamatory way.
This is important because you are challenging the findings of the williamson report. I will also find a link for a blog that the Voice did on Williamson
rs
you judge
That observation by John Pilger is absolutely correct.
When taking an objective view of Jersey's public authorities - what, by any impartial standard you see - is a single-party state - a corrupt oligarchy so overtly dysfunctional and abusive - I would say I am not aware of any greater example of openly-practices corruption in any established democracy in the west.
Certainly - Jersey is far, far more riddled with brazen corruption than the Turks & Caicos islands, in which the UK authorities intervened to restore the rule of law and good-governance.
Worse - in the Turks & Caicos essentially, all that was taking place was graft.
Here - not only is there evidenced financially corruption to be found throughout all levels of power in the island - but the corruption goes beyond merely the crazed greed to be seen everywhere, but extends into such matters as child abuse - unlawfully concealing child abuse - the unlawful oppresion of the Chief of Police, of senior non-establishment politicians, and of whistle-blowers.
That naked decadence is there to be seen with the most cursory glance at power and public administration in Jersey.
Yet - it remains unspoken - unreported - and facilitated in its existence - by Jersey's mainstream media.
Not entirely surprising, of course - given that the bribery, blackmail, cronyism, graft and out-right criminality - long ago established its roots in what passes for "journalism" in Jersey.
That topic is going to be a particular study in the book.
"The BBC does not host political debates in case it might influence the decision-makers."
And, of course, the Jersey Evening Post - and its role in the utter decadence and corruption that blights Jersey - is going to be a most interesting subject for islanders in the course of the next 2 or 3 years - as the reality of the economic melt-down dawns upon them.
In fact - when should we 'do' The Rag Rapist?
Before Christmas?
Or should we hold off for a while longer?
Maybe just wait until the court-case gets going - when The Rag Rapist will be an example of similar-fact-evidence - going towards proving the Culture of Concealment?
I haven't made my mind up yet.
The disadvantage of court is that it would be privileged - and I really wouldn't want to deprive him of the opportunity to sue me for defamation - if what I say was untrue.
Either way - the truth about all of Jersey's media - will be exposed during the next three years.
Stuart
Jonathan Sumption QC
"I believe in the equality of opportunity"
Well, I would say that is a good sign.
The victims of Grand Prix/Pindown certainly never had equality of opportunities.
I was hoping you would win the lottery Stuart.
Then the excuse that you are not worth suing, as money is more important than reputation, would no longer be valid.
To quote Chief Minister Le Suer in the JEP tonight.
‘‘Sadly, at the present time we have a culture within the States in which nobody wants to make a decision. Doing nothing, or passing the responsibility to a higher authority, means that one cannot get blamed.’
To again quote Chief Minister Le Suer in the States.
To answer the deputy, the £30,000 bonus paid to Mr Izatt is not a productivity bonus.
My comment ,
However sitting on the employment board with Senator Ozouf it was decided to award him the bonus even though he lied through his back teeth about due diligence being carried out on Harcourt Developers. They were given a complete clean bill of health and presented to the States of Jersey as the preferred developer. No other developers were invited to tender.
Not only were they being sued in Dublin but also in Las Vegas for millions at the time of the States debate.
They had strong finances, that was a lie also, as they owed an Irish bank 250 million euros they may be big but not owing a quarter of a billion . Deputy Baudins on the day of the great debate, proved the developers were not as clean as the States had been led to believe and Stephen Izatt when called to explain, said “ it was up to the developer to tell us if they had problems “.
On a small island twelve miles by four, Jersey has an overstaffed planning department, a Government department called Property services headed by Mr David Flower’s that sells unused or not needed public property. The government themselves, can and do vote to build projects including incinerators and new schools if they feel so inclined.
To quote Chief Minister Le Suer yet again
“ passing the responsibility to a higher authority, means that one cannot get blamed ? It therefore follows that quango’s must be even more uncontrollable away from public administration, he is describing, being at arms length and always quoting the commercial secrecy card to those seeking information
Mr Izatt and his failed WEB quango has recently been renamed and given immense powers.
Now named Jersey Development Ltd whereby any public property, land, parks, coastal walks now becomes his prerogative to develop. He has a remuneration package of £280,000 per year.
If this all seems very strange to you ? you are not the only one ! You will see titles on this blog of Gangsters, Half Wits and Criminals working the Jersey way. Make up your own mind.
Anonymous.
"Again, if that had been the only thing that had happened, I do not know whether we would be here today or not. But this was just another accumulation in the whole sorry situation, and Mrs. Le Feuvre is now just one name in a long list that the Health Minister has very, very sadly sought to insult, make allegations against and generally undermine. They include the Law Officers, the CAMHS service to whom I have referred, the whole Child Protection Service, teachers in general and at his old school in particular, senior social work managers and other senior managers in Health and Social Services; the Chief Executive, the Human Relations Director and, not least, the Data Protection Commissioner. You can add to that, the Council of Ministers as a group and the Civil Service generally. So, it is a saddeningly long list that in all his comments, the Senator, the Health Minister has a long list of people he has undermined and, without furnishing anything like sufficient evidence, attacked and generally been extremely harassing to. Sir, given a list like that, I think it must be self-evident that it is quite impossible for the Minister to continue to fulfil his role and his responsibilities as Health Minister. He needs to work with all those people, and yet these are the very people that he has harassed or vilified or bullied in a completely unacceptable way"
Stuart, do you think Frank left anyone off that list?
He says..
"So, as Members can see again, even at that stage, 26th July Council of Ministers’ meeting, there was no suggestion whatsoever of requesting the Minister’s resignation or of having to proceed with this sort of vote of no confidence. It was, under the circumstances, a very mild slap over the wrist. But, sadly, the Health Minister refused to accept that statement and things then went from bad to worse, because the Health Minister then added his fellow Ministers to those he had already accused of being responsible for poor practice or supporting poor practice in child protection. The list, subsequently, got longer still, and I will refer to that briefly later on"
What date is on the email from Graham Power & Alison Fossy?
rs
"Again, if that had been the only thing that had happened, I do not know whether we would be here today or not. But this was just another accumulation in the whole sorry situation, and Mrs. Le Feuvre is now just one name in a long list that the Health Minister has very, very sadly sought to insult, make allegations against and generally undermine. They include the Law Officers, the CAMHS service to whom I have referred, the whole Child Protection Service, teachers in general and at his old school in particular, senior social work managers and other senior managers in Health and Social Services; the Chief Executive, the Human Relations Director and, not least, the Data Protection Commissioner. You can add to that, the Council of Ministers as a group and the Civil Service generally. So, it is a saddeningly long list that in all his comments, the Senator, the Health Minister has a long list of people he has undermined and, without furnishing anything like sufficient evidence, attacked and generally been extremely harassing to. Sir, given a list like that, I think it must be self-evident that it is quite impossible for the Minister to continue to fulfil his role and his responsibilities as Health Minister. He needs to work with all those people, and yet these are the very people that he has harassed or vilified or bullied in a completely unacceptable way"
Stuart, do you think Frank left anyone off that list?
rs
Also he says.....
He says..
"So, as Members can see again, even at that stage, 26th July Council of Ministers’ meeting, there was no suggestion whatsoever of requesting the Minister’s resignation or of having to proceed with this sort of vote of no confidence. It was, under the circumstances, a very mild slap over the wrist. But, sadly, the Health Minister refused to accept that statement and things then went from bad to worse, because the Health Minister then added his fellow Ministers to those he had already accused of being responsible for poor practice or supporting poor practice in child protection. The list, subsequently, got longer still, and I will refer to that briefly later on"
What date is on the email from Graham Power & Alison Fossy?
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Power
Sent: 25th July 2007 17:18
To: Wendy Kinnard
Subject: Child protection and the comments of the Health Minister
Sensitivity: Confidential
Wendy, Alison Fossey and myself have both this afternoon independently withdrawn from meetings at which the above was discussed. Allison withdrew from a meeting of the Child Protection Committee. I was asked to leave a meeting of selected members of the Corporate Management Board after I indicated I wanted nothing to do with what was under discussion. In both cases the reason was the same. We both while attending independently and without any pre-knowledge felt that we were being unexpectedly being asked to add our names to a statement or resolution which might have serious implications for the position of the Health Minister
I would say the wheels were already in motion
Jonathan Sumption QC is considered by many to be the UK's top barrister, having represented the government in the Hutton Inquiry as well as arguing against them in court.
My my
Stuart you really have attracted the best there is.
They must be really scared.
Senator Wendy Kinnard in 2007, said: I will withdraw from this debate about the Senator's future, but will, of course, answer any questions in relation to child protection matters within my remit at the appropriate time and place.
Surely if not now, soon will be the appropriate time and place?
But are these matters anymore.... Within her remit?
Once again we see the 'subtlety' of the JEP in their page one "CASE CLOSED" (BANG) why not just tell all the victims 'get stuffed'?. Surely the more appropriate page leader would (should?) have been "Historical child abuse enquiry finally draws to a close" but NO "CASE CLOSED". As regards our EX. Bailiff and his letter to the JEP, Philip you really must begin to accept that 'we the people' are no longer idiot's, I have never seen a more blatant attempt to prepare the ground for INDEPENDANCE, and if the voters of this Island swallow that well as Stuart has always said "you will get what you deserve". Firstly let us be clear unlike the United States of America we do not have a written constitution and all the power such a document gives to the people, we had CLOTHIER but this was picked to bits by those hell bent on maintaining power at all cost's. Any suggestion that this Island and it's people should become independant of the U.K MUST be taken by an Island wide referendum NOT by a small clique of self interested individuals. I predict that if the government of this Island continues down the road it is currently on there will be serious civil unrest much like the U.K and Europe before much longer.
Rico
Yes - there might even have been a few other misfeasants Big frank could have added to that list.
But the argument he's peddling is beyond repair in any event.
Simply upon the basis of the evidence.
If he was not aware of the available, substantive evidence of that time - well, one can only assume he never read his papers - or got someone else - such as Bailhache, Ogley or Ozouf to interpret them for him.
Back then - even before we were aware of the covert police investigation - the evidence I had amassed and made available, was already crushing - already simply unarguable.
After all - why else would Phil Bailhache have criminally prevented my Ministerial Comments from being published in the legislature? An act wholly without precedent, nor any supporting law?
For precisely the same reason Bridget Shaw and Jersey's corrupted prosecution system would not let me adduce the evidence that proves my defence case in the recent Stalinistic show-trial.
Because the forces of the Jersey oligarchy simply have no answer to the evidence.
In any of these cases.
They therefore have to pretend the evidence doesn't exist; or, if forced to acknowledge its existence, pretend it isn't of any significance, or failing that, pretend - by spinning - that the evidence in question means something different to that which it does startlingly portray.
For example - if, finally, you trap them in a corner with some unarguable evidence of grotesque child protection failure - the spin - which will be enthusiastically embraced by Jersey's traditional media - is that, "OK, these people have failed; in many different divisions - all, separately failed - failed to spot the signs of brutal sexual abuse being committed on a young teenage boy with mental health problems - thus causing the child to endure a further four month of being thrall to his abusers - a further four months - of being raped in public toilets. Yes - all of the "professionals" failed the child - but never mind that! It's the people who failed that need the protections; protection from anyone unreasonable enough to consider the suffering and harm endured by the child to be of a greater priority, than the jobs and pensions of a "service" largely full of an unemployable self-serving clique who consider Social Services to exist in order to provide them with jobs, and protect vulnerable children as a secondary priority.
It will be ever thus - as was remarked above, "people so often get the government they deserve!.
Stuart
Those poor little children did not get the government they deserve, and that is why all of us have to keep going, however hopeless it seems.
They said it was hopeless to try to escape from Colditz but those men would not stop trying and many did escape.
People said it was impossible to run a mile in 4 minuits but now people do it all the time.
They laughed at the first aviators, but now we send men round the moon.
We can never stop fighting for justice and we are going to get it as well.
Shenton,
Perchard,
Constables of St Peter
Constable of St Helier
Constable of St John
Deputy Breckon
Deputy Hill
Deputy Baudains
Deputy Martin
Deputy Ryan
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy Southern
Deputy S Pitman
Deputy Lewis
These are the ones who backed you in your dismissal in 2007
The land was lying a little different back then
rs
196. The Plaintiff has – in respect of many of the criminally unlawful acts described above – made several formal criminal complaints to the States of Jersey Police Force; these have involved the giving of several signed statements.
Add the rezoning files what exactly is happening down the old local cop shop? Have you heard anything back from the Jersey Police?
How about another loads of questions for the new Police Chief Bowron. Lets see what Integrity he will bring.
January is shaping up like a Mitchell Johnson in swinger
rs
"It's the people who failed that need the protections"
This further enforces the view that we, aka the non-elite, are viewed as cattle.
The Beano is not the Rag
THE JERSEY POWER STRUCTURE
"A DYING man who imported more than £400,000 worth of drugs to pay for his ‘playboy’ lifestyle has been jailed for 6½ years by the Royal Court."
He should have got the lawyer those "child perverts" the McGraths I think their name that hid in France had then he would be free now as he had supposed fatal cancer or so the lawyer said!!
Jersey is an honest island, and not as several commentators have stated and not governed by a collection of crooks and crimminals.
In the year financial 2009 Jersey has a massive overspend and no one seems to know where the moneys gone.
The Jersey Way.
http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=492210
A reader says:
""A DYING man who imported more than £400,000 worth of drugs to pay for his ‘playboy’ lifestyle has been jailed for 6½ years by the Royal Court."
He should have got the lawyer those "child perverts" the McGraths I think their name that hid in France had then he would be free now as he had supposed fatal cancer or so the lawyer said!!"
Actually, the name of the child abusers in question was Maguire - Jane and Allan Maguire
But the point is well-made.
Allan Maguire feigned illness - pretending to have "terminal cancer" - with only six months to live.
That was in 1998.
Ten years later - following his retirement to France - he remained in sufficiently robust good health to attempt to batter a camera-man from BBC Panorama, when a team from that program tracked him down and door-stepped him and his wife.
The truly revealing fact - is not so much that Maguire was not actually ill - and that it was an act - but that the Jersey prosecution authorities of the day - Michael Birt, the then Attorney General and Ian Christmas, the then police prosecutor - did not even require so much as one, single sick-note from Mcguire's GP - let alone a full, independent examination to confirm his supposed "terminal illness".
Compare and contrast that attitude by Jersey's prosecution system - to the attitude they displayed with me, when prosecuting me for public interest data-disclosure.
Multiple doctors reports required - to secure a mere adjournment of a few weeks in the prosecution, as my health hindered me in preparing and running my own defence - as I am self-representing, having been denied effective legal representation.
And to think, some people still think I exaggerate when I describe the Jersey oligarchy as a gangster regime.
Stuart.
Stuart,
Are you still going to reveal details of the rag rapist, as a Christmas special?
Anonymous says that they have appointed Jonathan Sumption as "they are really scared".
In a way, Anonymous is right but probably not for the reason he thinks.
Sumption QC is there to do a snow job on Stuart Syvret. He is already an Appeal Court judge in Jersey (and therefore well acquainted socially with the Bailhaches and Burt) and likes to represent the UK government. He is what is known as a Government lackey, albeit an expensive one.
You must remember that he represented the UK Government in their cover up, sorry, Hutton enquiry into the death of Dr Kelly.
Sumption is there to lend credibility to the decision (already made) to refuse Syvret's application to the Court. He is there so that the Jersey establishment can say,"haven't we been scrupulously fair and honest in giving Syvret such an eminent judge". Of course they will also trumpet the fact that the most intelligent man in the UK (in some people's judgement) has also ridiculed Syvret's arguments.
There will certainly be pats on the back all round for the local media, mafia and judiciary for having their judgment vindicated by an "independent" senior lawyer & Queen's Counsel.
I suspect that Stuart Syvret already knows all this and I hope he doesn't allow Sumption to humiliate him too much, because that is the whole point of the exercise.
So don't anybody get their hopes up that Sumption QC will give Stuart Syvret a fair crack of the whip - he is there to do a job and its on Stuart Syvret.
Sorry, that this comment is being signed by another anonymous but if I signed in my real name, others, my family would suffer - that's just the Jersey way!
Quote
A DYING man who imported more than £400,000 worth of drugs to pay for his ‘playboy’ lifestyle has been jailed for 6½ years by the Royal Court
If he had been an abuser serving in the Honorary Police or a child beater he would have had the the local Jersey judges leaning over backwards to lighten his sentence inste4adyour not in our team not one of the club 4 years !!
Syvret hits the campaign trail
Jonathan Sumption? He made a packet on the Bloody Sunday inquiry didn't he? Shame really, because when he isn't doing the day job, he writes volumes of a really rather fine history of the Hundred Years' War.
I assume the QC will be briefed on the Jersey interpretation of certain aspects of law and how they can differ from the normal interpretation (some may just be, well... let's just say 'made-up').
However, as he has already been on the payroll, I doubt he will create any 'bad press' for the establishment!!
The last QC who conducted a report (Mr Napier) was so impressed with his own work, he refrained from presenting it and has avoided answering any questions, except by email to TLS. Perhaps he didn't want to create any bad press!!
Sumption QC , does he come in on a yacht?
Re Jonathan Sumption QC:
It would not matter if they raised Solomon from the dead and pitted him against Stuart, (nothing would surprise me with that lot of knaves) wickedness is not going to triumph over self sacrifice and compassion, God will not allow it to happen, so don't worry about how cunning this man is.
The Kelly case makes me doubt Jonathan Sumption QC's integrity. If Sumption is a bad man, or a coward, he will allow himselves to be the puppet of these wicked child abusing murderers. If he is a good man, he will not allow them to pull his strings.
Whatever Sumption is, the Lord will put the right words into Stuart's mouth, when the time comes. We have not all come this far for to just be left desolate. Stuart, I don't care if you tell me off for Biblebashing or not, you HAVE done what Jesus Christ said to do, caring for the vulnerable and laying down your own life for your brother man, and wether you personally believe or not I am telling you God is DEFINATLY going to look after you and defend you!
So try not to worry about this man's reputation or bank balance, as far as God is concerned Jonathan Sumption QC is a tiny little speck of stardust.
sumption is considered one of the very best in commercial law,should suit the firm down to the ground
Clever is what clever does and my advice is for him to stand up in court and tell the judge that he is sorry but he cant take this case as he is inclined to believe Stuart Syret and he got into law for reasons of justice not political expediency
Clever is what clever does and my advice is for him to stand up in court and tell the judge that he is sorry but he cant take this case as he is inclined to believe Stuart Syret and he got into law for reasons of justice not political expediency
Wise words
I'm confused, I thought J Sumption QC was to be the judge in Stuart's case, not the prosecutor!!
[He may yet turn out to be the judge who - by exhibiting the necessary wisdom - finally causes the population of Jersey to enjoy the protections of effective checks and balances - 250 years after the rest of the western world.]
local hero?
I do so love it when people do stuff and not just chatter about it.
Although it may be the case for some professions that they are chosen with at least partially altruistic motives, I doubt you would find a burning desire to see justice done high in the list of reasons for choosing to become a barrister.
Take the well-heeled Mr Sumption for example: his gigantic brain identifies within the same short interview the cost of English Law as its greatest fault before defending in the next breath his desire to make as much money out of the system as he possibly can...
Elsewhere, he certainly doesn't cite any interest in justice as his reasons for entering the legal profession.
re SOJ inc.
A friend on facebook posted recently a quote from Edward Thurlow 18th century Lord Chancellor.
Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like.
So it is O.K for our retired Bailiff to suggest that us mere Jersey Folk (read plebs) should/may/maybe get to have a referendum on wether we believe the Bailiff should be retained as 'President of the States' (expect the sounds of quoits and sphincters tightening should this get a negative response) but we are not 'allowed' to vote for our own Chief Minister, and please don't insult our intelligence by saying only 'The Members' know who is best, thier choice of the past two could have been better to say the least. The letter in the JEP from Philip Baillache reeked of a palpable panic with comments like this would bring about change etc. YES it would and this change is long overdue and as for who meets the Queen or Foreign Dignitaries why not use the Governor after all we pay him enough.
Could readers who wish to leave cryptic messages, frame their comments in such a way as to give us all a bit more of a clue?
At least if you want to have them published.
Stuart
From what I have read on Stuart's blog over the last two years, there won't be many left to choose from as they will all be in prison!
The rest, hopefully, disbanded and debarred.
Just finished watching Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
The Sewer is obviously Fudge, denying anything is wrong. Dolores Umbridge is Bridget Shaw incarnate!
Maybe you're getting a bit battle weary, but given that a core complaint of yours is against a politicised Judiciary, how can you meekly accept a judge who is a part-time employee of that Judiciary. He's hardly going to bite a hand that feeds him, particularly as he seems partial to a diet of gold coins.
While at the hospital this morning, I saw M Day walking around. Is he working there again?
Hey Stuart
Thought you might like to comment on THIS.
A brief up-date for readers:
Sorry for not producing more postings lately - but as I have four, stand-alone court cases on-the-go - all with their next phases occurring in January, my time has been otherwise occupied.
And that's without bringing in to the equation what are at least four additional legal actions not yet initiated.
Believe me - they're going to be entertaining!
My next blog-posting - which I hope to complete tomorrow some time - will be my take on the legal and justice issues and choices faced by survivors of Jersey child abuse.
In the mean-time - my advice remains - think carefully, and don't let yourselves be rushed into anything.
The States of Jersey is - effectively - a criminal syndicate.
They're not going to want to go within a country mile of a respectable court room in any attempt to defend their conduct.
It's a case of brinkmanship.
Don't blink first - because the States will.
They don't have a leg to stand on.
Regards
Stuart
Lord Chief Justice allows Twitter in court
Person using Twitter Tweeting from court has been going on surreptitiously for some time
Continue reading the main story
Related stories
* Wikileaks chief's release delayed
* Court order served over Twitter
* 'Twittering' threat to US trials
Tweeting from court is to be allowed after a ruling from the Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales.
He said live text-based communication would be allowed as long as the judge believed it would not interfere with the administration of justice.
Lord Judge's ruling was prompted after journalists used Twitter at the bail hearing of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to give live updates.
The interim guidance has immediate effect but a review will be conducted.
The interim guidance covers the use of mobile, e-mail and social media such as Twitter, and internet-enabled laptops.
Full story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12038088
Dear Stuart,
At this time of year may I personally wish you a very Happy Christmas, take a little break, recharge the batteries and head into 2011 with a single minded (as always) focus to finally put this dreadful saga to a solid footing to Strasbourg, well the U.K did say to exhaust the LOCAL courts before you took it further. You know that no matter what happens HISTORY will be the final judge, not W.B or P.B or ILM or TLS or any other human being "paid" to produce the 'facts',but HISTORY and historians (maybe of the future) who will really get to the bottom of what our 'accredited media' is simply incapable (read:not willing) to record, hell I am glad I am just an ordinary bloke with a sense of morality and conscience and will in the end go my maker with a light heart, unlike some.
Reg Jeune he of LLP law.
letter in jep supporting bailiff role,well he would wouldn't he 35 years a states member he brags,of getting what he wanted through his support more the like.
Would this be Reginald Jeune of Limited Liability Partnerships fame ?
800 years of good governance ?
We should be grateful at this yuletide time that our betters are striving to maintain good honest feudal values!
"Merry Christmas to you Sir ! and thank you for the mouldy turnip ,the wife and six children will enjoy it on Christmas Day."
Happy Christmas Stuart and everyone.
Fighting for justice in the absence of a working justice system is hard work, WELL DONE to everyone who has been battling on.
Keep the faith - we WILL see justice.
You forget, I know Wendy Kinnard.
I am aware of what you refer to.
However - none of that makes a shred of difference to her extraordinary conduct - her unlawful - because that's what it was - unlawful betrayal of a fellow Minister and friend.
She owes a substantial apology to a number of people, not only me.
There are many different types of behaviour - by different people - that characterise the whole, disgusting episode.
One of the most note-worthy of those characteristics has bee the sheer, stark quantity of brazen treachery, cowardice, dishonesty and self-interest on display from a number of individuals who should have strongly been on the right side.
In many ways, those people are worse than the oligarchy.
No-body likes a traitor.
Stuart
One only has to look at the sentences given for cases of sexual abuse by Philip Bailhache then one can draw ones own conclusions! this is the man above all others who in many peoples minds has brought the role of Bailiff into disrepute his role is the catalyst for change in the 21st century how sad that his alleged actions have brought this situation about
Hi Stuart hope you have a very good Christmas and a successful new year many of the people who attack you and abuse there positions of power over us all will be celebrating the birth of Christ in churches throughout the Island these will preached too by rectors/priest who to a man have not spoken up to assist the abused people of our island the good and the so called great will pray to god!! Hypocrite's I like you am not overly religious but I do pray with all my heart and soul that those who have sided with evil rot in hell!!
Stuart, you suggest a number of people, not jut Wendy Kinnard, have betrayed the cause of the last few years.
Do you want to give us an idea if who they are?
Sure.
Too many to mention individually - but, of those who profess to be on the side of ordinary people - to be on the side of the weak and vulnerable - but who, in reality, are simply traitors and/or fifth-columnists - a few of the obvious candidates would be:
Judy Martin;
Wendy Kinnard;
Geoff Southern;
Trevor Pitman;
Montfort Tadier;
Shona Pitman;
Daniel Wimberley;
Allan Breckon;
Roy Le Herissier;
By no means an exhaustive list - that's just a few of the obvious hypocrites and posturing fakes who are happy to sell themselves to the electorate as being 'progressive' - as being 'non-establishment'.
Apart from the occasional question from a few of them - and other very "safe" activities - they've done none - and I mean none - of the obvious actions that should have been pursued.
On the contrary - in the case of most of them - they have proactively striven - behind the scenes - to support the Culture of Concealment.
Most of those people - and others like them - will be seeking election in 2011.
We will - closer to the time - be providing the voting public with a detailed description of their conduct.
And comparing and contrasting it with what should have been done - by any respectable 'opposition' - but which hasn't happened.
As I said - worse than the oligarchy - as no-body likes a traitor.
Stuart
"Without traitors, the loyal do not stand out." :o)
Dear Mr Syvret,
I and I am sure many others are enlightened by your informative blog however the entry above regarding the fiasco over Harcourt is basically correct but completely missing some important detail and also forgets to mention two of the main players in the scandal, which could or should I say would, have seen Jersey handcuffed to an almighty financial and development undertaking that was doomed to financial failure.
Frank Walker, who held office as Chief Minister at the time, took the proposition to the States to sign off the deal to give Harcourt the full rights to develop the Financial Quarter complete with sunken road at a cost of £340 million. The developers were well funded said Frank Walker at the time, his information came from the staff of WEB.
Given the warnings about the sub prime meltdown circulating London, this in itself was a brave step, for a small island reliant and finance, some would say very unwise.
The point being and not made clear, is that the CEO of WEB Mr Izatt cannot sign any deal without the signature of the Chief Minister and The Treasury Minister. Therefore it means that both these signatures sit on the board. It means also they are privy to commercial and other information not available outside of the then WEB board.
It gets more surreal, when it is a documented fact that Frank Walker stood up and wanted Harcourt as developers, to be rubber stamped by the States of Jersey when earlier he was sent two (not one as was claimed) e-mails from Irish born Deputy Sean Power which were dispatched over a year apart giving clear warning that Harcourt were fighting two court cases.
Actually there was another problem in the Bahamas. Harcourt bought a large community to develop, but was having trouble financing the development out there.
This was all available at the time on the internet and through other media.
WEB claims after the evidence appeared in the States, it new nothing and was Harcourt’s lack of information, which is laughable,
Even stranger was that the Chief Minister Frank Walker and his ally and friend who sat on WEB’s board, now Chief Minister Terry Le Suer both kept very quiet except to say that the CM had never been so angry.
It is true that Mr Izatt received a £30,000 bonus and a £20,000 bonus in recent years not connected in anyway to productivity.
To any normal and reasoned thinking person, nothing really adds up. If The Chief Minister and Treasury Minister Le Suer were for arguments sake left in the dark by WEBs Mr Izatt and then embarrassed in the States, then why is Mr Izatt still in a job after misleading the whole Government through the unsuspecting Chief Minister?
If CM Frank Walker had knowledge and then instructed due diligence to be increased on Harcourt and was again miss lead being told they are safe,then again why is Mr Izatt not relevied of his duties.
What if Frank Walker and Terry Le Suer new of the court cases and also new that Harcourt had outstanding huge depts,and still tried to try their hand at getting it passed through Jerseys Government.Why would they do that?
What of Mr Izatt now ? World readers may wish to know, is he running a library or other small department in Jersey using his skills.
No he has just been given the job of developing any of Jersey’s public property, providing it is agreed by a couple of made up committees and The now chief minister Terry Le Suer and Treasury minister Phillip Ozouf who also sit on his new Jersey Development Board, and who also sit on the employment board responsible for his remuneration.
Mr Syvret your comments above may well be correct.
Anonymous.
In answer to:
Anonymous.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010 14:22:00 GMT
How can these alleged brazen things happen. There is no doubt our island is, as alleged, run by people who fly close to the wind.
Who lookes after the needy whilst our rulers sip, or gulp greedily at the cup of excess and decadence!
"Who looks after the needy whilst our rulers sip, or gulp greedily at the cup of excess and decadence!"
Well - certainly not our so-called 'opposition'.
There isn't - without a word of exaggeration - one single one of them who possesses the necessary integrity and leadership-qualities.
Instead they prefer to be aligned with a man - in the person of Geoff Southern - who had to resign in disgrace from teaching at Hautlieu - in reality for having inappropriate sexual relationships with 16 and 17 year-old girls he was teaching.
Though - or course - just like literally dozens and dozens of other teachers in Jersey over the decades - that was never acknowledged by the management as the real reason; too much of an inconvenient scandal all-round - just too embarrassing for the senior management.
After all - this is a system that has as its most senior civil servant - in the person of Mario Lundy - one of the prime suspects in the historic child abuse investigation.
A man who was evidencedly protected by Bill Ogley, and not even suspended.
A child "protection" apparatus - that has as the politician responsible - Assistant Minister with responsibility for Social Services - Judy Martin - a person who corruptly colludes with crooks such as Marnie Baudains, in order to conceal child protection failures.
I could go on and on.
Really - it is stark - just how devoid of integrity and courage even the soi disant "progressives" in Jersey politics are.
Which is why we'd be better of with the customary crooks - as opposed to these fakes and dangerous shysters.
At least with the old-fashioned Jersey gangsters, we all knew what the score was.
Stuart
Dear Stuart,
Looking forward to your election analysis nearer the time. The task now surely is to identify and encourage potential candidates who have what it takes. A list of those to be encouraged be they currently in the States or not might be more immediately useful than the list of traitors outed so far.
I'm informed there is a terribly entertaining interview with Dave - "Weirdcop" - Warcup in today's edition of The Rag.
Mr. Warcup - you are a lair and a crook.
I'll be seeing you in court - you disgusting stain upon the uniform you wore.
Stuart Syvret
I've read Jeune's letter to the JEP which pretty well proves these peoples ability to believe that the last thought that bounced around their scattered wits is actually credible.
The opinion in today's online version was equally amazing, who is this person that advises our island that it is better off without snow at Christmas, for the good of all?
Stuart.
A good name for a Blog posting would have to be, after today's embarassing publication of Diane Simon on David Warcup, "The Walter Mitty World of Simon and Warcup". One wonders if Diane Simon is striving to be the next David Rose!
I believe Rico might be working on a Blog about it, and would offer "The Walter Mitty World of Simon and Warcup" as a title.
Re Weircop
As my mum says; if you have to justify yourself then you must have a guilty conscience!
Names of those running the home include: John le Marquand, education president in 1960 (right);Reg Jeune, education president from 1971-1984; John Rodhouse, director of education in 1974 (left)
Read more:
Yes, David Rose was exposed for the clown that he is in the recent John Pilger documentary, The War You Don't See.
Were that not bad enough, Rose is a self-confessed MI5 recruitee - as admitted by him in an article in New Statesman magazine.
And to think - some of Jersey's gangster clowns still hold up the garbage written by Rose as somehow endorsing their lies.
The word pathetic scarcely gets close.
Stuart
Stuart,
Did Dave Warcup or Diane Shackles Simon mention anything about your unanswered 37 questions?
Have not bought jep for long time now,was their a major interview with Mr Power & Mr Harper when they left office?
Miss Simon you write like you drive AHHHH!!!!!!!
Sir,
I am a great believer in if you don’t ask, you don’t deserve an answer or advice.
Jersey has become a two tier society but not in the way one would normally envisage.
The Government is in power to provide for all groups in society, and is ( or should be ) accountable for the last penny it spends of peoples ( taxpayers) money.
It clear that Jersey has not made a freedom of information act law, but is keen on strengthening data protection laws as you personaly are very aware.
How is it those in the private sector are now supporting pension schemes ( Gold Plated) for public sector employees when very few are able to afford a similar scheme for themselves.
How is it that a well funded hospital with private income from corporate (BUPA) and other private patients? Is closing down services for the majority of the Jersey population while paying out hundreds of thousands for whole tier of new managers, and pen pushing consultants ?
How is it right that an island is pricing local people out of living in their own island by raising GST, and stealth taxes at every opportunity?
There is more, a lot more not ringing true, but there is a higher authority and simple people like myself have written short but objective criticism relating to the way Jersey is Governed to the Prime Ministers Office at Number 10on a regular basis.
It is very easy by e-mail and I have used as reference, stories and proof, from this blog and the accredited media to support my objections. The UK ask you to confirm the e-mail for it to go forward to the prime ministers department.
It is not a difficult exercise and rewarding once written.
One little Jack Russell is not a problem, a pack is.
Could this be a sign, that locally interested normal working people are swaying opinion behind the scenes?
When Phillip Ozouf or Terry Le Suer rub shoulders with the UK high and mighty at the next foreign engagement, will they know that the UK Minister, has far more back-round knowledge provided by a researcher from the back office gathered from ordinary working people from Jersey who offer evidence, of over spends and Judicial and administrative anomalies’.
JEP
In a letter to the JEP, Sir Philip wrote that the UK Treasury department has been ‘unfriendly or hostile’ to Jersey’s interests – barring, he says, a short period after 2002 – and it is they and not the EU who are driving resistance to the Crown Dependencies’ tax systems.
Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/12/21/the-former-bailiff-has-a-perfect-right-to-his-views-%e2%80%93-but-what-exactly-are-they/#ixzz18qZcnQhj
Anonymous.
https://email.number10.gov.uk/
Anonymous
REPENTANCE is choosing to turn to God. In religious contexts it usually refers to confession to God, ceasing sin against God, and resolving to live according to religious law. It typically includes an admission of guilt, a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong, or in some way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible.
The above is taken from Widepedia.
If you are a humanist it is hard to be able to repent without recognising there is a god, so you will have to be tested by your fellow man to ensure you have truly mended your ways. but you will have to be careful who you rely on.
If you are a Muslim you can return to Allah the Merciful.
If you have any faith at all you can turn to your God/Creator for sanctuary.
Just take a look at the above quote from Wikepedia and to those who have perpetrated crimes against the abused take heed and read the above. Think of what you may have done and make a good effort to make it right.
To the perpetrators of abuse if you really don't think you have done anything wrong then I and I am sure many here will pity you.
It can't be very pleasant living with guilt unless of course you are a psychopath or a bigot and don't have any emotions at all and in that case you will be of utmost danger to the general public.
Now another quote:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” So spoke Mahatma Gandhi of India, who introduced the 20th century to nonviolent civil disobedience later adopted by civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s.
According to a good friend of his, Michael O'Connell (hounded to commit suicide by the thought of having to go back to abusive regime at Haut de la La Garenne in 1966)was no angel but he deserved better than he got. How many of us were spirited souls in our younger days. The abused under the care of the Children's Office deserve better than they got.
Ahimsa
Stuart,
First, I should like to wish you a merry Christmas and that 2011 is the year of victory in Jersey. I hope that your long fight for justice, which has cost you so much personally, is won and those who are the perpetrators of these horrific acts, get their deserved punishments.
Please take a rest from the struggle you have been engaged in for so long now and try to find some peace so you can start refreshed in the new year.
Victory is in your sights and those who have opposed you are worried what will happen.
I read in a Sunday paper that a Scottish doctor who had worked in Liberia was warning of horrendous child abuse happening there. He reported that there were many orphans in homes, due to the war and AIDS. He said that paedophiles had targetted them, he was aware of organised paedophiles operating in the USA,UK and Europe who had visited Liberia to abuse children. Some of these had adopted children and removed them from the country. One perpetrator had been arrested, he was an American, aged 53. The doctor refused to be identified for fear of repercussions.
This is another example of organised paedophiles who communicate with each other and pass on information for the purpose of gaining knowledge of vulnerable children to abuse.
The way of the world in 2010/11 is such that this is a global problem and there needs to be some system in place to protect children from the sick monsters who are out to harm them.
It is glaringly obvious that in the UK and I include Jersey, there is no concerted effort to deal with paedophiles and their associates. There is clear evidence of child abuse in children's homes for many decades and this continues to this day. I draw my own conclusions.
Frances.
Mike Posted December 22, 2010 at 3:43 pm Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Proud to support the Jersey way, is that to support Judgements we have had over the period of office/s held by Bailhache/s the numerous cases of abuse not brought to trial due alleged lack of evidence, seven prosecution’s out of over 160 claims of abuse by individuals the vast majority no prosecutions brought. The appalling liberation speech by Bailhache putting the reputation of our Island above the terrible abuse suffered by so many in the care of Jersey institution’s or R Holland allowed to join the Honorary police only to re-offend and abuse a girl with learning difficulty’s and most recently his ridiculous claim that we should be independent how disloyal to Her Majesty the Queen I wait with bated breath for SIR P Bailhache to give up his Knighthood, but I suspect I will have a long wait O yes please lets keep the Jersey way!
As the RAG has not published my comment I hope you will if only to confirm how there pro establishment propaganda is used against the public of Jersey
Post a Comment on this Article
The pictures that Web Guru posts of the people that ran HDLG in the 60's and 70's are interesting. If you look Ozzy's tribute to the survivors, in the picture with all the children posing with a sheep I believe that is a young Reg Jeune third from the left in the back row but I may be wrong. If the picture could be posted here could somebody confirm it? Also I can identify 5 other adults. Can anyone else identify those adults? I think it was taken in the very early 60's just before I went in.
Lorna
Ahimsa - I may have written on here that Michael O'Connell was "no angel" and I regret that because as Zoompad has often said -this expression is often levelled at children by abusers to try to justify their inexcusable behaviour by blaming their victims. In fact a paedophile in his 70's many years ago in UK got a reduced sentence because the nine year old girl he repeatedly raped was said by the defence to be "no angel".
I have been honest about my behaviour as a child and teenager on this blog. I was a feral nightmare partly because of a childhood in and out of care because my widowed mother had mental health problems and couldn't cope with me. Michael had spirit as you say but he needed a loving supportive home if he was ever to build his self-esteem after the difficult early childhood he experienced.
The managers and staff of HDLG had a duty of care to Michael and the rest of the children. THEY FAILED!
Lorna
Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret wrote on Tuesday, 21 December 2010 20:47:00 GMT:
Yes, David Rose was exposed for the clown that he is in the recent John Pilger documentary, The War You Don't See.
Here is some comment on that documentary and what Rose was reported as saying:
Interviewed in Press Gazette in 2007, Rose revealed that he had considered quitting journalism because he was so dismayed at the way he had been misled by US intelligence sources in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
He said at the time: “I badly regret writing stories that have turned out to be completely untrue in the run-up to the Iraq war.”
Hmmm. I can't form a conclusion on Rose's expressed regrets about his war reporting nor the validity of his reporting on child abuse issues because I don't know enough to judge the issues. However, I know a lot about climate science and, in particular, the propaganda machine of the climate change denier movement.
Rose is one of the major climate change denier "denier" journalists in the UK. He repeatedly uses the same false arguments and rhetoric to mislead people about the truly worrying climatic position the world finds itself in. I call him a denier only because I am being kind to him by attributing his hugely misleading garbage output to an inability to comprehend the truth - a sort of mental blindness. The kindest thing I can say is that he is a gullible sucker. Some might speculate that what he is actually doing is deliberately and ruthlessly fooling people for political (or other) reasons - how else can we explain the fact that he repeatedly re-uses many of the classic denialist "arguments" and ways of arguing that have been comprehensively destroyed by scientists and others who actually understand the science, rationality and the rules of logic.
more follows.
second bit...
The mechanisms of the carefully constructed pieces of misdirection that he spreads are functionally similar to those magicians use to make people think they have seen something "magic" happen while actually the effect is achieved by a different method entirely. Unfortunately these simple tricks sound very plausible and are very hard for the general public to see through without specialist knowledge.
He uses them over and over despite having seen the rebuttals a multitude of times. Either he is so ignorant or stupid that he doesn't understand when he is wrong and has passed on disinformation, or he is deliberately ignoring that his B.S. has been answered and exposed and he chooses to carry on regardless because he has some hidden agenda that involves fooling the masses.
Compare his position on climate change with his "regrets" about being "misled" by "US intelligence sources". Either he is just one of those people who anyone can fool repeatedly and yet they never seem to learn or else he is... what?
The staggering thing about David Rose - is that his "career" - includes so many significant mea culpas (or should that be mea culpi???)
But - he carries on doing it.
I mean - look - lets give him the benefit of the doubt - and assume he was an innocent dupe - when recruited by MI5.
OK - he claims to have realised what he had become - seen the error of his ways - and confessed all in that New Statesman article.
So why carry on peddling intellectually feeble nonsense since then?
Just how often does he need to 'learn the lesson' - before changing his attitude, so that he is more sceptical of that which is peddled by authorities?
Perhaps the issues examined by John Pilger will cause him to re-evaluate his work as a journalist?
Incidentally - the documentary - The War You Don't see - is still available to view on the ITV web site - and it can bee seen in a number of episodes on YouTube.
I could not recommend it strongly enough.
What you will see is bloody carnage.
Essentially - crimes against humanity.
Innocent civilians being massacred.
Children murdered.
Our own servicemen and women - being sent into battle - not as they should be, for the legitimate causes of freedom and civilisation - but on the basis of a pack of lies.
And what you will also see - are a small minority of 'our' forces - committing straightforward - premeditated - murder.
Little - if any of it - is the kind of material you ever see on the BBC.
Stuart
if a million parts per million was the distance a jet travels from los angeles to new york
390 ppm (the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere) would see the jet halfway down the runway at LAX
interGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change, says it all
No.
It doesn't "say it all".
And only an idiot could think otherwise.
Such an argument fails to take into consideration such rudimentary physical occurrences as tipping-points.
Complex systems can be in state of delicate equilibrium.
Only a small intervention - 'the straw that broke the camel's back' - can have dramatic effects.
On a ppm basis - how much arsenic would be required to poison a human - as a proportion of body-mass?
It wouldn't be a vast amount.
Whilst poisoning is not a good analogue to anthropogenic impacts in the plant's atmosphere - the fact that tiny alterations to a system can cause dramatic outcomes, is not credibly disputable.
Stuart
I know this is not the place to argue at length about climate science but the commenter who wrote:
if a million parts per million was the distance a jet travels from los angeles to new york
390 ppm (the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere) would see the jet halfway down the runway at LAX
is a perfect example of someone who has been sucked in by a deliberately crafted piece of simplistic but plausible propaganda.
There are well over 100 of these pieces of black misdirection around. When you read what follows, anonymous, you should slap your head (hard) at your own gullibility.
Your "argument" is the old "CO2 is just a trace gas" one. You believe that just because there is metaphorically only "half a runway"s worth of CO2 in an atmosphere that, again metaphorically, stretches from LA to New York that that somehow is a smoking gun proof that shows CO2 must be too insignificant to cause anything. Wrong. Very wrong. Illogical, too.
It is exactly this over-confidence in judgement that is exploited by the propagandists.
Where you have been fooled by misdirection, anonymous, is that about 998,000+ of your million parts of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, argon and a few others) are not greenhouse gases so are completely irrelevant. Geddit?
Of those gases which are greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2 and methane, plus a few others) CO2 is the second most important in terms of "greenhouse effect" and the most important by far at forcing the climate to change. Water vapour, although more powerful, cannot act as a climate forcer because any excess is precipitated out very quickly. CO2 hangs around up there for an awful lot longer.
Is your head hurting now anonymous? Because it should be. And please don't clutter up the blog with more of the multitudes of other deceptive spin and baloney out there. They have all been answered and shot down a thousand times, but those behind them keep on using them to deceive the public because they know that there's one born every minute.
I have only answered this one just to show that deceit can be easily blown out of the water once you know enough facts.
Here's a link to a site which destroys the vast majority of the deceit. It even has beginner, intermediate and advanced levels of rebuttals to choose from.
When Philip Bailhache (unelected - by the people of this Island - President of the States of Jersey) sat in the chamber and had the b....y gall to switch off the microphone of MY ELECTED representative, one Stuart Syvret, Senior Senator, Island wide mandate holder and Father of the house in his attempted Christmas speech, that was the singular moment when any respect I had for this man and the post of Bailiff dissappeared for good. The pathetic antics of pygmies like Terry Le main (and others) that took place in OUR States Chamber on that infamous day merely reinforced my opinion that the time had well and truly come for change. I did not vote for P.B and therefore in a so called democracy what the hell gave him the right to stop MY elected representative carrying out his democratic right of free speech?...oh yes I forgot silly me "The Jersey Way"
Stuart.
A Press Release from JCLA
As if any more evidence were needed about Jersey's police!! Former honorary policeman ‘was sexual predator
"Tommy Sheridan Found Guilty of Perjury".
He joins the wretched ranks of Jeffry Archer and Jonathan Aitken.
Slowly - but surely - the elites are discovering they can't lie their way out of their sleaze any more.
Stuart
Perjury is a serious crime for the simple reason that our whole system of justice falls apart if perjury is acceptable behaviour. It is not acceptable and should never be acceptable in a mature and dignified democracy. If we let perjury pass without action, we let ourselves down.
Will Deputy Power face the same data protection charges as you? Emma Martins we will be watching.
Tonight's Jersey Evening Post
Leaking Emails or the leaking the leaking of private data by a Minister must be a very alleged data breach
the banned yorkshire television documentary 'conspiracy of silence'
(you tube) has stark parallels with the jersey historic child abuse scandal
A reader says:
"Perjury is a serious crime for the simple reason that our whole system of justice falls apart if perjury is acceptable behaviour. It is not acceptable and should never be acceptable in a mature and dignified democracy. If we let perjury pass without action, we let ourselves down."
I agree 100%.
Which is why I am completely relaxed and fully prepared to confront every legal situation and case I may be involved in - under oath - and under cross-examination.
I wonder if William - Barking Bill - Bailhache could say the same?
If so - one couldn't help but find it surprising that when I originally subpoenaed him - to appear in court in the context of my abuse-of-process application - he felt sufficiently nervous to e-mail the Jersey authority responsible for the issuing of the summons - and told them not to - as he didn't think it would be a good idea.
The Jersey oligarchy.
800 years of good governance - and safe in their hands!
I confess I haven't seen The Rag - as only a moron pays your oppressors in order to be subjected to their propaganda.
Should I chance upon an abandoned copy - I'll take a look.
Until then - I shan't bother.
You know - I was thinking just the other day, of the number of occasions, having read The Rag for many years since around the age of 14 - how many occasions it actually revealed something startlingly important - or even something that might have been an example of good, investigative journalism?
In 30 years - I could think of perhaps 3 occasions.
Don't waste your money - unless you enjoy being taken for a mug.
Stuart
Remember what the spin machine said......
So the Spin Machine Kicks in again
This time lead by Ben Queree.
2.3 million of public money wasted on the Danadara bailout of Goose Marsh.
Does he know the real story?
Does he know why Deputy Power is not in the states and has not been for sometime.?
Does he know that Deputy Power has allegedly broken Data Protection Laws?
Does he knows that this also involves the Murder Farce Blog?
Does he know that the Council of Ministers Have A Very tricky situation on there hands?
Does Ben know that his own story will be the cover story in removing him from post?
The Spin Machine is on
Deputy Power is up the creek
More to follow
Well, leadership is not a word our Terry knows. This is going to be fun. Emma darling are you ready? ok lights camera aaaaaaand Action
JEP's Opinion, A VITAL CHECK AND BALANCE
Stuart
2011 will see
Philip Bailhache run for Senator
Philip Bailhache become a Senator
Philip Bailhache become Chief Minister or
The First Speaker of the Hose if the Bailiff is removed
I believe this will happen as panic is setting in. Look who have been turning up in the letter pages in the rag, Jeune, Horsfall 'o' Sh*t and Philip Bailhache.
The money god is crumbling the 800yr old empire. You are exposing the judicial system the Child Abuse scandal has exposed the full toxic underbelly.
We are at def-con 3
rs
Thank you Carrie for the JCLA Press Release. I thoroughly agree with every word.
The people who abused children in Jersey for decades have mostly got away with it (for now at least). As you say there are still many people alive against whom there is strong evidence,some who are in prominent positions who appear to be untouchable.Some who were charged and then released (one in paticular had this happen more than once) on very shaky grounds. This included alleged terminal cancer, their other children said nothing happened to them. In most cases people were not charged as there was "not enough evidence". What poppycock! As soon as Graham Power was suspended and Lenny Harper had retired the cover-up began in earnest. David Warcup (poor diddums- victim - my **se) admitted to the press that he had "ripped up" evidence. Other important evidence either mysteriously changed or seemed to be spirited away.
Nothing can compensate some survivors for lives that have been ruined by a brutalised childhood. No amount of money can bring back someone's damaged sense of self. It cannot take away the nightmares that still come after over 40 years.
Thanks to VFC for posting Ozzie's tribute with the Press Release. The picture I mentioned is there. Just look at the faces of those HDLG children in those pictures. Those children with their apparently happy smiling faces are now in their 50's. I wonder how many of them went on to have successful happy lives? What do readers think?
Lorna
"If so - one couldn't help but find it surprising that when I originally subpoenaed him - to appear in court in the context of my abuse-of-process application - he felt sufficiently nervous to e-mail the Jersey authority responsible for the issuing of the summons - and told them not to - as he didn't think it would be a good idea."
Stuart?
Seriously?
Is that what happened???
You're kidding, right?????
"kidding"?
Oh no.
Contrary to popular opinion - I do like a joke.
(Hell - you couldn't endure what I have, without a sense of humour.)
But - no, there are some things that are too important to joke about.
And the startling and naked corruption of power in Jersey is one of them.
That's exactly what happened.
Rather than doing what you or I would have to do if summoned - and we felt it to be wrong in law in some way - which is either turn up in court ourselves - or get our lawyer to make the relevant application - and explain why our presence was not requisite - Barking Bill Bailhache "heard about" my summonses - and e-mailed the relevant authority in Jersey - the Viscount's department - and told them not to issue the summons.
No - really! Don't run away!
It's true!
Honestly - no - wait - come back!
Stuart
Mr Syvret
Happy Xmas and best wishes for the new Year.
"Tommy Sheridan Found Guilty of Perjury".
"Tommy Sheridan Found Guilty of Perjury".
& the judge says be prepared for a sentance in prison the media say up to 5 years!!
now here we have Mr Power,Mr Harper,Ex Senator Syvret & Dep Labey ALL giving evidence under oath with the possibility of the same,so will TLe Sueuer & others named on the order of justice be prepared to utter the same oath with the possibility of the same sentence?
I am not a betting man but would be very surprised if they have the courage to do so the same.
Have a happy thingy, matey... rest, recharge then go get em next year...
Dear Stuart,
Look well to this day, for it is life, the very life of life.
In it lies all the realities and verities of existence: the bliss of growth, the glory of action, the splendour of beauty.
For yesterday is but a dream, and tomorrow only a vision.
But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness and every tomorrow a vision of hope.
Look well, therefore, to this day, for it and it alone is life!
Sanskrit not me :)
Merry Christmas Stuart, hope you have a good one.
Happy christmas Stuart, hope you have a lovely day spent with lovely people....
Keep up your amazing work...:-))
"& the judge says be prepared for a sentance in prison the media say up to 5 years!!
now here we have Mr Power,Mr Harper,Ex Senator Syvret & Dep Labey ALL giving evidence under oath with the possibility of the same,so will TLe Sueuer & others named on the order of justice be prepared to utter the same oath with the possibility of the same sentence?
I am not a betting man but would be very surprised if they have the courage to do so the same."
And that my friends is why 2011 is gonna be one hell of a year.
Merry Christmas Stuart and all your readers
rs
Hi Stuart,
Hope you have a peaceful Christmas before the battles to come in 2011 & beyond.
Keep going. There is a lot of support for you but we still need to be bring more on board next year.
Cheers !
Three news items will be of interest to readers.
Internationally – we read of Vladimir Putin's oppression of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Also of the desperate attempt to cling to power by Laurent Gbagbo.
And thirdly - in Jersey – we read this:
“Former States policeman [Roy Charles Gallichan] to spend Christmas in jail.
A FORMER States police officer will spend Christmas in jail after being charged with 19 offences including making indecent photographs of a child.
Bail application was refused by Relief Magistrate Peter Harris yesterday in the Magistrate’s Court.
As well as the one count of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph between 9 December 2009 and 4 May this year at a property in the Island, the 52-year-old faces 14 counts of making indecent photographs comprised in a film showing a child between 1 January and 5 May this year.”
What unites these three stories?
Putin’s intimidatory abuse of power – represents the conduct of Jersey’s oligarchy hitherto; the fate of Gbagbo represents what’s about to happen to the Jersey oligarchs’ grip on power; and what’s happened to Gallichan – represents what’s going to happen to a lot of Jersey’s corrupt.
Gallichan – rather like the infamous Jersey child abuser, Jeff Le Marquand – will have already cut a deal with the local oligarchy – the minimum charges – the minimum sentence – in exchange for not singing like a canary.
Because – believe me – he could ‘sing’.
Roy Gallichan was sacked by Lenny Harper for a number of matters - including having the plan/ map of the drop zone for a £500,000 cannabis importation from a private the plane. He was also having an affair with a policewoman, videoed their sex session and left it for his wife to see. Among Gallichan’s other traits were the supply of cannabis to the same police woman, reporting sick and going out drinking - and of complaining on behalf of, and in cahoots with, Roy Boschat – the tow-truck operator who was bribing bent cops – and who Senator Sara Ferguson and Deputy Colin Egre intervened on behalf of; they had a private secret meeting with the then Attorney General, William Bailhache – who agreed to halt the prosecution.
Thus it is seen – that even when prosecutions become unavoidable – the full weight of the law is never brought to bear on those criminals who have the ‘inside-dirt’ – on how “The Jersey Way” operates.
Gallichan – like several other bent cops – would have been prosecuted long-since – for many offences – if Lenny and Graham had not been thwarted by Jersey’s corrupt, politicised prosecution system.
Just how corrupt are some elements of policing in Jersey? Rene Le Sueur is a child abuser who used to visit HDLG. He buggered a six year old boy over the side of a yacht whilst holding his head underwater.
Le Sueur’s niece is Inspector Garwood who tipped him off before he was raided. So they never found his computer. He was never charged.
On the contrary – his victim was later prosecuted for attempted blackmail – and Le Sueur’s identity was protected until I made it public in 2008.
Many – many – many people in Jersey will have acted in corrupt or improper or unethical ways – though not in any ways as grave as the matters I refer to above.
Let me offer some advice to those who may have acted – in some small ways – improperly.
In the coming year – a terrible reckoning is going to come upon the Jersey oligarchy.
After so many decades – centuries – of naked and unchallenged corruption – the inevitable is bearing down.
When the inevitable happens – make sure you are on the right side.
Stuart.
Former States policeman to spend Christmas in jail
Anyone got a picture of Gallichan? Just so the public know who to look out for when they're out with their children.
I had to giggle at this comment which I came upon in the rag under the article entitled 'Queen is invited to open new Town Park' Thought you might like a laugh so here it is:
'Get ex-senator syuart syvret to open the park as it was his idea in the first place. I’m sure he’d do it for nothing and as Jersey’s most popular ever politician and ex-father of the house it would be far more appropriate. He did serve the island for 20 years and always stood up for what he believed in. In fact the park should be named after him.'
you worry me when you make such strong allegations Stuart. I sincerly hope that you can back them up if your challenged,especially the allegation against a police woman. I so hope that you are correct.
Yes.
It is all correct.
Bring it on.
We've barely scratched the surface of the Jersey oligarchy's sleaze.
Stuart
Ciao Ciao Warcup
If you would like other people to read a particular comment on Stuart's blog this is all you need to do.
Click on the Date/Time stamp at the end of the comment you want to link to.
Copy the address from your address bar and use that as a link.
If you want to Tweet a comment; first get the address as above then go to TinyURL.com and use the form to shorten it.
Copy the new short link and paste it into your Tweet thus; Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret Comment - http://tinyurl.com/347athh - or whatever takes your fancy.
Hope that's clear :)
Stuart
Didn't some of the bent cops connected to the towing controversy have some kind of familial relationship with the two biggest trolls?
Elle
Anonymous said: "you worry me when you make such strong allegations Stuart. I sincerly hope that you can back them up......I so hope that you are correct".
Anyone who has followed this blog since it started will know that Stuart thoroughly researches everything he writes about and will not name anyone unless he is 100% confident that it can be verified. He strenuously refuses to post anything that cannot be backed up with facts.
In all this time not one of these people - no matter how high up in the Jersey stratosphere - has challenged Stuart in a court of law about any of the things he has written. Why is that? Because they haven't got a leg to stand on when it is the truth.
Keep on giving them loads in 2011!
Lorna
X
This is from Leonard Harpers Affidavit and might concern the officer in question. Maybe Mr Harper could comment on it if he feels he can.
"We arrested the Head of the Information Technology Department and his two most senior members of staff, including the Information Security Officer, following a tip off from within the department that they had used police funds to purchase expensive IT equipment for home use. When we investigated we found that this was correct. They had purchased the equipment with police funds, had it delivered to Police Headquarters, and then taken it home. Enquiries established that they had used the illegally bought equipment to download hundreds of sexually explicit images at home as well as illegal software. Two of them stored nude photos of their wives on the computers. One had lent a computer purchased with police money to a family member to go to University in the UK. Another had also purchased expensive computer audio studio equipment with police funds and had taken it home to further his music hobby. The three were suspended on full pay. We immediately came under attack from politicians who alleged a waste of money and that we were infringing their human rights. No action was taken against them by the Attorney General’s department. Two were eventually disciplined and sacked, the third resigned. However, with the support of politicians they continued to complain that they had been unfairly treated"
Things are very messy in Jersey at this present time. But your policeman could be one of the above
"Didn't some of the bent cops connected to the towing controversy have some kind of familial relationship with the two biggest trolls?"
The troll Jon Haworth?
Yes indeed.
But - what can we expect of such a creature? Why, only last week he was described to me by someone in a position to know of such things as an "oligarchy bitch" - in that he is "owned".
I wrote about him in my posting of the 20th May 2009, titled "Jason the Maverick".
It can be read here:
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2009/05/jason-maverick.html
The word 'inadequate' simply doesn't suffice to describe such non-entity losers.
Still - I guess we have to conclude it obviously runs in the family.
Stuart
Jason The Maverick
Well, there have been things posted up about me on that disgusting creepy blog of doom that could only have come from someone with intimate knowledge of my own personal confidential records, which have NOT been posted on the Internet at all to my knowledge or with my consent. Plus I had Stafford Police banging on my door one evening accusing me of first one thing, then, when I asked for some proof of what I had supposed to have done, and the Police having to admit that they had not even seen any evidence of what I was supposed to have done, of something completly different. It turned out that what is supposed to have caused offence was something that the person who made the complaint had been freely and of their own accord posting all over the internet, and it was therefore already in the public arena. But, as I pointed out to Stafford Police, my own confidential records had been shared illegally with other people, but Stafford Police were not a bit interested in investigating any of that, just as they had been co0mpletly disinterested in investigating how I had been treated as a child (Lenny Harper's team tried to get them into action for me when I phoned up Jersey when the HDLG story origionally unfolded, and were very kind to me, but it was no use, because Stafford Police just did not want to know). It made me feel terrible, to realise that the police will only dash round to my house if some complaint is made against me, and never if any serious offence is committed against me, and I told the officers very plainly how they had made me feel.
Then, those wicked wicked creeps started making jokes about me being a criminal ect.
My point is, I don't even live in Jersey, yet they seem to have influence wherever they want. They seem to have their fingers in all the pies. So I do not think this Jon Hayworth if that is who is doing all this creeping around is some sad little isolated scum bag, he is obviously a nasty scum bag but certainly not isolated, as he seems to be able to pull on some pretty powerful strings.
Le Sueur’s niece is Inspector Garwood who tipped him off before he was raided. So they never found his computer. He was never charged.
What (if any) evidence do you have of this?
You will be aware that she was The Bailiff's secretary for a short period before returning to the 'Force'
Several people (who I could name) were implicated in the cannabis drop at L'Etacq, but they were never charged either, maybe they have corrupt links with the Ollies as well?
Gallichan hasn't even has a trial yet but you are already discussing a 'lenient sentence'.
For someone of alleged high morale values you have already convicted someone without trial and are discussing matters that were never charged and have been leaked to you by someone that must of been connected to the case!
Oh yes the trolls
From planetjersey to farce blog. Look no further than Adrian & Jon
These two dislike you with a passion that knows no bounds Stuart.
They will trample over Abuse Survivors and any person who helps them.
Rico is busting them on planetjersey and if he doesn't already know it is 100% going in the right direction.
Adrian & Jon
Bezza,from memory, Lenny Harper was talking about three members of the IT department in the case you refer to. Although one of them was a former police officer all three of them were actually civilian employees of the police. The cop who was sacked had the sketch plan of the drop zone for the aircraft drug importation. As Stuart says, he was also the one who made the video of him and his policewoman girlfriend having sex and then left it for his wife and kids to see. He was supplying drugs on a regular basis and had connections with some of Jersey's worst criminals. I remember Harper describing somewhere that he was also one of those who complained that he had infringed their human rights, that he was trying to discredit the abuse investigation, and that he was also meeting with Colin Egre and Sara Ferguson. Despite the evidence against him, good old barking Bill Bailhache refused to prosecute him. It is not hard now to see why he might have wanted to discredit the abuse investigation. If Warcup and his cronies had arrived before Power and Harper then all this lot would still be in the force. Now there's a thought.
A reader says:
"For someone of alleged high morale values you have already convicted someone without trial and are discussing matters that were never charged and have been leaked to you by someone that must of been connected to the case!"
Yes - when it comes to tackling the worst, most toxic, most rampant most unashamed, most entrenched corruption to be found in any long-established western democracy on the face of the planet - I have high moral values.
The Jersey oligarchy is dangerous - in every sense of the word.
No other western society has every single aspect of its public administration - the arms of its state - so wholly contaminated and riddled with sleaze, immortality, graft and naked decadence.
If it weren't for me - 95% of the crimes that have been exposed on this blog - would have remained hidden.
You're curious as to how I know these things about Gallichan?
See other comments above; for example, this:
"The cop who was sacked had the sketch plan of the drop zone for the aircraft drug importation. As Stuart says, he was also the one who made the video of him and his policewoman girlfriend having sex and then left it for his wife and kids to see. He was supplying drugs on a regular basis and had connections with some of Jersey's worst criminals."
One of the most tragic aspects of the corruption of Jersey - is that many of the things I know and publish - are already widely known amongst relevant circles. It's just that the oligarchy still refuse to act on them - and the many decent people who know the facts - are too terrified of the local gangsters to do or say anything about the protections being given to so many overt criminals in Jersey.
That fear is understandable - given the Jersey oligarchy does - without embarrassment - engage in Putin-like unlawful oppressions of anyone of influence who challenges their monopoly of power. For example - just look at the 'example' that was made of Graham Power and of me.
So when this blog publishes things - it is doing so as, in many ways, the only public voice that many decent people in the island can use to reveal the sleazy underbelly of power in Jersey.
It is my public duty to make people like Gallichan - and Le Sueur - and Lundy - and The rag Rapist - and Le Main - and Ogley - and Baudains - and Bailhache - and the Bonners - and Egre - and Ferguson - and the many, many other sleaze-bags who have engaged in various and different crimes, such as child abuse, rape, planning fraud, graft, the criminal concealment of child abuse, conspiracies to pervert the course, misconduct in a public office - etc, etc - to feel the fear.
In certain cases - the fear their victims felt.
What all of these people - and those who may be tempted to follow their decadent example - need to know - is that the Culture of Concealment is dead.
The things published on this blog in three years represents merely the tip of the iceberg.
And if someone burst through the door now and puts a bullet through my head - no power on earth could stop full publication taking place.
Jersey gangsters need to reflect on that as they try and sleep at night.
Contemplate the fact that "The Jersey Way" - is over.
Stuart
Someone who posts on the Farce blog (and this is well known to them because I have mentioned it) has created a blog identity of Zoompad and given it the same picture, and uses it to post all kinds of nonsense comments. The key is in the blogger id. If you click (or right click and open in new tab) the real Zoompad, you will see her name and id. The fake one has the blog details all hidden, which is the giveaway - obviously if they had an open id with fake details to match hers, they'd be wide open to criminal prosecution for id theft.
Lorna
"In all this time not one of these people - no matter how high up in the Jersey stratosphere - has challenged Stuart in a court of law about any of the things he has written. Why is that? Because they haven't got a leg to stand on when it is the truth."
If Stuart was taken to court by one of them, do you really believe that he would have a fair trial???Do not foget that this is Jersey!
Just met with an old mate of mine today, a real "jersey" born (many generations). That person is leaving Jersey, with family, as now too ashamed to be living in this corrupt island.
Well, I told the Stafford Police to have a look at the continuous and sustained harrassment I have been getting off that blog, and,. what is more worrying, the little snippet that they posted which they could only have found out from someone who had had access to my confidential documents, something that has never been posted on the internet by myself. Like I said, they were not interested. You can't force the police to investigate crime if they don't want to, and if they come banging round your house all you can do is make sure you put into place some alarms so that people will know what is happening, if they do what they did to Stuart, its very frightening but what can you do if they decide to harass you, theres only so much you can do.
Ive had cars pull up outside my door, nothing to do with the neighbours, and as soon as I get my camera out they drive off quickly. Its happened too many times to be written off as someone just stopping for some innocent reason. Its scary, it makes me feel like a hunted rabbit, but I just pray to Jesus when it happens now, and ask the Lord to look after us. I also try to take a photo of the numberplate, just in case. I had my house broken into, and only documents taken. I have done a very crafty thing, just in case it happens again, I have got all my documents in digital form and have hidden them in several places. There are some big woods near where I live, and unless they want to dig the whole lot up I think that they will never be able to destroy my files and change them into something more acceptable. It makes me feel good that I have done that.
Some people might think I am just being paranoid, but I dont think its paranoia at all, not when you add up all the things that has been done to me. No wonder I have a strong faith in Jesus - you need it when you are persued as relentlessly as I have been, and all because they want to cover stuff up. If anyone wants to take me to some ridiculous court of protection for being paranoid or whatever (court of corruption more like) as they did with poor Hollie Greig, it would be a right good laugh, as I have too much proof, but as for me, I wont be taking anyone to any court, as I just want some sort of a life after having had it knackered up for so long and I have to be realistic, and accept that I have not got the strength of energy to pursue any of these criminals.
One good thing is that everyone can see so clearly how victims of institutional child abuse are treated.
I used to wonder why the Lord let me go through all that hell. I have cried so many times, why why why did you let this happen Lord? Itsd too hard for me to understand how such decietful wicked bullies can be allowed to do these things.Ive been to so many churches and just been p*ssed off, even been labelled a troublemaker, for PRAYING for the VICTIMS! I have wept "You don't love me" to God, and yet my faith tells me that is not true. Its all been so hard.
Now I just feel that there might have been some purpose in all of this, as this sort of thing has been going on for decades, and at least people are starting to understand about it now. How awful for all the poor children who died in those places, trying to tell people and there being noone to hear you? I think I am one of the lucky ones, be4cause I survived didn't I?
I have not got the energy to fight my own case, but I am jolly well going to write to as many people as I can think of to make sure Stuart is not put into jail; or hounded any more for helping people who have been abused.
Zoompad, you're not paranoid.
I'm afraid there are corrupt - frequently masonic - networks throughout British policing.
By no means does that mean most cops are bent - or use their powers stupidly or corruptly.
But - I'm afraid the evidence is clear - that crooked and unethical element in policing do abuse their powers.
We need only look at the conduct of Warcup and Gradwell.
The harassment you have recived from Staffordshire police is certainly improper.
As you rightly point out - the Jersey based crooks who are unlawfully harassing you act that way with utter impunity - indeed, the full protections and encouragement of the powers-that-be in Jersey.
Perhaps the Staffordshire cops didn't realise what they've been involved in?
But don't worry - the truth will out.
Take care.
Stuart
Conflicting comments have been submitted concerning Gallichan - and a certain Jersey-based club.
I'm afraid if you expect such things to be published - you'll have to do better than that in respect of evidence.
There are many Gallichans in Jersey.
Stuart
Is Roy Gallichan related to Bruce Gallichan who was convicted of importing cocaine?
Think you are getting confused with Bruce Gallichan the coke smuggler?
Hi Stuart
I have just published this on my comments section and was wandering if it had any relevance to your OJ.
The same questions getting asked and some serious answers that need to be found
STATES OF JERSEY
COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY: CHILDREN’S CARE HOMES
Presented to the States on 31st March 2008
by the Council of Ministers
rs
"Perhaps the Staffordshire cops didn't realise what they've been involved in?"
I am certain that is true. When I was talking to the policewoman and the policeman I could see the expression in the policemans face, and I am sure he was quite alarmed about what I was telling him, because I did tell them all about the Pindown abuse. The policewoman said something like "this is all very complicated" and I said yes it is, but there was a really massive enquiry in Stafford about the Pindown child abuse scandal, Allan Levy QC presided over it. The trouble is, a lot of people have forgotten, its just a dim memory, and yet it is not for people like me who were incarcerated in the so called care of those abusers. And that is exactly what they are trying to do with Haut de la Garenne. I begged the policewoman to please read that awful blog, and also this one, so they could understand what is going on. I really really hope and pray they will do.
I know this is only a fairy story, but it makes me think of the ballet Swan Lake, where the swan maiden goes to the prince when he is enchanted by Odile and beats her wings on the window of the palace to try to make the prince remember. The wicked magician tries to make the prince forget all about the enchanted swans, and puts an imposter to trick the prince, but the swan keeps beating her wings against the window outside. I think we have to keep keeping the memory alive of the wicked things that happened at Haut de la Garenne, because it is like as if these wicked devils brainwash the people, with their propaganda newspapers and reporters and television channels.
Zoompad. I have read what those vile people have written on the farce blog and only as total cretin could believe that you posted any of that. The fact that they sign that trash as "Zoomy" is a dead giveaway. I have not seen you sign off that way.
You have been a constant source of strength and support to Stuart and the survivors ever since I started to read Stuart's blog. It shows the mentality of those pathetic trolls that they mock you and your faith when they know what you have been through and how vulnerable you are. They like to say that you and Stuart are mentally ill and joke about it in a way that is offensive to one in three of the population who have suffered mental health problems.
The fact that they use your picture and your ID just goes to show how very threatening they and their cohorts must find you.
Retain your dignity. Carry on supporting us as we support you and try to ignore their sick taunts. Most people do anyway!
Lorna
X
Re: Zoompad. You may find some unexpected allies in the many internet free speech organizations. These groups are not usually interested in what one blogger says unfairly about another, or in complaints about misrepresented ID. However, they can get pretty fired up when someone like you is being persecuted by blogs which EXIST to stifle YOUR free speech through threats. That use of intimidation against your right to speak your own truth makes your's the free speech advocates' kind of cause. You have evidence to prove this and as a poster on P.J. has already hinted, the son of a Jersey politician is heavily involved in that nasty pro-child abuser blog, for obvious family related reasons.
Stuart.
A letter from Lenny Harper
The ragonline actually allowed this ,perhaps tongue in cheek comment through.Triggered by the letters from the great and good that have sprung up like mushrooms on pure sh#t.
"I am totally heartened by the current support for the two proposed Chief Ministers that will appear before the October elections.
We the ‘Peasant People’ of Jersey will have the choice (according to our self-positioned betters)in true Jersey Democratic form of either Philip Ozouf or Philip Bailache.Any other suggestion would of course be disloyal.
The support of Pierre Horsfall who emerged unscathed from a banking scandal and Reg Jeune who was never proven to have had anything but a ‘pure heart’ with regard to the LLP issue means that, we the people would be stupid not to let these ‘informed and able ‘ people rule and represent us in the fully independent Peoples Democracy of Jersey.
A true Independent Jersey would be a glorious thing to behold. (It’s just that it might only be the 21st century we are independent of)."
Philip De Figuerido is just another fall guy promoted by the Rag & Rank who never report anything honestly.
If you Google the following; Strachans, Phillip Egglishaw, Philip de Figuerido, Operation Wickenby you will get closer to the truth.
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
OLIVER CROMWELL, BRILLIANT! And so apt for this situation. He did utter those very words 4 centuries ago!
A DIRE WARNING TO THE ELDERLY
The elections appear to be some way a way but do I see a hint of electioneering in the latest rag article which mentions ILM ( Home Affairs ) on looking at licensing hours and the feeling of safety in town after a survey was concluded.
I remember a man who was a politician in the past who always seemed to get into parliament in Jersey with a manifesto which profoundly advocated tood policing in town to dispel peoples fear of safety; more police on the beat etc etc etc blah blah blah. He got elected and the manifesto measures never got another mention and certainly were not implemented. He did it every election time.
What do you think am I barking up the right tree here. Let us see if we can pick out the truly lamentable attempts at electioneering as this year passes. I am beginning to take notes.
ahimsa: the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
Ahimsa,
I feel that we are undergoing an unprecedented 'first strike' at the October elections with all manner of establishment monkeys trying to climb the tree . Often helped by the likes of Pierre and Reg.
I am not sure if Thick Phil has publicly self-outed yet but he had informed his family months ago that Chief Minister was his for the taking.
Pip, Ian Le Meerkat and some others might contest it, but seemingly Alan (John DieHard)Maclean is to spend time with his family instead.
With the likes of Jimmy P not standing ( family embarassment) and James Reed uncertain (no just permanently uncertain) the field is thinning.
Post a Comment