Killer Nurses – and Failed Governance
Part 3: The Evidence Gets Worse.
This is Part 3 of an investigation into the failure of the rule of law in Jersey.
In Parts 1 and 2 we have considered in detail the case of a rogue male nurse - and some of the evidence concerning his conduct, and the concealment of that conduct by the Jersey authorities.
I’m publishing below four, brief ‘up-date’ reports written by an expert witness.
The reports are so damning – and alarming - the Jersey authorities have done everything they can to try prevent them from becoming known to the public. Before explaining the context of those reports, here are a few quotes from them: -
From ‘Up-date 1’:
“I do not consider that the statement in paragraph 11 of the Review Officers witness statement is supported by the evidence. In my opinion the evidence is that examination of the clinical aspects of possible suspicious deaths on Corbiere ward was not thoroughly pursued.”
“In my opinion the investigation was terminated prematurely as clinical matters had not been thoroughly investigated.
“With regard to statement 19, in my interim report and addendum I have pointed out there were qualifications to this statement “all patients were seriously ill and their deaths were unsurprising” of the Clinical investigator. In addition, a report by the Clinical expert on 7th July stated that the death of a patient ‘could have been hastened’.
“That is a euphemism for the fact that the patient could have been killed. It is of note also that as I stated in my interim report, there is uncertainty as to the number of reports the clinical expert had completed when he made that statement.”
“However it is difficult to make a plausible narrative of events between 25th June 1999 and the 7th July 1999.
“To explain, on 25th June 1999 the clinical expert had identified suspicious circumstances in the death of patient J. There had been serious irregularities in the administration of opiates, Nurse M appeared to have been at the centre of this. A doctor raised concerns at the time, and the clinical expert now raised concerns. (When his written report eventually produced he used a euphemism “hastened” death to suggest the patient may have been killed.) The police then prepared themselves to interview the doctors involved and anticipated that dead patient’s relatives may be contacting them. In effect all systems were readied to intensify the investigation as of 29th June 1999. Then just over a week later a review was held and the investigation was stopped."
“This new information serves to strengthen my previous conclusion that the police investigation was dropped prematurely.
“I continue to consider that the clinical experts did not have the appropriate medical expertise, and that this was of considerable significance, and that the plan of subjecting the clinical expert’s concerns to a 2nd opinion should have been followed.
“However, the new information suggests that further factors may have hindered the police investigation.”
From ‘Up-date 3’:
“The level of statistical analysis carried out on the data collected in operation Regent was very simple and used no statistical tests. This was very regrettable because with more skilled investigation considerably more valuable information and therefore evidence could have been extracted. For example the probability of the cluster of 7 deaths in February occurring during a period of Nurse M’s night duties could have been accurately measured.”
“The decision to compare the data for death rates per hours worked of Nurse M against the other nurses was a sound way to proceed, but again when the data showed that Nurse M’s rates were much higher than others, the data should have been analysed with statistical tests to draw accurate inferences from it. There were also further analyses that could have been done if statistical tests had been used.
“In my opinion, the opportunity to get valuable evidence from the data collected was missed.”
From ‘Up-date 4’:
“If the mathematical statistics had revealed the cluster of deaths was unlikely, then a cause for those deaths could be sought. An obvious one would have been that Nurse M had caused them. Again inferential statistics could have given a probability that he had not caused them.
“If reasonable statistics had been done the outcome of the meeting on 20th May 1999 could have been very different, and certainly the discussion would have been more enlightened. For example, one decision made at the meeting was that Nurse M was released from prison to home the next day. At the very same time a major homicide investigation of him was opened.”
“Opiates, such as diamorphine and morphine, are not naturally found in humans and so their presence in someone who had not knowingly taken the drug would be very significant. Diamorphine is unstable and rapidly breaks down to morphine, but morphine lasts for many years. So the quoted statement is markedly misleading. Opiates were the type of drug probably used by Harold Shipman in most of his murders. Morphine was found in the bodies of several exhumed bodies and this fact was important in several of the guilty verdicts. The bodies were exhumed several months after burial. As far as I am aware opiates such as morphine are detectable in bodies, depending on the soil in which they are buried, over 100 years after burial. The comment regarding terminally ill depends on the definition used of terminally ill. Many of the patients reviewed in Operation Regent would not have been labelled terminally ill, and several were not prescribed opiates.”
The reports I quote from above – which are reproduced in full below – were prepared by an expert witness for use in my defence against being prosecuted for whistle-blowing on the cover-up involving nurse M.
Nurse M is a rapist – and almost certainly a clinical serial-killer.
If that sounds an unlikely scenario, I recommend you read the two earlier postings. In Part 1, I published some brief quotes from twenty different cases in which different nurses were convicted for murdering and attempting to murder their vulnerable patients. I had no real idea before I began researching this subject just how common it is for killers to be found in the nursing profession. In many ways, it is the “perfect” occupation for those with the text-book psychopathy symptoms that cause them to have the urges to harm and kill others.
In Part 2, I published some of the shocking evidence which shows how seriously the case of nurse M should have been taken - yet how startlingly defective were Jersey’s authorities in investigating the case.
Key amongst that evidence was the main report written by my expert witness for use in my defence case, when those same Jersey authorities were prosecuting me for exposing their failure in 1999 to investigate nurse M properly.
That main report was titled “Interim Medical Report: Attorney General V Stuart Syvret”. It was an ‘interim’ report – because to have been able to complete my defence case, we required further evidence to be disclosed by the prosecution. They refused to disclose all of that evidence; but a few, additional items were disclosed. This additional evidence enabled my expert witness to produce four, brief ‘Up-Dates’ to his main interim report.
It is those four documents I am publishing below.
In ‘Up-date 1’ – the expert witness assesses a witness-statement made by a Metropolitan Police officer who was involved in producing a 2009 ‘review’ of the 1999 investigation by the Jersey authorities. A number of the assertions by the reviewing officer are shown to be profoundly flawed. As is, indeed, the ‘Met Review report – which the expert witness addresses in ‘Up-date 4’, also published below.
In ‘Up-date 2’ – the expert witness assesses a statement made in 2009 for use in the prosecution against me. The statement in question is by the man who was the Police Senior Investigator in 1999, who, at that time was leading the investigation into nurse M. In this report, the expert witness shows how poor the 1999 investigation was – and how problematic are the attempts to try and defend it – ten years later – by the same man who is recorded in the minutes of 1999 as objecting to the fact the investigation was terminated – before any of the doctors were interviewed.
In ‘Up-date 3’ – the expert witness offers a brief observation on claims made by the 1999 Police Senior Investigator concerning the statistical analyses of patient death-rates relied upon in 1999. Further criticism of that aspect of the 1999 investigation is included in the next report.
In ‘Up-date 4’ – the expert witness provides a detailed critique of the 2009 ‘Review’, by the Metropolitan Police of the 1999 investigation of nurse M by the Jersey authorities.
All of the evidential reports prepared by the expert witness are damning.
Damning of the performance and conduct of the Jersey authorities in 1999 – and, in many important ways – even more damming of the lengths the Jersey authorities have gone to, with external assistance, in 2009, and to the present day, in their efforts to prevent the truth emerging.
The work of the expert witness is so powerful and significant – that the Jersey authorities could produce no answer to it when it was submitted to court as my defence case against their charge of breaking the Data Protection Law by exposing the 1999 cover-up and the threat posed by nurse M to vulnerable people.
In total, the expert witness produced five reports – the main document, and the four ‘Up-dates’. In many ways – it is ‘Up-date 4’ – his critique of the 2009 ‘Review by the Metropolitan Police – that is the most damning and most serious.
The Jersey authorities were conducting a malicious prosecution against me – to try and silence me – and punish me for whistle-blowing – for exposing their past failures and cover-ups. Their prosecution was based upon their claim that the public interest safe-guards in the Data Protection Law, which allow whistle-blowing, did not protect me, because – so they claimed – there was nothing wrong with the 1999 investigation of nurse M – and therefore nothing that needed exposing in the public interest.
The reports of the expert witness – as the public can now read for themselves – utterly destroyed that prosecution claim – and established my innocence.
The response of the Jersey prosecution and judicial establishment to the expert witness reports was to suddenly decide to have my entire public interest defence case deemed “inadmissible” – after three months of the proceedings - and my work on the case.
What prompted such corrupt, oppressive behaviour will be clear to any thinking person who reads the evidence I publish below; the evidence the Jersey courts refused to hear.
In Part 4 of this series of articles – having established the evidenced facts in Parts 1, 2 & 3 - we will be turning to a close consideration of the conduct of Jersey’s prosecution and judicial establishment; we will be examining some of the key decisions that have been made against me – and contrasting those decisions with the actual law. We will be examining the personal conduct of several of the key figures involved – and we will be asking ourselves – ‘just how much can the general public actually rely upon these people to protect us with the law?’
“Are the people depicted in the photograph below, and others like them, actually on our side?”
Evidence so shocking – that the Jersey authorities even went to the length of illegally denying me my right to a fair trial.
Stuart.
Up-date 1 to Interim Medical Report:
Attorney General V Stuart Syvret
12th October
“This update is subsequent to my reviewing recently available information in the Folder AG v Syvret Disclosure: Unused Material 9/10/2009. In it were Documents 70, 71, 72, 73. 74, 75
Of particular relevance to my instructions was document 70, the witness statement of the Review Officer who was commissioned in April 2009 to review Operation Regent, the name given to the police investigation of possible homicide by Nurse M.
A general comment is that the Review Officer looked at the form of the clinical aspects of the investigation but did not look in detail at the conduct of the clinical investigation, probably because he did not have the expertise to do so. My opinion is that the conduct of the investigation was unsatisfactory for reasons I have detailed in my interim report. In that report I also detailed the evidence that an important part of the structure of the investigation was also unsatisfactory, in that the requirement for a 2nd opinion on cases where the clinical expert raised concerns was not followed. Therefore, for that and other reasons given in my interim report, I do not consider that the statement in paragraph 11 of the Review Officers witness statement is supported by the evidence. In my opinion the evidence is that examination of the clinical aspects of possible suspicious deaths on Corbiere ward was not thoroughly pursued.
With regard to statement 14, in my interim report I have covered in some detail why I consider that the choice of clinical expert appeared to be flawed, despite the fact that Good Practice was followed by the Police. In addition I have pointed out that there were in fact two clinical experts, and the fact that the expertise of the second expert has not been detailed, despite the very important role that she played in the investigation.
With regard to statements 15, 18, & 20 I repeat my view from the interim report that for a thorough clinical investigation the doctors should have been interviewed. This was the plan of the Police investigators, and as mentioned in my interim report the Police Senior investigator was minuted making this point strongly at the meeting of 7th July 1999. These are quotes attributed to him on that day. “I feel there is a chance of obtaining something remote but serious, for example the anaesthetist was angry that the notes were missing. A doctor may have encountered something which isn’t on the notes.” He also said on 7th July 1999 “I personally would have liked to have done the doctors and nurses.” And the note from the Police file of 24th June 1999 stated “Two police officers to have full access to the medical record of Patient J. To ensure the thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding his death and allow the investigators to raise points raised by Dr Sd with members of the medical profession at the General Hospital.” In my opinion the investigation was terminated prematurely as clinical matters had not been thoroughly investigated.
With regard to statement 19, in my interim report and addendum I have pointed out there were qualifications to this statement “all patients were seriously ill and their deaths were unsurprising” of the Clinical investigator. In addition, a report by the Clinical expert on 7th July stated that the death of a patient ‘could have been hastened’.
That is a euphemism for the fact that the patient could have been killed. It is of note also that as I stated in my interim report, there is uncertainty as to the number of reports the clinical expert had completed when he made that statement.
With regard to Statement 22, in fact several of the patients had died within a few months of the Police investigation. Of great importance is the fact that it was documented that a Forensic Pathologist linked to the investigation. Was the Pathologist’s opinion ever sough on these matters, and if so what was it?
With regard to statement 23, with regard to ongoing management of risk of this man, it is of note that the Police Senior investigator continued parts of the enquiry even after it was officially closed.
With regard to Documents 73 above they allow me to give further information on the Mental Health assessments of this case. This was Part 10 of my interim report, and in my final report this Part will be fully amended. However, I consider that an initial update is timely. In 1999 Nurse M had apparently been given a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder related to time he spent in the Gulf War. This diagnosis probably was given in separate reports of a Consultant Psychiatrist and Forensic Nurse produced in August and October 1999. This supports my view that Nurse M’s full forensic history was not revealed to the report writers, but I would need to be able to see the reports before being definite. The UKCC in 2001 was reported in the H&SS committee meeting of 5th September 2001 as having accepted medical evidence that nurse M was not a risk to the public.
According to HISS committee meeting minutes of 6th March 2002 a further Psychiatric report was completed by a different Consultant Psychiatrist, based in the UK, on 26th February 2002, with a supplement on 4th March 2002. The report referred to the fact that Nurse M’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was ongoing, but that Nurse M felt he could cope with the symptoms. The Consultant Psychiatrist felt he was fit to practice professionally as a nurse, operate a nursing agency, and run a nursing home. He commented there was a risk of relapse of depression but felt this risk could be reduced by regular antidepressant medication.
It was noted during the meeting that Nurse M was being investigated for a serious breach of professional conduct in a local nursing home. I consider that this was probably the case I referred to in my interim report in Part 7, which I stated has taken place around 2003.
In my view the report again suggests that this man’s full forensic history had not been revealed to the Psychiatrist, and so an accurate Mental Health assessment was not carried out, particularly in relation to a personality disorder. I would need to see the actual report to be certain.”
Up-date 2 to Interim Medical Report:
Attorney General V Stuart Syvret
12th October
“Further to my interim report of 7th October 2009, I have reviewed the bundle of documents in the file labelled “AG v Syvret Material disclosed at Court 07/10/2009.”
I examined the recent statement of the person who was the Police Senior Investigator of Nurse M in 1999, and the Major Crime Policy File of the Police from the investigation. Both documents had information relevant to the assessment and management of risk to others by Nurse M.
The ex- Police Senior Investigator gave a witness statement to the police on 29th September 2009 which contains information of considerable importance to the Medical aspects of the case which I detailed in my report of 7th October. He refers to Nurse M having worked in a specific Jersey residential home post 1999. This residential home is different to the one in which I was already aware he had worked, as described in Part 7 of my previous report. Therefore to my certain knowledge he has worked in at least two Jersey residential homes post 1999.
In paragraph 9) of his witness statement the ex- Police Senior Investigator described his action of initiating at his own insistence a further less formal continuation of the investigation following the official closure of the investigation on 7th July 1999.
This adds considerable weight to my previously expressed concern that the Clinical part of the police investigation was prematurely stopped. If there are any notes or further detail about his informal investigation, it would be helpful if I could review them.
In paragraphs 6) &7) the Police Senior Investigator describes what I would label as a Risk Management Strategy and actions. In my previous report I identified concerns with how this man’s subsequent risk was managed. The Police Senior Investigator obviously reached the same concerns and acted on his own initiative. It would be helpful if I could see any relevant documentation on this matter from the Police Senior Investigator and from the Health Services.
On reviewing the major crime policy file which tabulates decisions taken by the Police investigating team and their reasons from 18th April 1999 to 9th July 2009 there are a number of relevant items. I have documented selected extracts.
Be aware these are not the complete notes, but those part notes I consider relevant to my task. I have not included all the dates or in all cases the complete notes made on those dates. Also the emphases are mine. I make comments in italics.
On 14th May 1999 It is noted “Secure the most suitable expert to advise on the medical evidence collated in this case. Medical evidence will play a key role when interpreting medical opinion.”
On 24th May 1999 It is noted that “medical expertise on the treatment of patients will be imported from the UK to avoid a conflict of interest”
On 27th May 1999 It is noted “Weekly meeting of Police Senior Investigator and deputy arranged with hospital representatives. The hospital will be invited to nominate a senior nursing officer to assist in the investigations…. A Nursing Officer appointed to the case could facilitate an understanding of ward procedures and practice.” (There is no record in the bundles to suggest that this happened.)
27th May 1999 It is noted Police Senior Investigator “to provide a concise briefing note wkly to distribute to the seniors.”
1st June 1999 It is noted “From the review of the notes the focus of attention will be on the nurses. Doctors mentioned will be interviewed in Phase 2. The nursing staff tends to spend a high degree of time with the patients doctors spend very little time with the patient although we recognise they may have evidence and information which will need to be collated.”
3rd June 1999 It is noted “Engage the expert Dr Sd. Expert opinion required on the cause of death and treatment of patients at the General Hospital.”
8th June 1999 It is noted “Concern re missing documents. Concern re level of care of patients on Corbiere to be raised on completion of the study. Investigation severely hampered by missing docs”
14th June 1999 It is noted “The hospital in the form of [Chief Executive G J] has asked that living patients are not approached to avert any distress to them. If suspicious activity is identified on the patient notes the situation will be reassessed.”
22nd June 1999 It is noted that Nurse M’s legal representative is to be informed that Nurse M is “to be told he will be interviewed further concerning the current investigation”. (I believe on this date Dr Sd and Mrs Sd began their investigation of the records. However, the controlled drug book was not available to them until 24th June 1999 which hampered their assessments.)
24th June 1999 It is noted “today 2 deaths have been identified which give cause for concern. The need to assess each file carefully is paramount.” (This comment probably relates to Dr Sd’s investigation.)
24th June 1999 It is noted “The investigation teams to interview all Nursing Staff identified as having contact with 8 patients highlighted by Dr Sd as requiring further investigation. The documentation or speed of death, or conflicting documentation give cause for concern and the observations of staff will be essential to assess the situation effectively.”
24th June 1999 It is noted “Attempt to identify any suspicious behaviour on the part of Nurse M or any other member of staff to account for the deaths of the 8 deaths highlighted by Dr Sd.”
25th June 1999 It is noted “Two police officers to have full access to the medical record of Patient J. To ensure the thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding his death and allow the investigators to raise points raised by Dr Sd with members of the medical profession at the General Hospital.” (I referred to Patient J several times in my interim report. The report on Patient J was completed on 7th July 1999 and so was probably not available to the meeting that day at which the decision to stop the investigation was made. It was certainly not completed by when Dr Sd wrote his summary letter of 5th July 1999. Dr Sd wrote in his report of Patient J “in my view the death was from natural causes but, however it could have been hastened.” That is also the case referred to in the first meeting of 7th July 1999 when the Police Senior Investigator argued in favour of interviewing doctors as minuted “I feel there is a chance of obtaining something remote but serious, for example the anaesthetist was angry that the notes were missing. A doctor may have encountered something which isn’t on the notes.”)
(I believe Dr Sd and Mrs Sd arrived in Jersey on 21st June 1999 and returned to the UK 3 to 5 days later.)
29th June 1999 It is noted “In the event of the patient’s relative contacting the incident room inquiring about a person subject to investigation the SIO, deputy SIO or nominated person will call on them personally to explain the circumstances surrounding the Police interest in their dead relative”
The entry in the next note page is not readable at all as the content of the page is blocked out by a typed note placed over it of the decision of 7th July 2009 of the Deputy Chief Officer of Police to stop the investigation. The typed note has a stamp that it was signed on 14th July 2009. The written entry of that page is therefore completely covered and not readable. There are also typed minutes of the meeting at which the decision was taken to stop the investigation which give identical reasons. The reasons in the typed note and the typed minutes are “Decision has been made to terminate the investigation at this point. Despite exhaustive enquiries with nursing staff no further evidence has been gained. Despite the employment of an expert no firm evidence has come to light in relation to the patient deaths. There is circumstantial evidence of death rate and anecdotal evidence of” Nurse M’s “behaviour, there is no corroborative evidence on which to base further investigation. Given the chances of finding that evidence are utterly remote it has been decided that the enquiry be put on hold.” In the typed minutes additional comments include that the Deputy Chief of Police stated “There is a risk in terminating the enquiry now but given the lengths we’ve gone to in the last 8 weeks, I don’t feel we are in a position to be criticised.” He also commented “the enquiry has not been helped by outside organisations.” (There is no explanation of which organisations these are or how they have not helped the Police enquiry)
On 8th July 2009 there is a note that refers to the presumably hand written decision on the covered page It is noted “The decision has been made to bring the investigation to a halt, the actions which have been discontinued comply with the policy decision 75.”
There are several further notes relating to the process of winding up the investigation, the final note being dated 9th July 2009.
Comments on this new information.
I consider this further information adds considerable support to my opinion that the police investigation was terminated prematurely. In addition I consider that a more experienced Medical investigator could have given more definitive advice to have assisted the Police’s very difficult decision, and thereby provided a more authoritative assessment of risk.
However it is difficult to make a plausible narrative of events between 25th June 1999 and the 7th July 1999.
To explain, on 25th June 1999 the clinical expert had identified suspicious circumstances in the death of patient J. There had been serious irregularities in the administration of opiates, Nurse M appeared to have been at the centre of this. A doctor raised concerns at the time, and the clinical expert now raised concerns. (When his written report eventually produced he used a euphemism “hastened” death to suggest the patient may have been killed.) The police then prepared themselves to interview the doctors involved and anticipated that dead patient’s relatives may be contacting them. In effect all systems were readied to intensify the investigation as of 29th June 1999. Then just over a week later a review was held and the investigation was stopped.
Something significant seemed to have happened in this period to change the whole direction. The Police Senior Investigator, his deputy, the clinical investigator were unhappy with the decision, and even the Deputy Chief Officer of Police, with his comments about risk and hints of outside interference, was uneasy.
Conclusions
This new information serves to strengthen my previous conclusion that the police investigation was dropped prematurely.
I continue to consider that the clinical experts did not have the appropriate medical expertise, and that this was of considerable significance, and that the plan of subjecting the clinical expert’s concerns to a 2nd opinion should have been followed.
However, the new information suggests that further factors may have hindered the police investigation.
I must point out that in my declaration of interest about this case, and in my interim report I referred to Mr. G having mentioned to me around 1999 that he was under pressure to agree to the exhumation of the bodies of patients in relation to the investigation of a Nurse. There is no mention of this in the bundles I have seen, but there is reference to a Forensic Pathologist having been involved in the investigation. It would be helpful to know who that person was, and whether he gave advice around this time.”
Up-date 3 to Interim Medical Report:
Attorney General V Stuart Syvret
12th October 2009
“Comments on the witness statement of the ex-Police Senior investigator in relation to the Statistical investigation on of the Data collected in 1999 in relation to Deaths on Corbiere ward.
The level of statistical analysis carried out on the data collected in operation Regent was very simple and used no statistical tests. This was very regrettable because with more skilled investigation considerably more valuable information and therefore evidence could have been extracted. For example the probability of the cluster of 7 deaths in February occurring during a period of Nurse M’s night duties could have been accurately measured. There is an inference in the intuitive analysis that the investigators carried out, that the cluster was not particularly remarkable. However, a more skilled statistical analysis could have produced an accurate figure of the probability of this cluster having arisen by chance. In my view from the raw figures I would anticipate that the probability of this being a chance finding would be very low, and that it would have strongly suggested that some of these deaths were not natural. This could have helped the clinical investigation as it appears that 3 of the 7 cluster of cases were not reported on by the clinical expert.
The decision to compare the data for death rates per hours worked of Nurse M against the other nurses was a sound way to proceed, but again when the data showed that Nurse M’s rates were much higher than others, the data should have been analysed with statistical tests to draw accurate inferences from it. There were also further analyses that could have been done if statistical tests had been used.
In my opinion, the opportunity to get valuable evidence from the data collected was missed.”
Update 4 to Interim Medical Report:
Attorney General V Stuart Syvret
A consideration of the 2009 Metropolitan Police Review.
19th October 2009
“This update is subsequent to the part of my update 1 in which I considered the witness statement of the Review Officer who was commissioned in April 2009 to review Operation Regent, the name given to the police investigation of possible homicides by Nurse M. The report was entitled “A Review of the States of Jersey Police Investigation in 1999 known as Operation Regent.”
This review is of the original report, a copy of which I was shown a few days ago. I refer below to selected extracts of the report related to my task as outlined on the title page. In bold type I make comments. The paragraph numbering is from the original document, and my comments should be referred to that document.
In 2.8 of the report are detailed the reasons that while in the police force Nurse M “failed to satisfactorily complete the probationary period, the four reasons being given as irrational behaviour, consistent failure to seek advice, consistent failure or refusal to follow advice given and regular indications of mistrust between him and his peers.”
This adds information to the psychiatric assessment giving details of personality and conduct disorder which are suggestive of psychopathy.
In 2.9 it is commented that medical reports from Nurse M’s GP and also a Psychiatrist indicated that he has suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome. “In January 1999, his GP diagnosed depression…”
It may be of relevance that on 1st January 1999 there was a suspicious incident with a drip in relation to patient D, which could have had lethal consequences, and led to a serious complaint being made against Nurse M. It is therefore possible that the depression was linked to stress around the investigation of the complaint.
2.23 Efficient control methods were in place to monitor the issue of controlled drugs i.e. morphine …It was therefore not possible to draw any inferences, even less glean any evidence from this line of inquiry.
Unfortunately this important passage is wrong. The management of controlled drugs was very poor as was repeatedly stressed by the Clinical expert, Dr Sd. Also morphine is just one of several controlled drugs.
2.24 & 2.25 Dr G F, a home office Pathologist was asked to give an opinion by the SIO on exhumation and he “concluded that it would be extremely unlikely that the relevant drugs (e.g. insulin, potassium chloride) would be traceable in any of the bodies.”
Unfortunately the Review does not make clear what form this advice took. Was it a written report, was it advice over the phone. Also the Review does not indicate the timing of the advice. As some of the case reports related to the possible misuse of controlled drugs by Nurse M, if Dr F was not asked about the possibility of detecting opiates such as diamorphine in the bodies then that was regrettable. Also there was other evidence that could have been obtained from a post mortem, such as detecting whether the cause of death on the medical certificate could be confirmed. It does seem likely that in fact Dr F’s opinion was sought very early in the police investigation, before the clinical expert’s review of the case notes had commenced. This would explain why no opinion was attributed to the Pathologist regarding how to proceed when abuse of opiates was suspected by Dr Sd’s investigation.
4.1.4 Refers to Nurse M performing violent rapes and assaults.
This again points towards psychopathy.
4.1.12 The Chief Officer of Health was not persuaded by the analysis of the death rates and when we discussed this with him he considered them “fanciful notions” pointing out that using data in such a way could be very misleading.
The Chief Officer of Health appeared to have little understanding of statistics.
4.1.15 There was only seen to be “limited evidence” of wrongdoing.
In my view this was a lamentable mistake. Bearing in mind my limitations in statistics previously detailed, I feel I must illustrate simply how inferential statistics could have identified the probability of the sort of clusters of deaths found in Corbiere Ward occurring by chance. Bear in mind that natural deaths tend to have an equal chance of arriving any day of the week and any hour of the day. It is stated that there were on average 4.5 deaths per month in Corbiere Ward. Therefore if to markedly simplify the illustration, we can assume there can only be one death per day. Then every day there is approximately a 1 in 6 chance of a death/event. It is like rolling a dice. If a 6 means there is one event that day, then when there has been one 6 rolled there is a one in 6 chance there will be an event the next day.
We can see the chance of a cluster of 6’s thus
2 events in a row - 1 in 6
3 events in a row – 1 in 36
4 events in a row – 1 in 216
5 events in a row– 1 in 1296
6 events in a row – 1 in 7776
This is not a perfect model because more than one event can occur on one day which alters the calculation and could increase the chance of clusters, but the maths is much harder to follow. But it is a good illustration of the powerful information that can be gained from data using more ―mathematical‖ statistics.
Another good way of analysing the statistics is one that was used in the Shipman investigation. If the question was whether Nurse M was killing patients, then patients would be more likely to die when he was there or in the hours afterwards. If the day was divided into quarters there would be the least deaths in the quarter just before he came on duty. In addition Nurse M’s pattern could be compared with other nurses.
Statistics usually only show the probability of an event happening by chance, they don’t prove that it was not chance. In the model above a cluster of 6 events would occur by chance about once every 20 years.
If the mathematical statistics had revealed the cluster of deaths was unlikely, then a cause for those deaths could be sought. An obvious one would have been that Nurse M had caused them. Again inferential statistics could have given a probability that he had not caused them.
If reasonable statistics had been done the outcome of the meeting on 20th May 1999 could have been very different, and certainly the discussion would have been more enlightened. For example, one decision made at the meeting was that Nurse M was released from prison to home the next day. At the very same time a major homicide investigation of him was opened.
4.1.26 When referring to the poor state of the records the reviewers suggested there should have been a comparative “dip-sample of other medical records.
The SIO had requested this but the Hospital would not cooperate.
4.1.33 Nurse M was discharged from the army in 1986 for “found in improper possession of medicines, AWOL for 7 days, found in possession of an offensive weapon (flick knife).
This is more evidence of psychopathy.
4.1.40 “It was noted that he did not like taking orders and continually blamed others for his shortcomings”.
This is more evidence of psychopathy.
4.1.43 “numerous members of staff spoke of bizarre behaviour and of concerns for their welfare”.
These were police staff.
4.1.49 & 4.1.50 some staff found him “uncaring, unprofessional and a potential danger to patients but there were those who found him pleasant to work with and considered him a good nurse.”
This divisiveness is indicative of a personality disorder.
4.1.50 “There were many who thought of him as a sexual predator and there was evidence that he was over familiar with young female patients and relatives.”
One nurse gave evidence “of an indecent assault while she attended to a patient.” This is more evidence of psychopathy.
4.1.52 to 4.1.78 The Review team reviewed the clinical assessments of the patients by Dr Sd and drew their own conclusions about the cases.
In my view the Police Officers did not have the expertise to be making these assessments. They should have been carried out by a doctor with suitable experience of the type of cases he was reviewing.
4.1.80 This relates to the discussion of the cluster of deaths on Corbiere ward and the marked increase in the death rate, From 1st March 1998 to 31st March 1999 there was an average of 4.5 deaths per month, but in February there were 7 deaths in 4 days when Nurse M was on duty and 5 deaths in March when Nurse M was on duty or shortly afterwards. It was thought they could have been explained by a serious bout of flu in the hospital at the time or foul play. The Chief Officer of Health pointed out there had been a bout of flu at the hospital at the time.
Did Dr Sd identify these patients as dying of flu? Was it on the medical certificates? Was there an increased death rate in the two other medical wards at the same time? I feel the most likely answer to these questions is no, otherwise mention of flu would have appeared elsewhere in the records.
The Chief Officer for Health “added that his own wider research had not found any particular deviances in death rates at this time.”
As it stands this sentence is meaningless.
4.1.90 Of the 16 deaths, ten had been cremated and of the 6 burials none had been the subject of a post-mortem examination. Only two of those cremated had received a post mortem.
4.1.91 The SIO had considered exhumations but felt the lack of evidence did not justify that course of action. The review team strongly support that decision and had seen no evidence that would support a change of position in respect of this. They refer to paragraphs 4.2.18. to 4.2.24 to support this claim.
4.1.92 45 members of staff were seen by police and a questionnaire and/or statement was obtained.
It would have helped in the understanding of the process if figures were given for the number that gave statements and the number who solely filled in questionnaires.
4.1.94 – 4.1.99 detailed allegations of extremely violent and sadistic behaviour against a woman over a period of time which took place in England. The complaints were not investigated in England as the woman was unwilling to participate.
This is evidence of psychopathy.
4.2.19 – 4.2.20 The Review team evaluated the decision made not to exhume bodies 6 months after the death (presumably in 1999) and then 10 years after the death (presumably in 2009) . They sought expert opinions from two doctors with appropriate experience. “Both gave identical opinions that given the circumstances there was little or no likelihood of detecting insulin and potassium chloride in the bodies after 6 months or 10 year internment. One doctor stated it was almost impossible to detect potassium chloride within 24 hours of death,”
This is a critical part of the review with regard to the clinical part of the investigation. Therefore it is disappointing that the reviewers have not been more explicit about how they obtained their information. Was it by phone or letter? What questions were they asking? Did Forensic experts approve this paragraph?
I do not have the expertise to state whether insulin would be present 6 months or 10 years later, but some of the relevant deaths in the 1999 investigation had occurred less than three months previously.
I provide a link to a newspaper report which states that Morphine and Insulin were found in exhumed bodies.
This comment is unattributed. The impression in the report though is that this also the opinion of the experts, one an accredited Home office Pathologist, and the other an experienced toxicologist. If this is the case the manner in which the opinion was obtained was not apparent. Opiates, such as diamorphine and morphine, are not naturally found in humans and so their presence in someone who had not knowingly taken the drug would be very significant. Diamorphine is unstable and rapidly breaks down to morphine, bur morphine lasts for many years. So the quoted statement is markedly misleading. Opiates were the type of drug probably used by Harold Shipman in most of his murders. Morphine was found in the bodies of several exhumed bodies and this fact was important in several of the guilty verdicts. The bodies were exhumed several months after burial. As far as I am aware opiates such as morphine are detectable in bodies, depending on the soil in which they are buried, over 100 years after burial. The comment regarding terminally ill depends on the definition used of terminally ill. Many of the patients reviewed in Operation Regent would not have been labelled terminally ill, and several were not prescribed opiates.
4.2.22 The Review team “expressed the opinion that given the circumstances at the time the decision not to exhume the bodies in 1999 was correct and there would be no evidential benefit to the investigation to do so ten years later”.
But what was the opinion of the Forensic experts? Did they not ask them?
Even in the unlikely event of the presence of any of the relevant drugs in any of the bodies, proof that the drugs had been administered by Nurse M would be at best circumstantial.)”
It is of note that neither Dr Shipman nor Nurse Colin Norris, both convicted patient killers, were witnessed administering the drugs that killed their patients.
4.2.26 The Review team commented that the Police Senior Investigating Officer in 199 “sought the advice of Home Office forensic experts and other renowned forensic practitioners. This gave him access to the forensic interpretation of the medical records, the psychological background of the suspect and the issues around exhumation.”
It would be helpful if the names of these could be documented. The only Home Office Forensic expert involved in 1999 that is mentioned by name is Dr Fernando referred to in 2.24 and 2..25. There is no record I have found that any Forensic expert was consulted with regard to the detection of opiates, in particular diamorphine, by exhumation.
The information on psychological background of the suspect seems to have originated from Richard Walter which has now shown to be of dubious value. In my view it is regrettable that it appears that the opinion of one of the local mental health practitioners was not sought. None of the local mental health workers seem to have been aware at the time of this investigation. In particular, the prison Psychiatrist who probably looked after Nurse M in the prison and during his treatment in the Psychiatric ward under bail conditions seems to have been unaware of these allegations. I will be able to make more comments on this matter if I have sight of the relevant Psychiatric records.
The Forensic interpretation of the medical records would in my view have been much improved if the clinical experts appeared to have had a reasonably up to date experience of practising in an acute medical admission ward as that is where the suspicious deaths occurred. The plan outlined in the police strategy document of providing a 2nd opinion when that clinical expert had concerns was not followed.
4.5.4 This reports that the SIO submitted “a report to his Chief Inspector requesting 4.5.4 This reports that the SIO submitted “a report to his Chief Inspector requesting deployment of an undercover operative at a local nursing home to work alongside Nurse M.
This demonstrates continuing concern about the risk posed by Nurse M. There is no comment on what happened to this request.
4.5.5 “In 2002 intelligence was received …that Nurse M was no longer working at the nursing home as he had been sacked for having consensual sex with a patient suffering from multiple sclerosis.” As a result he was being investigated by the Medical Officer of Health.
4.5.6 & 7 & 8 The review team detailed evidence that Nurse M was a sexual predator on vulnerable women, he was a “control freak”, and he regularly passed himself as a more senior nurse than his rank.
4.5.9 & 10 & 11 The Review team considered that Nurse M was unlikely to change his behaviour and recommended that SOJP carry out an up to date risk assessment around Nurse M with a view to prevention of offences against vulnerable members of the Jersey community.
5.3 As part of their conclusions the Review team stated “While exhumations were considered and the advice of a leading pathologist obtained, the evidence did not support this.”
The Review team did not present sufficient evidence in their report to support this statement. In particular it would be relevant to know when the advice of the Forensic Pathologist was sought, what questions were asked, what information was available to him, and what form did his response take?
5.5 The Review team were satisfied that there are no potential new lines of enquiry that would be relevant.
Important comment by the author of this report (Update 4 to the interim report)
I repeat again that the inferential Statistics I have shown are just illustrative and are not a perfect model for this case. They are simply given to show the power of inferential Statistics and why they should have been carried out in this case.
Comments
The notes above are highly selected by me in relation to the précis of my instructions on the title page. The full Review report is 53 pages long. In my up-date 1 to the interim report I have commented on the witness statement of the police officer who led the Review which is the subject of this update. When I produce my final report I intend to merge the information in to one Report. However, I keep being given further bundles, and there are regular hearings for which the Defence is instructing to produce additional reports. Therefore I am not as yet able to integrate the interim report and the 4 Update reports.
In Update 1, I stated “Of great importance is the fact that it was documented that a Forensic Pathologist linked to the investigation. Was the Pathologist’s opinion ever sough on these matters, and if so what was it?” These questions are only partially answered in this full Review, and if they represent the sole input from the Forensic Pathologist in 1999 I consider that was far too limited to have been of much assistance to the clinical aspects of the Police investigation. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Forensic Pathologist’s input was more than one phone call early on in the investigation in response to the finding of stolen charged insulin syringes and vials of potassium chloride. No evidence is presented that he was involved in decision-making after the clinical expert had examined the case notes and found marked irregularities in the use of controlled drugs? In particular was the Forensic Pathologist ever asked to advise whether bodies be exhumed to examine for opiates? No evidence is presented that he did.
With regard to the recent Police Review, I consider that the opinions of the Forensic Toxicologist and Forensic Pathologist were crucial to the accuracy of the conclusions drawn. They should have been asked to give written attributable reports. There is no evidence in the Review that they were. At the very least if their views are given subsequent to a conversation, there should be an indication that they have accepted that what is written accurately accepts their views. There is no such evidence.
The opinion in 4.2.21 is critical in assessing the Pathological input. It is however patently misleading. It is very regrettable that the ownership of the views expressed in that paragraph is vague. In my view it is incredible that the Forensic experts could have subscribed to the views expressed.
This is a quote from Pounder DJ. Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Dundee, American Journal Forensic Medical Pathology. 2003 Sep, 24(3):219-26
“….Shipman was convicted murdering 15 of his patients by administering lethal doses of diamorphine (pharmaceutical heroin). Investigations indicate that, during his working life, he killed about 220 to 240 of his patients. The bodies of many victims were cremated. Twelve victims were exhumed, and 9 of these deaths were included in the indictment. Most victims were elderly and had histories of natural disease. Autopsies confirmed known natural disease but showed no evidence of acute lethal events. Analysis of skeletal muscle disclosed significant quantities of morphine, to which the deaths were attributed. Circumstantial evidence was strong, as illustrated by the convictions in 6 deaths without autopsy or toxicology, because the bodies had been cremated. Organic compounds are remarkably stable in buried bodies. Even so, detection and quantitation of morphine in exhumed bodies may become problematic after burial for 4 years or more.”
Recommendations as regards future risk management
I strongly recommend that a Forensic Pathologist and Forensic Toxicologist with suitable experience be instructed to provide reports, preferably written but clearly attributable about relevant matters in this case. They should be provided with appropriate information about the clinical aspects of the investigation.
I recommend that a Statistician is asked to review the data related to deaths and their timing in 1999 to attempt to as accurately as possible assess the probability of Nurse M not having murdered patients.”
Posts
458 comments:
1 – 200 of 458 Newer› Newest»Stuart.
July 1999 the Senior Police Investigator (BF), has stated and is in black and white that he wanted the investigation (nurse M) taken further.
Yet in court this year under oath he said that he never wanted the investigation taken further.
Do you have the, in court, under
oath statement in black and white?
Because when you do and you put them side by side....
You will be able to prove in black and white....
That perjury has surely been committed!?
Stuart, that’s more amazing evidence you’ve published. It’s almost got to the point where I’ve now read so much of it, I’m almost no longer astounded. Almost, but not quite. What I’m more and more shocked at is the conduct of the prosecution and the judiciary in Jersey.
What on Earth did they think they were doing, barring this material from court as your defence cases, when they had insisted on prosecuting you on the grounds that the issue you exposed was not a “public interest” matter?
Did Bridget Shaw and Commissioner Pitchers, and don’t forget the Jurats, think they were going to get away with this? With such an obvious denial of your rights?
Yes, the evidence of the nurse M coverup is breathtaking, but even more is the behaviour of these judges towards you. I thought we lived in a free, democratic society.
M.D
Back on BBC Jersey tomorrow morning at 9.00. They must really hate that. How longs it been since the BBC in Jersey starting going out of their way to marginalise you, and prevent you from ever doing live appearances? Must be, what, around four years now? What’s the betting the interrupt you constantly to try and stop you from saying what you want, and diverting you from the issues? I remember a few months back they finally had to interview Lenny Harper and even though it was a big news lead story, Roger Barra just interrupted him constantly, to stop Mr. Harper from saying what he wanted, and then Barra cut the interview short. I guess they can’t do that to you this one time, as it’s an election they have to be ‘fair’.
Stuart, you mentioned under the previous posting how the judicial authorities had refused to give you a date to appeal based on the new evidence (the new witness you have come to know of in recent weeks, but who was known to the authorities, yet they concealed the existence of that witness from you). As William Bailhache won’t give you access to a court to make your appeal, until after his brother and you have finished contesting the election, I trust you are going to have to use some other method to make sure you get back before a court, before the election? (wink, wink.)
A reader says:
"As William Bailhache won’t give you access to a court to make your appeal, until after his brother and you have finished contesting the election, I trust you are going to have to use some other method to make sure you get back before a court, before the election? (wink, wink.)"
Yes.
There is that - one - avenue left available to me.
As far as Jersey is concerned.
And given the refusal to comply with my Article 6 rights, and provide me with access to justice, and timely, is the conflicted - and thus unlawful - action of William Bailhache - it does make it all that more "interesting", doesn't it?
Stuart
A reader says:
"Back on BBC Jersey tomorrow morning at 9.00. They must really hate that. How longs it been since the BBC in Jersey starting going out of their way to marginalise you, and prevent you from ever doing live appearances? Must be, what, around four years now?"
Yes - as far as I recollect - it was November 2007.
That was the last occasion the BBC gave me any live air-time - at all.
And only then, because the police had gone public with their child abuse investigation - thus showing I had been right concerning the cover-ups by the senior civil servants.
Before then - in September 2007 - I wrote to then BBC Jersey Boss Denzil Dudley - suggesting that I and Frank Walker appear on the talk-back program, to debate his proposal to have me removed as Health & Social Services Minister on the supposed grounds that by trying to protect vulnerable children I was "undermining staff moral".
Dudley wrote back to me - and, really, you just couldn't make this up - saying "the BBC does not host political debates in case it might influence the decision-makers."
How brilliant is that?
So the entire Jersey oligarchy was able to become the first and only administration anywhere - in the entire democratic world - to sack a Social Services Minister for trying to protect children - and were able to do so with zero scrutiny from the media.
Not even the BBC.
Couldn't make it up.
Stuart
"July 1999 the Senior Police Investigator (BF), has stated and is in black and white that he wanted the investigation (nurse M) taken further.
Yet in court this year under oath he said that he never wanted the investigation taken further.
Do you have the, in court, under
oath statement in black and white?
Because when you do and you put them side by side....
You will be able to prove in black and white....
That perjury has surely been committed!?"
SO WHAT IF PERJURY HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY A JERSEY POLICEMAN?
IT IS AN ACCEPTED PRACTICE IN JERSEY, DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT?
Hey Stuart
Any chance of that list of candidates that the plebs can know are worth voting for?
No time like the present :)
To the reader who asks a question concerning a particular potential legal scenario - as a matter of policy I have never been drawn into that particular question - and I don't intend to start now.
Stuart
Stuart the BBC have been advertising Bailhache and Colley in the morning. Are you on instead of one of them or as well as them?
AN ACCEPTED PRACTICE IN JERSEY WHEN COVERING UP IS POSSIBLE.
AN IMPOSSIBLE COVER UP PRACTICE IN JERSEY WHEN PROOF IS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.
I had better check then.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Stuart
Whoops - silly me.
I'm on the BBC on Thursday - not tomorrow.
I was letting my enthusiasm for the hustings meetings, which do begin tomorrow, to cloud my thoughts.
Still, though - just think - if you hadn't queried the day, I'd have turned up tomorrow - with Phil & Rose.
Who knows, they might have squeezed all three of us in?
Maybe my wish to have some real head to head debates with Phil was subliminally influencing my thoughts?
You know, it's really lame of the BBC that they couldn't have put some effort into getting me and him together in one of these sessions; think of the entertainment value!
A heavy-weight showdown.
The two 'sides' of this election - represented by the two most serious and antagonistic candidates.
Sadly, Jersey's msm lets us down again.
As he and I are so obviously symbolic figureheads of the opposing 'camps' - I'm going to e-mail Phil - and offer him out for a square go.
There are a couple of evenings spare. What do readers reckon? A public meeting - in which the diffring thoughts, philosophies and policies and take on history - of Baillache vs Syvret could be fought out?
Could save a lot of time for other issues at the other hustings?
Do we think he'd take the challenge?
After all - he's an highly educated man - and I'm just a think pleb, innit?
He should wipe the floor with me.
I'll ask but somehow - I don't see him going for it.
As it is, he probably feels he has to shower four times after each hustings already - with that degree of mixing with the proles. I can't see him wanting to do another one.
Stuart
Anon said
"AN ACCEPTED PRACTICE IN JERSEY WHEN COVERING UP IS POSSIBLE. AN IMPOSSIBLE COVER UP PRACTICE IN JERSEY WHEN PROOF IS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE."
Anon, without trying to make your statement sound obtuse, you just simply do not understand either the rules, or the levels of corruption!
I have tape recordings that prove beyond any doubt that "EIGHT" Jersey Policemen perjured themselves in a court of law. Yet not one of them has ever had so much as a stiff word in the ear from a superior officer, let alone been fired , taken to court, convicted, and thrown in jail!!!
I have proven, just as Stuart has, that until these issues are dealt with in a jurisdiction entirely free from corruption, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
PROOF....means nothing whatsoever in Jersaey, remember that PLEASE.
Oh Stuy boy! yes please!
Now yr talking
Phil "The Robber Baron" Bailhache - vs Stuart "the Justice Gypsy" Syvret" - out for a square go - bare knuckle - last man standing - bets on the side. Who's holding yr sponge and yr spit bucket? Can my sister be the round card girl? Marques of Queensbury? Nah - old fashioned rules, eh. Where you doing it? How about the new Town Park? Seems an appropriate venue. Or what about that yard, out side the Cock & Bottle, big place, with the statue?
No - but seriously - a head to head debate - involving just you and him is en excellent idea.
There's no way he'll agree to it.He knows you'd wipe the floor with him. But a good ideas. Do ask him. Nothing to lose, he'll look a chicken when he turns it down.
Ian Evans posts a lot on here. He has his own peculiar take on the law which means he thinks he can ignore virtually all laws with impunity. No wonder he has got into such a lot of trouble previously.
Check out his latest blog post, but particularly the comments section
Common law admiralty law and your straw man
Personally, I wouldn't want him on my side with the attitude he is currently displaying.
I agree that some of Ian's posts can be somewhat OTT.
Which is why I don't always accept links to them.
Ian - in my view - needs to calm down a bit - chill - and apply a little more thought and restraint to some of his stuff.
Stuart
Here you go.
Published below is my e-mail of invitation / challenge to Phil Bailhache.
If this is a bout the public would like to see, feel free to e-mail both protagonists.
Stuart
From: st.syvret@gmail.com
To: pmbailhache@gmail.com
Date: 19 September 2011 23:27
Subject: Debate Challenge: to ease the standard hustings meetings.
23:27 (20 minutes ago)
Dear Mr Bailhache
For obvious reasons - and well-documented reasons - you and I represent - very strongly - differing perspectives in this election. Of course, one does not diminish the contributions and strengths of the other candidates - but there's no escaping that so many of the issues that have been points of very major controversy and disagreement during the last twenty years have had you and I - not only as opposites - but often as the main antagonists in these various policy and practice matters.
There is a reason for that; namely we each have very, very different views of how governance should be working for Jersey - and the paths down which our democracy should evolve.
Naturally, questions are going to arise during the standard hustings meetings that will draw you and I into confrontation. Indeed, it's possible that some people may pose such questions seeking exactly that outcome. (For the record, I do not plant questions, I'm simply guessing at the very obvious curiosity that will exist in respect of certain issues.) Those particular debates could consume some considerable time, and cause some considerable rancour at the hustings.
It seemed to me therefore that - whilst we could not, of course, stop members of the public from asking whatever they liked at the standard hustings - much of the heat could be taken out of those situations if we - just you and I - were to hold a stand-alone public meeting - at which we could each speak - ten minutes perhaps? And then take questions from members of the public - maybe 2 or 3 minutes each to answer?
If you were willing to accept - in principle - taking part in such a debate - we could then discuss time, location, date etc. One possibility that occurs to me might be a Saturday afternoon? The Town Hall has been used in this way in recent times.
I look forward to your response to this suggestion.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Syvret
it's just a shame when those who bleet on about freedoms start hammering those who speak freely.
At least ian is doing something to help unlike a lots of so called jerseymen.
Didn't you fall on your own sword Damocles?
"You know, it's really lame of the BBC that they couldn't have put some effort into getting me and him together in one of these sessions"
Perhaps they were worried about the insurance, I mean, what if someone decided to try throwing you off your chair again, and you ended up on the studio floor injured in full view of everyone, I suppose they must have thought that it was best not to take any risks.
Phil Bailhache will never go for that because if he did and you got to say what you knew and other islanders got to ask questions in a live setting he would never win and its likely he would go to jail along with a lot of his friends. A none Starter
That occasion - when the Jersey spin-doctors tried to drag me off the chair - was at St Martins parish hall.
It was a press conference called by Frank Walker - very stupidly taking the "advice" of the spin-doctors - to launch an irrelevant, petty, partisan personal attack against me, whilst the island was in the throes of a deeply serious child abuse investigation.
He never was terribly bright - nor any good at exhibiting leadership, rather then letting himself be told what to do.
That whole episode was an unmitigated train-wreck for him.
If only he'd listened to me - rather than those he surrounded himself with, and who's adulation he craved - and if only he hadn't been a damn fool, and let himself be used as a patsy by Phil Ozouf and the Bailhache Brothers - 2007 could have been his finest hour.
He could have been the Chief Minister - who supported his Social Services Minister - and between them, exposed and sorted out decades of concealed child abuse.
Instead - he ended up being the 'front-guy' - the mug - for a despicably and comically inept cover-up.
And he did so at the urging and manipulation of people who always regarded him with utter contempt.
For his 'hard-mad-of-business' self-image - Walker was always putty in their hands; manipulated like a fool.
Stuart
Frank Walker Stuart Syvret clash http://youtu.be/7FmJzeMgoyU
For his 'hard-mad-of-business' self-image - Walker
Freudian slip or spelling mistake?
Mad or man?
JRCbean
Ians' take on law is backed up by research, he knows the difference between law and statutes.
He has successfully helped more than a dozen people with their court cases, free of charge.
Ian has the ability of critical thinking(a rare skill today)but doesnt give a fig for PC speak and the BS of 'polite society'
a rough diamond with a good heart, if you like.
pray tell Damocles, whats your contribution to help make Jersey a
lawful society?
"He ended up being the 'front-guy' - the mug - for a despicably and comically inept cover-up".
Perhaps Frank Walker had no choice but to go along with the cover up...if you know what I mean?
Frank Walker did have a choice. He had the same choice as Stuart had. We all have tough choices to make in this life, but we do have choices. No-one actually physically forced Frank Walker to do what he did, Frank gave in to his fears of what they would do if he didn't.
It's like the abuse. A lot of people through the years have turned their backs on the victimks of the Pindown abuse. They knew what had happened but they were too scared to do or say anything, and so in that way the abuse was able to carry on, until some brave souls decided that it could not continue.
I am proud to know you Stuart Syvret, you are one of those brave souls. My solicitor Richard Wise was brave as well, but he's dead. You know how ruthless they are, but you still refused to give in to your fear.
Stuart,has Sir Philip replied to your invitaion yet?
No, not yet.
Stuart
But he will at least reply, surely, if even to decline? After all, doesn't he believe in being polite? It would be terribly ill-mannered not to respond at all.
Proud Jerseyman would have his illusions shattered.
One expects the reason for Sir Philip's tardy response to your challenge was that it arrived via the trademan's entrance.
Zoompad - please re-read the message I left at 11:09.
Perhaps Frank didn't have the same choice Stuart had...
This blog is now censoring peoples posts.
Oh these trolls - yawn.
They just never never 'get it' - that everyone else is smarter then them.
Stuart
A couple of people here have defended Ian's stance, which appears to be him not liking society telling him how to behave.
This, from a couple of his comments, is what you are defending.
"Myself, and 'c' have spent the last six weeks parking on pavements, yellow lines, piles of dog **** etc etc....TRYING to get a ticket!!! They won't give us a ticket!!! WE WANT A TICKET....and we want a ticket for the simple reason that, we both know how to handle ourselves in a court of Law, we know how to avoid a judge getting jurisdiction over us."
also
"Every man or woman has an inalienable right to travel on a public highway in a privately owned automobile without license or insurance, UNLESS they are engaging in commerce....end of"
He seems to believe that if there was an absence of law and government that things would be much better. Well, the flaw with this pseudo anarchy/libertarianism is that not everyone is as nice and reasonable as he and his colleague "c" appear to think. Without society putting strictures on behaviour, life would be a whole lot more unpleasant than it is.
"C" is somewhat less aggressive.
"I park so as not to cause any trouble to anyone
and I do it without a paycard.
why would I contribute my hard earned money to the gangsters running this island
c "
Nevertheless he or she still displays that type of mental outlook that seems to miss that there are other bigger reasons for parking controls apart from raising revenue for government.
These barrack room lawyers (dates me a bit!) claim they are taking a parking fine to Europe
"With Paul's authority and blessing, and mine, and 'C's commitment, this case goes right to the European Courts....
Huge price to pay for extortion, Jersey? "
I think they need to get a sense of proportion. Stuart's approach to challenging the way the law is administered and applied looks to be predominantly for the highest, most altruistic motives, with only a smattering of self-interest and desire for personal vindication thrown in, which is quite understandable. Stuart wishes the law to work properly and fairly. Ian and C simply are like two year olds screaming no when someone pulls them up about their bad behaviour by claiming most laws don't apply to them.
Their ideas about strawmen personas and Admiralty law no doubt have some substance to them - if so then something needs to be done to close these "loopholes". I am no fan of bad law, badly applied but I am not so stupid as to want to throw the concept of a fair law baby out with the bath water.
Ian just accused me in his comments of being a government troll which, if he knew who I am, is hysterically funny. Just for fun, I will now insinuate that Ian must be a government troll because his ridiculous crusade against virtually all restrictions of his freedom reflects so badly on others who are campaigning for Law officer reform that some might think he is doing it deliberately to sabotage any credit that genuine reformers have with the general public.
"Oh these trolls - yawn.
They just never never 'get it' - that everyone else is smarter then them."
What have they been up to now then?
Hope you enjoy the hustings.
Stuart it is all well and good just dismising all the comments people are making as trolls, however some people who genuinly care about the victims also care about the freedom of others too.
So your way of dealing with anoying questions and statements is no different than the rag.
The Twitter hash tags for the Senatorial hustings are #jerseyelections and #jsyhust
So Constable Len Norman now recognises Bloggers as media? Credit to him.
Credit also to Sylvia Lagadu and Francis Le Gresley.
Zoompad said "Frank Walker did have a choice. He had the same choice as Stuart had."
That's not quite true Zoompad. Stuart had nothing to hide as shown by the fact that all the police could find in their illegal raid on his house was an expired driving licence! They must have been so sure they would find something on his computer or in his papers - nothing! Frank Walker on the other hand has plenty to hide.
Lorna
At the first husting meeting tonight Stuart. I'm a supporter of your's, so I'm biased, but you were just light-years ahead of the rest of them. I don't know how many 'neutrals' go to these meetings, but you 'won' the meeting hands down. Not even close. Thoughtful, intelligent, articulate and moraly brave. I was especially impressed with your response to that dreadful woman who laughed about child abuse.
Keep it up, and good luck.
It isn't difficult to see why all those establishment people hate and fear you.
A supporter.
Damocles Yawn! this side issue is boring can we please move on now you have it off your chest...
The encroachment of any statutory law into common law is the most serious of issues, and no de jure court or government would tollerate it.
Look, I have to say I agree with Damocles about this issue.
Whilst as an earlier comment pointed out, Ian is a rough diamond - who's heart is in the right place - I'm afraid that does not mean we have to always agree with him. Nor does it mean he is immune to criticism.
Now, that said - along with the above comments - can I make it clear I am not carrying any more of this thread.
An election is underway - and these arguments are a diversionary waste of time.
Stuart
Oh dear Damocles,
I'm afraid you've got me all wrong,
I have the highest respect for the law (the law of the land), it's true i have contempt for most enactments(statutes).
you see, the powers that be choose to use enactments rather than law
for a few reasons; revenue,the erosion of peoples freedoms and rights and acquisition of more power
lets use a well known example:
public interest disclosures like the self defence principle are enshrined in law by the legal maxim
necessitas non habet legem
necessity has no law
this is in line with our common law duty to try to prevent harm to ourselves and others, this is an inalienable right all people have.
the evidenced fact that a public interest defence can be ruled inadmissible in a Jersey 'court'
proves that law has been abandoned in favour of make it up as you go along interpretations of enactments
If you feel our freedoms and rights are safe in this system,there's not much more i can say
c
Just had a quick look on twitter to find news on hustings. Looked up channelonline tweets.
channelonlineChannel Television
Mr Syvret tells islander he doesn't want her vote, after she allegedly smiled at his comments re his helping people....#jerseyelections
Stuart Syvret St Clement Jersey Senatorial 2011"
Channel Television - the lies just never stop.
The woman did not "allegedly smile" - she laughed out loud. So much so, the hall heard her, and some people looked around at her - startled at the inappropriateness of her reaction.
That's quite pathetic, actually, of CTV - shows a degree of desperation on their part - that they should try and spin something in that way - try to suggest I was 'picking on' a member of the public - when the whole hall heard it, and others recorded it.
Still - oligarchy spin-doctor Glenn Rankine - husband of CTV Boss Karine Rankine - was there, as always - directing the action - on behalf of of his oligarchy pay-masters on the platform - so we can't be surprised.
Stuart
That's why Team Syvret need to be on Twitter. Anyone can put the hashtag #jerseyelections in their tweets and tell the true story.
One man's Arab Spring is another man's Jersey Autumn ;-)
Stuart
What were your impressions of tonight's hustings? What was the mood of the audience like and what was your impression of the other candidates?
I have seen a recording of Philip Bailhache's speech and it conformed 100% to the stereotype of him being an elitist and paternalist type who resented uppity plebs. What was the reaction to his performance?
As I said to some people afterwards - as a candidate - it is actually very difficult to asses how such meetings 'play out' in terms of votes.
It's possible to feel the meeting went well from the platform - but for the audience to feel it was flat and unimpressive. But - that said, as a candidate, you can sometimes feel it was hostile, or went flat - only then get good feedback about it in the coming days, that manifests itself on election day.
So - those caveats said - my impression is that it went as well (from my perspective) as one could expect. Which isn't necessarily great, given the mountain of mainstream media hostility one has to climb - but as good as.
It was early days - with some limbering-up to do; it usually takes two or three days before the gloves come off amongst the candidates.
And, naturally, I'm avid to get there.
Of the other candidates - some appear to have a certain cachet with the voters - which doesn't necessarily mean they're good; merely that the public are naturally conditioned to accept them - Phil Bailhache, for example.
Naturally, a few of the fresh candidates need a bit of polish, not yet having the experience necessary - but some of them show promise; Linda Corby, for example.
Dr. Mark Foskett, of course, is a startlingly intelligent guy - who isn't afraid to grapple with the external, strategic issues in which Jersey operates.
Darius Peirce is bringing a new approach, which will appeal to some, but maybe not others.
As far as the main Oligarchy candidates - yes - they too said what one would expect - and performed likewise.
Philip Bailhache - paternalistic - to the extent of being beyond parody. You know - there comes a time when we all have to move on from ideas we may have been wedded to in the past; and for a man who seeks to build upon what he claims to be Jersey's prospect for sustainable self-governance, his inability to just let go of the Connetables as members of the States is really quite sad.
But, that said, a portion of the audience loved the Bailhache approach. It's often struck me as strange, that such a heavily working-class parish like St. Clement, have a local oligarchy always so adept at getting their hard-core vote out to these things.
I guess its up to the candidates - the Deputy candidates in particular - to really pound that canvassing trail - and as well as seeking votes for themselves, must take the opportunity to do the same for their preferred Senatorial candidates.
Believe me - even if you get in - it isn't going to be fun - not one little bit - unless you have at least a few like-minded people in there with you.
Been there - done that - got the T-shirt.
Broadly, the non-establishment candidates really have to also do what they can to gather votes for each-other.
Get networking.
It's the only way.
Stuart
This from Ted Viberts blog:
"So who do we believe? Ozouf is a consistent liar (remember “I give you a categorical assurance that I will not increase GST in the event of a recession”) and “our black hole in our revenue has been caused by the recession (when we all know it was due to the decision to introduce “zero ten”). On the other hand Senator Le Marquand has never been exposed as not telling the truth (not to say that he has always made good decisions, but that’s another matter)."
One can only presume he was sitting with his fingers in his ears going 'la-la-la' when ILM was shown time and again to have been blatantly lying about Graham Power's illegal suspension. Or is Vibert just incredibly stupid?
Thanks to Tom Gruchy for his excellent video of St Clements on YouTube. I felt like I was there in spirit at least.
You may not know how you came across but as an experienced public speaker myself I must say you were compelling and assured. You looked good, appeared comfortable and confident and paced your points with care and skill. Although I couldn't see the audience I suspect they were engaged throughout.
It may be early days and the local discredited media do present hurdles but you are on fire Stuart. Establishment opponents need to take note and quake in their boots!
Lorna
Thanks for the reply Stuart.
Still no reply from Philip Bailhache? Perhaps he will get his brother to charge you with harassment?
Stuart.
Tom Gruchy has uploaded yours, Dr. Forskitt's and Phillip Bailhache's speeches at the St Clement Hustings.
Your readers might want to view the speeches of Senator Freddie Cohen and David Richardson HERE
Mr Syvret
Did you really haver Mr Powers Statement last night or were you bluffing? Was it his full Wiltshire statement of over 60,000 words? If so, was Baker telling the truth about it?
Just how important a document is that statement, if that is in fact what you have.
Yes - I have the full document.
Every page - and every word of it.
Yes - Advocate Stephen Baker was lying.
Again.
The document is of seismic importance.
I will be back in court again soon - at which the statement is going to be a key item of defence evidence.
Readers may recall that, in an earlier comment - I explained how the conflicted and ultra vires William Bailhache had refused to provide me with a court date to make a fresh application - based on fresh evidence - until after the elections were over (conveniently for his brother Phil Bailhache) some time in November.
Well - there are other ways of getting the matter before a court.
I expect the summons any day.
Mr. Power's statement will be one, key item of evidence.
The other will be the statement of the witness concerning nurse M and public interest disclosure.
The witness the judicial authorities were aware of - but concealed from me.
Stuart
Oh - and yes, certain parts of it will need to be published.
It would - obviously - be a very serious dereliction of public duty if the voters of St. Johns were to go the polls - and possibly vote for Andrew Lewis - without certain facts being made known to them first.
Stuart
Jersey election: St Clement hosts senator hustings
Here you go; first e-mail to The Rag of the election campaign.
A reader informs me that the JEP claims that I described myself as a "unique preacher".
Oh dear.
My self-explanatory e-mail to them is below. Actually - I can see these exchanges becoming quite funny during the campaign. Could I invite readers to send in example of Rag-based nonsense, propaganda, omissions, distortions, "accidental" misquotes, lies etc.
Stuart
"From: st.syvret@gmail.com
To: Jessica Phipps jphipps@jerseyeveningpost.com
Chris Bright
cbright@jerseyeveningpost.com
Date: 21 September 2011 15:16
Subject: Election coverage
15:16
I realise there's going to be a lot of such petty nonsense from your during the campaign, but - just for the record - I have never, ever, claimed to be a "preacher" - of any kind - unique or otherwise.
What I said, was that my anti-corruption campaigning was unique in Jersey politics.
If you must insist on lying to your readers, do at least try to make the distortions vaguely plausible, eh?
Pass on my regards to John.
Stuart"
Lucy Mason from the Rag tweeted this last night which will help show the Rag's bias
LucyMasonJSY Lucy
Rose colley tells Stuart syvret what the REAL issues are. Am I allowed to say I like her already?
You should have seen the garbage they were tweeting during the husting.
Andrew Lewis was a joke on the radio this morning. Rico said he has a load of questions for him if he gets re-elected.
Stuart.
Since you announced last night at the hustings that you are in possession of Mr. Power's statement to Wiltshire and all island "accredited" media were there I take it these "news" hungry hounds have been pestering you ever since to get a look at it?
Considering they ("accredited" media") ALL reported EXTENSIVELY on the Wiltshire Report (prosecution case) in the interest of fairness and balance they will be very eager to tell the public all about the defence case?
BBC is supposed to be independent, objective and impartial, have you been beating them off with a stick?
Funny you should mention that.
No.
Not one.
No one single Jersey journalist has approached me and asked for a copy.
You couldn't make it up.
Rather than seek out a seismic and utterly damning piece of substantive, documented evidence - they'd rather tweet their approval of vacuous platitudes from Jersey Establishment Party candidates.
I do, from time to time - contemplate offering the document to the BBC in Jersey - just out of sheer devilment - as I know they'd no more want it, than they'd want to be given a hand-grenade with the pin removed.
"Oh dear! - Another piece of apocalyptically damning evidence - that we've now got to invent excuses for not reporting on! Um.. what can it be this time!?!...Err....the dog ate it?...no, that won't do, there are other copies....um....the computers crashed!...nope, that's not going to work either......there's nothing newsworthy in it!....um, well - OK - it does destroy the credibility of the functioning of the rule of law in Jersey - and various things of similar significance. But - that's OK, because we won't publicise it, and if we get it, we will play it down - get Roger to do one of his 'specials' on it. Yeah - phew - worried there for a moment - but relax. If by some unfortunate disaster this extensive item of damning documentary evidence falls into the lap of the BBC - we can ignore it or spin it down into insignificance. We're the BBC. If we decide that something is not really news - then it isn't."
Stuart
Seeing as you have it don't waste it on the jersey media. They have failed the Abuse survivors you cant get more serious than that. The place for evidence from such a person as the former chief of police is in a court of law.How know one is acting on what is already in the public domain is a mystery of it's own..
Why don't you just put out a press release outlining the most salient points in Graham Power's statement?
Or would it just end up in the bin?
If BBC Jersey will not take it up do you contacts in the national media who may?
Also, how are you going to get this and other evidence across to the majority of islanders who do not visit this website nor attend the hustings meetings?
Yes - not a 'Twitterer' myself, but I did happen to spot young Lucy Mason's contribution as well.
So her way of reasoning is that if someone does not agree with you that is reason to warm to them!! Nowt to do with politics or policies Lucy young lady, just the spin off of the bias of the company you are working for.
Rose Colley came across as seriously Establishment, but good at fence sitting to.
Grow up Lucy.
I'm not quite sure what your last sentence there means; bit of typo I think?
But yes - you're quite right - the place for this evidence is in a court of law.
As explained above - William Bailhache has already refused me access to a court - until after the elections are over.
Therefore, I'm forced to take other measures in order to secure something vaguely resembling my Article 6 right to access justice.
Like I said - I expect the summons any moment.
You know, the conduct of the Jersey msm is one of the most amazing features of this whole saga - spread over the last four years. In many ways - it's far more interesting - in that it's more surprising - than the conduct of Jersey's traditional ruling gangsters. Of course, a few of the hacks know perfectly well what they doing, and are just a-moral crooks.
But so many of the rest of them really are wrapped-up in a text-book example of a Groupthink bubble. They've actually believed their own propaganda for so long, they now think that worldview is accurate. They do believe that people like me are just troublemakers - and they believe that, broadly, Jersey's establishment are OK, and not incompetent, and a pack of crooks.
A supporter told me today how they heard a younger local journalist saying how articulate and well-reasoned my performance was at the hustings, and that they were really 'surprised' by it. They had, apparently, expected me to be some kind of sub-human.
That self-indoctrination they've engaged in for so long, is why they can never accept - and use properly - any of the hard evidence that shows the actions of the Jersey authorities to have been criminal - and campaigners like us to have been right. It would 'not compute' - and it would be so damaging to their self-esteem - which, in the case of journalists - especially broadcast journalists - is always up in the stratosphere at the best of times.
But regardless of whether I agreed to give a copy of the Graham Power statement to the BBC, they should still be asking me for a copy. Any self-respecting media would.
Stuart
I noticed that BBC Jersey are not bothering to broadcast the hustings this year... I wonder why ?
Does anyone know if those of us who cannot make the meetings will be able to listen to a recording or live stream online ?
Best wishes Stuart !
Preacher you aren't Stuart. Unique you are amongst all the speakers I have watched so far. You express yourself clearly and without any visible notes which means you maintain eye contact with your audience at all times. Philip Bailhache looked at his notes so much he looked as though he was in the last stages of Delirium Tremens!
All people can do to counteract your articulate performance is to make cheap jokes and tweets - smells of desperation already. Keep it up Stuart - enjoy yourself!
Lorna
It would - obviously - be a very serious dereliction of public duty if the voters of St. Johns were to go the polls - and possibly vote for Andrew Lewis - without certain facts being made known to them first.
We need to know what this is about. Most of my friends won't be conned twice by him but others are wavering
Apart from Lundy and his mate is there anyone else who were actally involved the the abuse and who are in government or civil service today?
Tweeted by politicsjerseybbc.
politicsjerseyBBC Jersey politics
Stuart syvret has been getting the most laughs, but is the audience laughing with or at him? #jsyhust
20 SepFavoriteRetweetReply
Sublime or blatant inference from politics jersey.
Another great performance tonight.
Who was that dope chairing the meeting?
You, quite rightly, point out the Cohen and Bailhache were involved in trying to cover-up the child protection failures by unlawfully possessing you - and the chair say, "we can't have debates amongst the candidates"!
Hello!?!?
This is an election!!
With POLITICAL candidates!!
Arguing about their personal performances in politics!!!
Wakey, wakey!!
This called the d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-i-c p-r-o-c-e-s-s.
Candidates argue about the merits and demerits of each others approach.
God preserve us from these fools.
I think you mean "oppressing" me?
Although, had they been trying to "possess" me too, I wouldn't have been at all surprised!!!
But yes, that's right. Apparently, it isn't "the done thing" - in the eyes of the oligarchy - to point out and expose their failures.
Not "polite", you see?
Still - they'd better get used to it; I've barely limbered-up yet.
Now - what set of damning documentation shall I use next - in Grouville??
I have a different set of evidence for each meeting.
Decisions, decisions????
Stuart
St Clement hustings
I seems he's not a Bailhache supporter.
"Apart from Lundy and his mate is there anyone else who were actally involved the the abuse and who are in government or civil service today? "
The very fact that certain other politicians have deliberatly and desperatly covered the abuse up condemns them.
Stuart, Lorna told you to enjoy yourself, I second that. You carry on getting out there and telling the people the simple plain unadulterated truth. You're doing a brilliant job!
Stuart.
You were brilliant on the radio this morning, and Tim Prior let you speak without interuption.
It would be very supprising if you and Francis didnt gain a lot of new supporters today.
And by the way, was Tim interested in the paper work on G Power which he said he would look at and maybe take further?
You and Le Graisly were superb today..
See what the tweeting microbloggers are saying -
#jsyhust
#jerseyelections
Excellent on the radio this morning, Stuart. Well done.
Great uninterrupted interviews with yourself and Le Gresley this morning.
Tim Prior has probably been hauled over the coals for allowing you such freedom, especially when it came to your opinion of Mr. Ozouf!
Now, had an ordinary pleb made those sort of observations on air,they would have been quickly stopped,with the inevitable excuse that the man wasnt there to defend himself.Oh hang on,you ARE one of us! Has there been a policy change at the BEEB,or is Tim in trouble:)
Mr le Gresley voiced his dissapointment that he felt you view him as part of the oligarchy?
As much as i thoroughly enjoyed listening to you Stuart,I got the impression that you got a lot more air time than Mr. le Gresley,another reason,possibly, for Tims boss to castigate him.
What on Earth makes you think Tim Prior favored me?
I was asked all the questions one would expect to have been asked by Mr. Prior.
It was a perfectly balanced program.
And I would point out that it was not me who introduced or raised the subject of Philip Ozouf - the silly little man. I just responded to the subject.
Stuart
Sorry but I really can't see the point of Twitter! I have read the tweets posted on here and they have no substance, no context and make very little sense. They provide an opportunity for cheap jibes and insults but little real information.
Nah - twitter is for twits in my opinion!
Lorna
Twitter is very fashionable.
I'm just not cool enough to tweet.
I contemplate it sometimes - as one does venturing into one of those independent coffee shops, but you can never quite muster the nerve, as you don't have an iPhone and a copy of Camus.
Perhaps I should make an effort and start trending in that direction?
Who knows, I might go viral?
Stuart
From Mark Forskitt blog and worthy of reposting here to a wider audiance
"Some people still seem to be under the illusion that the media have a duty to be fair and impartial in their reporting. That applies in part to the television, and specifically to the BBC under its charter, but for commercial newspapers like the JEP that is not the case. Two small examples today will show you the sort of accidental things that occur with a tedious regularity. The BBC radio today had a problem with the phones, and the usual number to call in to ask candidates questions was not working. Pure coincidence that it was the day Mr Bailhache was on and thereby ordinary callers could not put their awkward questions to him."
Syuart's interview.
Listen from 2.05.30 hrs to 3 hrs
LISTEN HERE
iphone and camus
classic!
the real outsider
Francis Le Gresleys five words on terry were brilliant. Too easily Influenced by Ozouf.
That one line gets my vote assured.
Hi Stuart.
Just put up part of the interview from this morning. About you & Senator Le Gresley in agreement about our Chief Minister.
I would say that interview when as well as it could for you, with Tim letting you have your say without being cut off by Barra.
I have the lot, but for now have a listen again to the best bit. HERE
Stuart.
Senator Francis Le Gresley and YOURSELF
brilliant.brilliant.brilliant! Stuart Syvret Clever humbel and honest.. Fresh air for the soul Thank you Stuart simply amazing.
Stuart your comments about Ozouf on the radio were priceless. I also have to commend Francis for hitting the nail on the head about Le Sueur's 3 years as Chief Minister.
You're wasted in politics. You should consider satire!
SS said "I'm just not cool enough to tweet."
Au contraire Stuart - you are far too cool to tweet!
L
X
The Greatest Speech Ever Made
That reference to you calling yourself a "preacher" was bizarre. But I am naive enough to think that even the JEP would not wilfully invent such things, when so many people could show they were wrong. Do you think you may have said you were a "unique creature" and they mis-heard? Or am I just being too naive?
I don't remember precisely what I said - but I am very certain I would never describe myself as a "preacher".
The only word I could possibly think that I might have used - that could be misheard - would be the word "feature".
But - I feel you're being too naive if you attribute the "preacher" expression down to an honest mistake on the part of The Rag. Think about it - how many election candidates would ever refer to themselves as a "preacher" (unless they were one, of course)?
That's the kind of word if it turned up in a reporter's notes - or at sub-editor level - you'd double - and triple - check it, so bizarre is it.
Just watch the rest of the JEP coverage - there'll be lots more little "mistakes" like that - and not only concerning me, but other non-oligarchy candidates too.
Stuart
Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...
What on Earth makes you think Tim Prior favored me?
I shouldnt think one moment that he was showing any favouritism. My impression was that you were doing a lot more talking than Mr le Gresley.You had a hell of a lot more to say. Three voters in this household,none of whom have ever voted.You have our votes.
Slightly off topic: if readers can spare the time, the Lime Grove scrutiny hearings make fascinating reading, especially David Flowers.
http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/transcripts.asp?reviewid=195
He makes 2 submissions. One on 2nd Sept 2011 when he is still employed. The next on 9th Sept when he is not (he had resigned by that point, 4 years into 5 year contract, my guess being that he will have been paid up in full).
The second one is the more compelling.
My assessment: he comes across as a very credible, competent and experienced property professional. He confidently answers any questions put to him, and tears into Philip Ozouf's blog posts.
Make your own minds up. To me it looks like Dave Flowers 1, Philip Ozouf and John Richardson, Nil.
No wonder Scrutiny have parked it with the CAG until after the elections!
Did you talk about the planning corruption at the Grouville hustings Stuart?
Stuart - I listened to your BBC interview along with Francis last evening, and I thought it was superb.
It was very refreshing also, that two quite different personalities were, most of the time singing from the same hymn sheet. I can imagine that a large number of votes were gained from that hour's exposure.
Incidentally, if the gentleman who asked the question about your illness reads your blog, depression is just that, an illness which afflicts many people.
Sir Winston Churchill was a sufferer and he called it 'his Black Dog' which he carried with him throughout his lifetime.
It certainly did not prevent him from being a truly great statesman.
Right, off to catch a boat!
My eyesight is poor and I didnt see the poll at the top of the page about having the right to see if a nurse had attempted to murder me in hospital. I would have voted yes had I seen it in time, so that means the total yes votes would have been one extra.
The "black dog",
William Wilberforce appears to have suffered from the same affliction, and I think everyone will agree that he became a great public benefactor.
Have just survived reading through 40 pages of comitteee of Inquiry into the Lime Grove house saga.God its complicated,with so many organisations involved! And too many chiefs,ministers,deputy ministers,replacement ministers... ad infinitum
David Flowers interview was finished off with a refreshing piece of humour,page36,where he is asked for a resume of his working life.He lists in great detail the top posts that he has held within some multimillion pound organisations over the past forty years in a full and busy working life,and finishes off with... the rest of the time i just squandered:):)
LIGHTS OUT-AND THE DRESSING-UP BOX
are we awaiting an explanation to this odd title,or am i just to dense to work it out ?
I notice the JEP have seen fit to publish another lengthy eulogy to Philip Bailhache.
The trouble is some bright spark has found out the author is a PR consultant!
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/09/22/a-real-hope-for-political-change/#comment-117909
LIGHTS OUT-AND THE DRESSING-UP BOX
From what i think! it sounds like one of many nights when lights were turned off and adults dressed up and dressed children up to plya adult games in the many childrens homes across the UK and Jersey.
Lights are switched off at night on hospital wards - and "lights out" is also a metaphor for death.
Whilst clowns - like those depicted in the photograph - strut about in fancy-dress.
Stuart
A reader says:
"Did you talk about the planning corruption at the Grouville hustings Stuart?"
No. In fact, it's not a subject I've delved into at any of the hustings so far.
Good point.
I should explain some of that next week.
In fact, the proceedings have been pretty tame, all things considered.
Stuart
Hi Stuart, I've been trying to get this comment on Ozouf's blog in response to his grandstanding about his and F Cohen's "triumph" as regards 0/10. Seems that he is not going to publish it. Suitable for your blog?
"I must be missing something. According to their website the Code Group only deals with business taxation differences between residents and non-residents. As you have now given up all differences between these two groups it must have been very easy to get the Code Group to accept this. Seems like a total victory to the EU and total defeat to Jersey."
That's the long and the short of it.
Zero/10 has failed.
As a lot of us said it would.
People like Ozouf and Cohen are now simply lying to the Jersey public.
As you correctly point out - the key feature of their Zero/10 policy was - at its heart - a mechanism that allowed them to distinguish between business taxation - and personal taxation - in a way that enable them to claim there was no difference in tax-treatment between on-island businesses, and those just registered here as off-shore clients.
For their zero/10 policy to have worked - the vital component of it was a device that enabled them to still tax Jersey on-island businesses.
If that didn't happen - then massive, disastrous tax-loss would occur.
But - as the EU always made clear - no kind of so-called "ring-fencing" was ever going to be acceptable to them.
Which is why people like me pointed out that "look-through" and "deemed-distribution" - (the devices by which Jersey would retain an ability to tax local company profits) - were never going to survive.
Sure enough; they haven't.
Result? = catastrophic melt-down in the States of Jersey tax-take.
Really; people have no idea yet just how bad and serious this is.
So when you hear people like Ozouf, Cohen and Bailhache claiming that zero/10 has worked - they're talking nonsense.
The only part of it that's "worked" - is the 'zero' bit, for virtually all businesses in Jersey.
Time to call in the IMF for a rescue.
Stuart
Thanks for your prompt response re 0/10. Would I be correct that the big lie is saying that 0/10 has worked? It hasn't. What has been accepted is 0/0. That would have always been acceptable to the Code Group. So Jersey has lost about 25% of its tax source as it now collects virtually no corporate tax.
Not quite zero/zero - in theory at least - as the sectoral corporate tax designation - the 10% - survives.
On paper, at least.
It survives - because it is applied - in theory - to the tax on profits of all finance-sector based businesses actually doing work in Jersey - regardless of whether they're owned here or overseas. There being no "ring-fence" - no artificial distinction - between locally owned and internationally owned, on the application of that tax to the sector.
Of course - what isn't so often talked about is the fact that - in reality - the tax on profits of the actual firms here - will often be charged at dramatically lower rates than 10%.
In truth - the supposed tax is often little more than a kind of 'negotiated fee' - which the companies deign to pay on a voluntary basis.
They have Jersey over a barrel - with a pistol to our collective head.
As a community, we're "owned".
Our "Glorious Leaders" have failed - even more spectacularly then even the weary public yet recognise.
Stuart
Stuart
Posted this on latest letter supporting the Bangkok pimp - probably has no chance of being printed.
"Is the JEP acting as Sir Phils election agent?
Letters and articles praising him to the hilt or photographs with him centre stage, seem to dominate this paper every day, whilst the opportunity to have a pop at the non establishment candidates is never missed.
Bailhache is so out of touch and full of his own self worth he would be a disaster for the island.
The propaganda isn't even subtle. I think we need some fair minded international observers here to ensure a fair election process (and that does not include Ozouf even if has done it in Rwanda!)
Go on print this I dare you - just to give a bit of balance."
What exactly are Ozouf and Cohen claiming credit for if 0/10 is not the success Ozouf credits Cohen with on CTV. Perhaps someone could ask at the next hustings.
enforced slavery; master covers food and lodgings.
economic slavery; slave pays their own food and lodgings
viva demockery
c
Re "Hi Stuart, I've been trying to get this comment on Ozouf's blog in response to his grandstanding about his and F Cohen's "triumph" as regards 0/10. Seems that he is not going to publish it. Suitable for your blog?
"I must be missing something. According to their website the Code Group only deals with business taxation differences between residents and non-residents. As you have now given up all differences between these two groups it must have been very easy to get the Code Group to accept this. Seems like a total victory to the EU and total defeat to Jersey."
I have posted on philips blog, they take a few days or so before they get posted and he always, i think replies eventually. I am not an Ozouf supporter but I just felt it right to point out that if you post a comment today for example, its unlikely to be on there for a few days at the least. Give it some time and it might apear, Tom Gruchy's get on there eventually so I would hope yours will as well.
Afterall, you cant expect someone so embroiled in covering their own backside to be able to then have time to devote to their blog aswell. Its a lot of stuff for one man to juggle/spin.
Stuart.
Is it correct that you have given a copy of Graham Power's 62,000 word defence to the Wiltshire debacle to Jon Gripton?
If so, then the question has to be asked "WHY?" Somebody has obviously leaked it to you and that, one would imagine, is because you were "trusted" to do the right thing with it. If, whoever leaked it to you, would have trusted the BBC with it they would have leaked it to them and not you.
The BBC and the entire local "accredited" media have been exposed by Bloggers time and time again for their failure to report the truth concerning anything to do with the Child Abuse cover-up and indeed, it must be said, have been the major players in the cover-up.
What do you honestly believe Jon Gripton is going to do with the document you gave him?
Lest we FORGET
Yes - I have given a copy of the former Police Chief's 94 page statement to the BBC.
I did this on a face-to-face basis - and I make no secret of the fact it was me who has supplied them.
For the record, the source of the evidence to me, was not Graham Power.
There are - still, despite everything - a number of courageous, public-spirited whistleblowers in Jersey.
The question you pose is extremely pertinent. We bloggers have - probably reluctantly - made British media history during these last few years. And one day, that fact will be recognised.
We have supplanted the mainstream media - when it comes to breaking dynamite stories - and doing so with hard, documentary evidence.
And - as you correctly posit - the reason we've been able to do that is - quite simply - trust.
All kinds of different sources trust us.
They know - that if they go to the personal risk of defending the public good by disclosing evidence of wrong-doing - we can be trusted to publish it. Not bury it - or spin it in some misleading and dishonest way.
Essentially, Jersey's mainstream media became so dysfunctional - it destroyed its established role. Back in days gone by, if people wanted to expose important truths - they went to the mainstream media. Now, that media's role is far more focused upon what they choose NOT to publish - and how they spin things.
Now - Jersey's mainstream media is confronted with a major task; namely trying to re-build credibility - and, rebuild trust with potential sources.
The BBC has far more at stake than the other Jersey media, so it must face up to that reality, and do so urgently.
Because, again, you are quite right. My source in this instance had zero trust or confidence in the BBC.
What will BBC Jersey boss, Mr Gripton do?
I couldn't say for sure. But, for the time being - I'm giving him - and his bosses in London - the benefit of the doubt.
It would - frankly - be staggering - if the BBC did not go very, very large on this subject.
Make no mistake - the evidence is deep, broad - and apocalyptic in its ramifications.
There is only one - appropriate - credible - way for the BBC to respond.
Stuart
Stuart.
The BBC and the rest of the "accredited" media "entertained" Ian Le Marquand when he was promoting the Wiltshire's prosecution case against Mr. Power.
They allowed him to spout out redacted parts of this prosecution case UN-CHALLENGED!!
Le Marquand held a States presentation, press conference and one-one interviews with the "accredited" "journalists" (who didn't challenge a thing) and Bloggers were excluded.
In the interest of fairness and balance, wouldn't it be an idea, if you were to hold a press conference with the defence case?
Stuart, you've had such a difficult time because you've done your best for people. Are you still single at the moment? What ever happens in this election, you need to think of yourself and start having a nice life.
V.G
VFC says:
"In the interest of fairness and balance, wouldn't it be an idea, if you were to hold a press conference with the defence case?"
That's certainly a very interesting suggestion.
I will give that some thought.
Certainly - if I held such a press-conference - the mainstream media having, on the one hand, given all of that coverage to Ian Le Marquand and the unevidenced nonsense that was peddled - the same media would then have to cover this, evidenced response.
I'll think about that suggestion.
Stuart
Stuart.
Thinking about it, in the interest of "fairness and balance" shouldn't the "accredited" media be putting pressure on ILM to hold a press conference and presentation to the States himself? Like he did with the prosecution case!
That is, of course, assuming that he even has it!
A rather remarkable film I watched last night, reminded me so much of Jersey.
The title is 'Black & White' and it's about the rape and murder of a nine year old girl in 1958 in Crown ruled Australia.
The film isn't that dynamic, other than it honestly portrays the utter corruption of the English Establishment when it comes to law, and courts.
Notwithstanding the fact that this true story is 53 years old, it is a mirror image of Jersey's judiciary TODAY.
VFC
But even if Ian Le Marquand held such a press-conference - we all know it would be misleading and spun.
Better that someone do it who is interested in the truth.
He obviously has a copy. How else could he have been giving the media and the States the impression he was confidently in possession of the facts?
Stuart
Any press conference should be done by someone who can't be told what questions should be asked also it should be filmed by more than one video camera, plus independent witnesses or its won’t be balanced or believed. and I don't belive it the word verification was Lundy! a portent for the future eh?
Word verification was "Lundy".
Fascinating.
Maybe these servers are prescient?
Stuart
Well, Stuart, are you single?
Yes, I'm single; what's the big deal? I don't understand the sudden interest?
Stuart
Perhaps it wasn't a sudden interest?
Well, that particular line of questioning seems sudden to me, as I don't get asked such things.
Maybe once the election is over, I should join one of those dating agencies?
I jest! God - the embarrassment!
No - I'm just too much of a nerd to have any great appeal.
Stuart
I beleve you said the same thing last time? Are you so afraid that someone, a total stranger, could care about you, and you are devoid of such caring that you could not be reciprocal?
The Ollies have truly done fine work on you if you have lost such calibre of yourself?
Hey - we all need to be aware of the lessons of 'stranger danger'!
But, no, seriously - anyone who's gone though these kind of wars, has to develop a kind of armour-plating.
It's certainly not a case of not having the capacity of "caring" for others; on the contrary - it's my empathy that's always got me into trouble.
That said - it would be a lie if I said the oppressions inflicted upon me - and the generally bad experiences - had not made me closed-up to a degree; had not instilled in me a kind of caution; of reservation.
And - at my age, that's a very difficult thing to overcome - all that scar-tissue.
Yes - the oligarchy has damaged me very much. But, hell, as I said years ago - this is a war.
And when you have to fight a war - there are often very serious personal sacrifices that have to be made.
Stuart
"Maybe once the election is over, I should join one of those dating agencies?"
Good stuff stuart. Let me know when your keen and I will give you a list of the top 10 - what's war without a little lovin?
rs
Stuart and Anonymous - just go and get a room :-)
Serious mode back on:
My mate Helier and I had just finished raising the flags at Fort Regent when a thought came to me. ILM must have a copy of the report so that he knows which areas of the truth he "has" to avoid.
The Beano is not the Rag
Hi Stuart.
Put up last night Ozouf asking for the vote for Chief Minister to be Transparent. "Only Joking"
You can Lisen HERE
Ex-SSS said "Yes, I'm single; what's the big deal? I don't understand the sudden interest?"
No I don't think you do understand why this would interest someone! Whether you are single or not there will always be interest. If you are in a relationship people seem surprised that you attract beautiful women. If you are single they might want to taunt you or they might want more- especially when people have seen you at your most compelling and charismatic at the hustings.
Said it before - total BM!
Lorna
X
bbc
Brilliant performance on bbc Jersey. You took complete control in your replies, much to the discomfort of the presenter. You got all your points in without raising your voice. First class.
twitter
Twitter can become very time consuming if you don't ration your participation. But it is a great adjunct to a blog. You can alert people to new posts, developments, etc. and then effectively let your followers (which I'm sure would be legion as soon as you got going) spread the word. "Viral" in a constructive sense. It would surely put the wind up the Oligarchy once you got the hang of it.
The BBC reports:
"A teacher caught by a caretaker in an embrace with a schoolgirl has avoided a prison sentence."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-15034958
It doesn't say how old she was.
Didn't Geoff Southern who's running for Deputy in St. Helier No.2 district, always make sure they were over 16 when he was a teacher at Hautlieu school?
Geoff Southern?
Yes. He was usually careful to make sure they were "at least 17" - but he mad an exception for at least one 16 year old.
As there was no "abuse-of-trust" law back then, no criminal offences were involved.
But today, it would be a criminal offence.
Stuart
An interesting comment is submitted concerning Deputy election candidate Rob Duhamel.
However, I am not publishing it, because the comment then goes on to make references to the health issues of a second candidate in one of the elections.
It has always been my policy never to publish such irrelevant and personal material.
If the reader wishes to re-submit the comment concerning Rob Duhamel and planning, without the health references to a second candidate, I will publish it.
Stuart
Comment at St peter husting.
"That's the Stuart I remember"
Thanks for the editorial constraint. It's a pity the msm don't do that. Point taken and accepted.
What I was pointing out is that, even given the antipathy between Rob Duhamel and youself you must appreciated the crass negative reporting on todays rag. (please don't bother to read it , just take my word for it!).
The headline states how RD has stopped six families from getting shared equity homes... ba*s#td !! hiss!!! I hear you cry , what an evil man. Until on the next page (near bottom) he says ' this is not true, they are lying through their teeth, everyone was fully informed and is happy with their situation' (or thereabouts from memory), and 'this is entirely due to the election'.
But the damage has been done the JEP has rubbished unnecessarily and incorrectly for some ulterior motive. What is that motive? same club? team orders? Impartiality? is it fudge!
A friend who knows me for years, since when I was a kid showed me a copy of the jep today, that page by Kath Lundy, where she wirtes her dad, that’s Mario Lundy, found her when she was a kid sleepwalking up and down the on the landing. I wondered if his way of sorting that out meant smacking her around the head slamming her against wall and holding her up against the wall of her feet by her kneck and screaming in her face you f*cking little sh*t? because when I was a kid and behaving strange because my drinking dad went off who used to beat me up and them my mums boyfriend abused me and I ended in Les Chenes that’s what Mario Lundy did to me.
Rico Sorda has offered to give Stuart info on dating agencies. I hope the ones in Jersey are better than the ones round my neck of the woods. Some years ago when I had been single for a while I ventured briefly down that route. I went out with the monsters from the black lagoon! Damaged, loads of baggage and in one case borderline psychotic. Luckily I met someone socially after the first 5 and was able to withdraw swiftly.
Lorna
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/09/24/lib-dems-approve-jerseys-status-as-a-finance-centre/
A comment from Vince Cable turns into Lib Dems approve Jersey status as a finance centre. Would Mr. Cable be happy knowing the way a comment turns into Lib dems approve Jerseys status as a finance centre? somehow I think not.
vince cable is on twitter perhaps someone who uses it could tweet him link to the article from this is jersey news.
Stuart.
Sarah Ferguson talks about Lime Grove, Scrutiny and the MEDIA
Lorna
Do you think any of these dating agencies would consider a hidiously ugly, elderly retired former nun - at all? I wouldn't mind psychotic either, as a matter of fact I am, myself reasonably pychotic, at least my fellow Sisters, and also my Confessor seem to think so.
I do so wish
that I were a babe, but I fear that I would frighten poor young Mr Syvret - were I to offer my 'spiritual affinity', and I think he has been through quite enough already. In fact, I'm surprised he isn't totally unhinged - by some of the shocking comments that he has forced on him. So thanks to Mr Sorda's imput, I am now considering purchasing a Catholic publication, that may be my best option, meanwhile, perhaps you, Lorna, or maybe Mr Sorda could give both I and Mr Syvret some tips?
Bless you all
Sister Guzumpta
Stuart
Don't be surprised to learn you attract women. We are hardwired through evolution to seek out those men who are the most protective of children, and who are courageous when faced with bullies. Why do you think Jon has no appeal?
Stuart.
What Ian Le Marquand and the "accredited" media SHOULD have said about the Wiltshire REPORT
THE TRUTH HURTS
A reader says:
"We are hardwired through evolution to seek out those men who are the most protective of children, and who are courageous when faced with bullies. Why do you think Jon has no appeal?"
Well - there's certainly no arguing with the fact that people like Jon Haworth are tragic losers - repulsive little creeps.
But - alas, you generalise too freely. All people are fallible - women as well as men; and I'm afraid, as the evidence shows, some women are attracted to repulsive, dangerous, child-abusing men.
Especially if they earn lots of money.
A vast income, and lavish life-style can - in the minds of some people - overcome all other considerations.
And I'm not only thinking of those horror stories one reads about in the national media.
I'm aware of different cases in Jersey, where the woman has known their man was a child abuser. Known it - but they 'turned a blind eye' to it - or, in some cases, even directly helped to cover it up, and protect their abusing partner. Even - in some cases - when the victims were the natural children of the man in question.
In a couple of these cases, the women concerned have been stupid, weak, and in some kind of thrall to the man.
But in several of the cases I'm aware of - the women concerned fully understood exactly what was going on - exactly what it all meant, the gravity of it - and so on - but sided with the man in order to protect their income, their social standing - and the reputation of their family.
Indeed - in at least one case I am aware of, the "deal" has been - the woman defends - and stands by her man - and does everything in her power and influence to keep him from being charged - in exchange for total "ownership" of the family income and assets.
That - I'm afraid - is a side of human nature few of us ever want to recognise.
Stuart
Stuart
Point conceded. A lot of women are willing to trade their souls for material security. Too many will choose status and wealth over integrity. Yet, there are still too many of us who are more smitten with a man who protects the innocent or weak than you and Rico would ever have time to get acquainted with. It feels hardwired, anyway.
Just one of many
At least you can claim no woman ever pretended to love you for your money ;) Wealthier men have to wonder about it.
Yes Stuart, we all know who you refer to in the penultimate paragraph of your last comment.
Sister Guzumpta. It sounds as though you too have been through enough. Perhaps it is time you resume your vow of chastity for everyone's sake
Lorna
X
PS haven't laughed so much for ages!
A reader says:
"At least you can claim no woman ever pretended to love you for your money ;) Wealthier men have to wonder about it."
Yep - there is that, I guess.
Such small consolations are what we must cling to.
Stuart
Stuart
Here is 'a small consolation' for you.
You would still be lovable, even if you had no income at all.
For what it is worth, I think that you are utterly gorgeous.
I can say that - having just renewed my 'vows of chastity', (on the advice of 'Lorna'.)
Word verification flatt!
Bless you
Sister Gazumpta
Hi Stuart,
I hope you don't mind me taking this opportunity to write this as your personal life is being touched upon in recent posts. I sense you won't want your blog to sway from its real purpose, and this may a bit overboard, so I understand if you don’t post it.
I first saw you at a party in Waterworks Valley in about 1988- 1990? I thought you were great then and I still do. Whether it be nuclear, toxic ash, LLP, social policies, GST, the occasional Talkback show, hustings, the debate for Chief Minister, your Christmas speech or blog, every word you've spoken or written hits an accord with me. I really love your mind. Your intellect, strength, moral compass, consideration of others, your choice of literature and music, your charisma, wit, and yes, your appearance, these are all great too, but secondary to your extraordinary mind. (Your love of mountains and carpentry skills also tick the right boxes).
Every day in recent years, as I get on with my daily life, I think of you and the scale of work you’ll be undertaking that day, on top of the mountain of crap you've already endured. Your purpose, not only to help abuse survivors but also ordinary people like me. Ordinary people who are fed up with the cover-ups, fed up with living in fear, fed up with the injustices, the out-dated traditions and the power structure.
You’ve been persistent and thorough when you could have shut up, kept the money rolling in and even had your say (for the appearance of Jersey democracy). But you’ve taken the right path and I know you’ll never budge from it. You are a real genuine hero to me and many, many others.
I hope this post give you a boost. You’re articulate, a massive trail blazer and could be a bit of a Romeo too. One day I hope you find your Juliete (but obviously not that one!).
Like so many others, in Stuart I trust.
Thank you.
P.S Although your record is sufficient for the likes of me, have you considered running Facebook and Twitter in your campaign? I feel you need an Obama strategy and hopefully an angry vegetable seller, and or, another Jersey catastrophe comes to light. The combination should help stir the apathetic. I’m happy to help in any aspect of your campaign but I lack IT skills.
The cheque is in the post.
(Or, will be, if I can ever afford it.)
My "appearance"?
Are you sure you haven't confused me with someone else?
Stuart
Stuart, I haven't confused you. You look fine to me, a 44 year old average looking female.
And although not a Harry Potter fan, your resemblance to Harry, a hero to many, adds further to your appeal.
Evolution of the human brain has historically demanded that a high number of women prefer keen intellect in a mate. And intelligent women are more interesting to smart men, at least in the long term.
This has got to be the best interview she's ever done
Hey Stuart - you've taken down Henrietta's message. What's up?
Stuart.
Have you yet heard back from Gripton?
If not do you expect to hear back from him, or anyone at the local BBC?
And at the hustings are going to carrying on not causing a fuss and make old and new friends?
Or do you intend to go out in a blaze of glory and take Bailhache with you?
New Lt. Gov is being sworn in tomorrow, 10.15 I think it said in the rag. Nice day for a protest :)
Apologies to members of the public trying to e-mail me - and to readers of the blog - if communications become very patchy and intermittent; I'm having serious computer difficulties.
A friend did tell me this evening that as this laptop was two years old, I should pretty much expect it to fail. Built-in hardware attrition, apparently.
Hopefully, it will stagger on for the next few weeks, but don't be surprised if postings and e-mails become intermittent.
I thought the exchange with "Henrietta" provided a little light relief, but a couple of readers were offended, considering such satire too frivolous given the subject of the posting, so I removed it.
Yes - the new Lieutenant Governor is sworn-in tomorrow, but my advice would be to not be too distracted by the fancy-dress pageantry.
We have more serious - and significant - matters to be addressing these next couple of days.
Stuart
To anonymous - who writes: -
"This has got to be the best interview she's ever done" - with the link to a YouTube interview of Sara Ferguson by VFC - conducted in her capacity as a Scrutiny Panel Chair, examining the failure or the Lime Grove deal for the new police headquarters.
Yes - I could not demur.
She even - rightly - explains how the matters have been spun and misrepresented by the msm, the JEP in particular.
Perhaps at last she's found some genuine voice, with which to express the things she's only ever muttered about previously?
But - what ever personal growth and assurance we may see on her behalf - its very, very difficult - isn't it - to not get the strong impression that in this election we are seeing one of those rare, yet epochal, schisms in the Jersey oligarchy - whereby certain, usually tame, individuals have been let off the leash - like the dogs of war - to savage those who have fallen out of favour.
Andrew Green - in attack-dog mode of Rob Duhamel, for example.
But, above all, Philip Ozouf is plainly finished.
A busted flush - who even the rest of the oligarchs and placid backbenchers now recognise for the inadequate he is, and despise him.
Thus we have Frances Le Gresley leading the charge against him, on BBC Jersey - with me wholeheartedly agreeing. The Scrutiny Panel - and certain factions of the civil service - and Sara Ferguson gunning for him. Ozouf now being seen as increasing toxic to any of his friends' election campaigns (like Ian Gorst and Freddie Cohen) - and the distance opening up between.
Philip's right-hand man, Freddie Cohen, under sustained and remorselessly attack from The Rag. Ian Le Marquand and his campaign doing all they can to trash Ozouf - and not dissimilar machinations from the Bailhache Brothers camp.
I think young Ozouf is about to discover what a brutal old game politics is.
Freddie Cohen has near zero chance in these elections; the vibe is, his finished. The more pertinent question is what will Phil- trustafarian-brat - Ozouf do in the States, with so many of his allies decimated - and only him and that UK estate agent Alan McLean left to hold his hand?
For there's no escaping it - "The Word" from the oligarchy has gone out - "Get Ozouf".
Pity the fools who chose to stand too close to him.
Stuart
Ozouf is gone into hiding from me and anybody else who uses a nom de plume so he says on Facebook. His political end is imminent.
Wonder if he will demand that the JEP etc reveal the names of all correspondents on articles, letters and comments? Shall he and Richardson be required to name the anonymous experts who advised him against the Lime Grove purchase in the public interest?
In case anybody thinks it important my name is Mike
Dun - but I use Tom Gruchy because it has an historic sigificance in Jersey. This hopefully concentrates any readers' attention on the subject matter - rather than the prejudices associated with personality.
So its back to milking the cows for Ozo - thankfully I use Soya.
"smacking her around the head slamming her against wall and holding her up against the wall of her feet by her kneck and screaming in her face you f*cking little sh*t? because when I was a kid and behaving strange because my drinking dad went off who used to beat me up and them my mums boyfriend abused me and I ended in Les Chenes that’s what Mario Lundy did to me."
WHY HAS THIS PERSON BEEN DENIED A CHANCE TO ACCUSE MARIO LUNDY TO HIS FACE IN FRONT OF A JUDGE AND JURY?
Stuart, but Philip Ozouf has been their star 'fixer' for so long. What's made them turn against him?
Several reasons.
They made an error, in letting him become too influential. As a result he has caused chaos. He has been, by far, the major cause of toxicity and division that's so characterised the States in recent years. For a long time he got away with it - most States members not being terribly bright, it never fully dawned upon them just how much trouble he engineered, because he was always so careful to manipulate others into doing his dirty work whilst hiding behind the scenes.
There is also the very obvious "Ozouf problem" - in that there are now certain other people whose ambitions he is seen as blocking; for example Ian Le Marquand, Phil Bailhache, Frances Les Gresley etc.
And its also dawned upon all of the traditional establishment types - that no matter if it is not Ozouf who the States elect as Chief Minister - it will not be possible for any of them - not one - to be Chief Minister without Ozouf scheming and manipulating and poisoning - if he remains in any Ministerial post. He is simply so juvenile, toxic and ego-manic that he will either be puppeteering the Chief Minister - or subtlety stabbing them in the back. I've heard it suggested that certain establishment types would sooner have me in the Council of Ministers than Ozouf. They know I'd be honest, and tell them if I disagreed with something - whereas Ozouf would just be scheming furiously behind their backs.
And then - of course - there is that customary political 'situation vacant' - that the Jersey establishment badly need filling; namely a current senior States member fall-guy.
Think about it; the entire taxation strategy of the Jersey establishment has crashed and burned - and done so catastrophically. Zero/10 has failed - on any honest reckoning, as to be a successful policy, it had to embody a mechanism that retained a means of taking tax from locally owned businesses. It doesn't. Zero/10 has only become, kind of acceptable to the EU, because every single ring-fencing device in it has been surrendered.
Jersey is in a disastrous taxation policy situation. It isn't disguisable for much longer. Not even The Rag is going to be able to carry on cheer-leading for the catastrophe much beyond the election.
It's such a big, epochal crises - that the oligarchy know they'll not assuage the public unless there's a major head on a spike (metaphorically speaking).
Who better than Philip Ozouf?
As the main political architect of the failed policy - it has already been decided that he is the "sacrifice".
In fact - so obvious is what's going on - it's surprising that Freddie Cohen is still allowing his name to be associated with Ozouf - and the supposedly "successful" zero/10 policy. Talk about political suicide.
So yes, Ozouf is finished. Lets just hope the public don't elect any of his puppets, like Christina Moore, Andrew Lewis, Sean Power and one or two others.
Stuart
Ozouf is finished.
Le Marquand will be finished when the G Power and L Harper's rubbishing coverup becomes public.
This means nice guy, airhead Routier will assume the CM job is his?!
What do you make of this Stuart.No.123 comment on the JEP political comments page.
•Illegal elections
Posted September 25, 2011 at 9:57 am
The Elections are illegal and shouldn’t be held until they stop breaking the law:
When you cast a vote at the Polling stations you are issued a ballot
paper which is numbered and this is marked against your name on the
Electoral role. This permits the information to be retrieved in the
future, so it can be seen how ALL constituents of the Parishes voted,
therefore the ballot is not secret.
The Public elections (Jersey) law 2002 states:
(http://www.jerseylaw.je/law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%2fconsolidated%2f16%2f16.600_PublicElections(Jersey)Law2002_RevisedEdition_1January2009.htm#Toc223149529)
Part 6 Entitled Poll states in number 25 and I quote:
25 Secret ballot
In every public election the poll shall be by secret ballot.
So as the ballot is not secret, the law is being broken and therefore Elections are illegal.
I really don't think that fear is credible.
The ballots, and the stubs left in the book are matchable - in the event that any serious allegation of electoral fraud was made. The ballots that came out of the box and were counted, could then be checked for their legitimacy - ie, not fake ballots - against the stubs of the book. It's a safeguard against fraud.
When you collect your ballot paper, you name is lined-out from the electoral role - obviously to prevent the same person turning up and voting twice. I don't think the reference number of the actual ballot slip you are issued, is written down alongside your name.
Stuart
Paul Routier will never be Chief Minister.
As you say, a nice guy. But sadly, a realistic capacity for self-appraisal was never one of his strong points.
He isn't even in the ball-park of being Chief Minister material. Even his friends privately see that. He needs to get real.
Stuart
Stuart
A few questions about our ruling class, the elections and the general situation, if I may.
After spending 20 years around these people I'd be interested to hear your analysis of the real centres of power in Jersey.
I am presuming the political figures we all know and love are just the monkeys dancing to the tune of their organ grinding masters offstage?
The former will come and go but the latter are a permanent part of the landscape, and I suspect we don't know who these people are, and are indeed not supposed to know. Who are the local organ grinders?
One other question arises out of Philip Bailhache's candidature: is he an organ grinder or is he a monkey?
Bailhache is certainly being presented as a heavyweight, a cut above the usual hee-haws they put up.
I have always gained the impression that the intelligent oligarchs are away making real money in finance or the law and are happy to leave Ozouf, Le Main, Cohen, Perchard et al in charge as a kind of skeleton staff when times are good.
However they no doubt fear the plebs are just starting to wake up to what is happening and will become increasing uppity as things go downhill.
In such a situation the elite will need more intelligent and effective operators to look after their interests; and Bangkok pimps need to be sharp operators even if they are no intellectuals. Does Bailhache's candidature suggest to you they are being forced to take elections more seriously? Or is he just an empty figurehead out to clean up on the deferential vote?
I suppose it depends on how our rulers view these elections, do they represent kind of obstacle they have always overcome in the past, or have things changed? Do you notice any difference in their approach this time around compared to previous campaigns?
It would take a lot to break the social calm of Jersey but these are exceptional times and I am sure the more perceptive oligarchs recognise this.
What do you think? Is there something in this analysis or do things work differently on this island? Have I overestimated Bailhache's abilities? Does the Emperor have any clothes?
I understand you are probably very busy at the moment, but if you do get the chance to reply it would be most illuminating to read your views.
"I don't think the reference number of the actual ballot slip you are issued, is written down alongside your name."
Are you 100% sure of that?
Q:How much of a golden handshake will Ozouf get to keep his god shut.
Guess who is acting as self-appointed agent for 'Sir Philip' as can be seen in tonights JEP promotional leaflet (aka JEP).
The one and only Bridget.. aren't you glad she hasn't chosen you!
What's the betting that Ex Senator Perchard asks a question at the St.Martins hustings along the lines of 'What have you ever done for business' , unless Glenn and Karen have come up with something more imaginative for him.
Stuart said "When you collect your ballot paper, you name is lined-out from the electoral role - obviously to prevent the same person turning up and voting twice. I don't think the reference number of the actual ballot slip you are issued, is written down alongside your name.
Stuart"
I'm afraid that is incorrect, well at least for St Helier and St Saviour. Both myself and a friend questioned the election officials last time we voted in these parishes. In St Helier they put a pencil line through your name on the electoral roll then they write the number of your voting slip alongside your name.
The last time Jimmy Perchard was allowed out to go to the St. Martins Hustings
The "secret ballot" in Irish general elections, up to the 1980s I think, did put your number from the voters register on the counterfoil of the ballot paper which was numbered. This was justified, when the public realised what was happening, on the basis Stuart mentioned, ie avoidance of fraud. However the Irish Supreme Court found that the pracrtice infringed the secrecy required by the constitution and the practice had to be discontinued.
I think the only post-checking possible now is when there is a doubt at the point of distribution of the papers (id etc.) the paper is put in an envelope until the matter is resolved.
But there is no longer any way to match up voters with their ballot papers once they go into the box.
Zoompad asks "WHY HAS THIS PERSON BEEN DENIED A CHANCE TO ACCUSE MARIO LUNDY TO HIS FACE IN FRONT OF A JUDGE AND JURY?"
For the same reason that ML is still in post having never been charged or even suspended despite overwhelming evidence. Even the Belfast Times said he should resign.
For the same reason there has been a huge implausible,transparent cover-up. If the likes of ML are brought to book then they will have to charge all the others and the whole stinking pack of cards will come tumbling down!
Bring it on!
Lorna
PHICK PHIL'S PLEDGE
A bit puzzling this election number thing.
On the one hand you say that there is nothing to prevent anti-establishment votes being stuffed in pockets, then on the other hand the one safeguard against this (being able to check later through a serial number that your vote was counted) is described as not secret and therefore illegal. Strikes me that you can't have it both ways.
A COMMON LAW OATH FOR COMMON LAW MEN? WE SHALL SEE!
I listened to Rose Colley at St. Martins Hustings and was saddened that no mention was given to childs rights and the issues surrounding this.
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/08/voice-for-children.html
A reader says:
"On the one hand you say that there is nothing to prevent anti-establishment votes being stuffed in pockets, then on the other hand the one safeguard against this (being able to check later through a serial number that your vote was counted) is described as not secret and therefore illegal. Strikes me that you can't have it both ways."
I'm afraid you're just not understanding how these things work.
Just how often has there been an occasion in modern Jersey electoral history - when any person has demanded to retrieve their ballot, specifically - to double-check it was counted correctly?
I'm not aware of one.
The simple miscounting and tallying of ballots is - by miles - the easiest way to corruptly influence election outcomes. The only real safeguard is wide and constant scrutiny from a variety of different scrutineers.
Think about it?
If there were some corrupt counters - how on Earth would you ever know - if they had simply chosen to ignore, say, every fourth X - for a particular candidate?
Or - if the votes on the ballot were deemed 'disposable' to those corrupt counters - how on Earth are you ever going to know they slipped every fourth one into their pocket, for later burning, rather than totalling them?
And how often have the ballots ever been analysed forensically - to check that all of the votes that ended up being added to the counting pile - for example, those from the "mobile ballot-boxes" - were not in the name of the many deceased people who - somehow - remain on the Jersey electoral role?
Remember - it wasn't me objecting to the inclusion of a serial-number on the counter-foil; in theory - that device does indeed, provided an form of 'audit-trail' - back to a specific vote - cast by a specific voter - and it exists to prevent against such things as the fraudulent misappropriation of votes.
But my point is - it's of virtually zero-defence - in all reality - against the type of vote-rigging I describe above - because it would require forensic enforcement; literally, on a vote-by-vote basis.
There's no escaping the fact - only total - and constant - absolute transparency with the ballots, ballot-boxes - and the counters - can provide the necessary degree of surety.
Stuart
Some great lines from the hustings last night.
I too am an anti-corruption candidate - Sir Bailhache
I disagree with Mr Bailhache - Dr Forskitt
We have the only multiplex cinema with world class waterfront views - Mr Syvret.
I'd lake to thank the JEC for that timely reminder of the importance of reliable power supplies- Dr Forskitt
My mate Helier and I had just finished the paperwork for tomorrow's court appearances when he told me that in his Parish at the last election he wasn't asked for proof of ID.
He thought it would be a jolly wheeze to vote first thing in the morning, and then to go back and vote as one of his neighbours in the evening.
The Beano is not the Rag.
You've forgotten to mention that all candidates can have their own scrutineers in the vote counting rooms, that the number of ballot papers are counted and written down before the votes are counted, and that cheats would have to work in pairs.
How it works No 17.
Suddenly it becomes clear, that nasty man with an Islamist beard who denied 6 genuine families the right to buy half a house each... Hisss! Rob Duhamel Couldn't have done it anyway as the system did not have legal approval...but who had said they could? Answer the 'architect' of the scheme Freddie Cohen. Who just hapens to now be standing for election for Senator and is struggling badly.Consequentially if this display of petulant incompetence were to come out at the wrong time .. political styx! So what was Glenn's advice?
Shaft a nobody!!!
So the JEP avoid the poison chalice element and stick the 'badge of incompetence' on Duhamels forehead. Its in the JEP it must be true.
Even you must feel for Rob in his new career.
The election syspem needs overhauling, but it could be done pretty simply and cheaply.
In many supermarkets there are automated paying machines, you do your shopping, then scan in the barcodes, the machine adds it all up, you put the money through a slot and it reads the money takes what you owe and gives the correct change. Why cant something similar be fitted to the ballot boxes? Instead of lots of people counting, could there be a pile of slips with bar codes be in the polling hall, all the candidates having their own strip pile, and when the voter goes in they get handed a strip with their own bar code on it, which they attach to the chosen candidate strip, and pass it through a machine that can read both sides, and so the votes would be registered and checkable if anyone needed to. The technology to invent such a machine already exists, it could be made fairly cheaply and could give employment to some local company.
A reader says:
"Suddenly it becomes clear, that nasty man with an Islamist beard who denied 6 genuine families the right to buy half a house each... Hisss! Rob Duhamel Couldn't have done it anyway as the system did not have legal approval...but who had said they could? Answer the 'architect' of the scheme Freddie Cohen. Who just hapens to now be standing for election for Senator and is struggling badly.Consequentially if this display of petulant incompetence were to come out at the wrong time .. political styx! So what was Glenn's advice?
Shaft a nobody!!!
So the JEP avoid the poison chalice element and stick the 'badge of incompetence' on Duhamels forehead. Its in the JEP it must be true.
Even you must feel for Rob in his new career."
What career?
But, seriously - there's no question other than that what the JEP and the oligarchy have done is a real "number" on Rob Duhamel.
You're quite right - the actual legal failure of the scheme is a consequence of Cohen failing to take it to full legal operation - and the Law Officers Department.
However - does that make me feel any sympathy for Rob Duhamel?
No.
Who - in politics - but an ego-blinded fool - does something like take on the post of Planning Minister - a few months before an election?
It was crystal-clear to me at the time that the reason Freddie Cohen abandoned the position was a desperate attempt to try and wash himself of some of the political toxin that comes with planning, a few months before the election.
I was genuinely startled that Duhamel was going for the post. A fresh-faced newcomer like FlG may have got away with it for w few months. But it was always going to be toxic to Duhamel. I though he needed his head examining. Quite a few of those voting for him will have been his enemies - not believing their luck at this chance to politically terminate him.
Oh well - seems like the oligarchy have done what my advice to voters didn't achieve three years ago; terminate Rob Duhamel's very strange and largely pointless political career.
Stuart
Stuart, you say 'But it was always going to be toxic to Duhamel. I though he needed his head examining. Quite a few of those voting for him will have been his enemies - not believing their luck at this chance to politically terminate him.'
Is that really how politics is? Is that how it works? Is that how most of them think and operate?
Stuart.
Senator Sarah Ferguson talks to Citizens Media about, (among other things), INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
A reader says:
"Is that really how politics is? Is that how it works? Is that how most of them think and operate?"
Yes.
Absolutely.
That would be exactly as it - save for the fact it's actually worse.
Really - the public have no idea - no idea at all - just how toxic and ego-fuelled the machinations ion the chamber are.
I couldn't begin to tally-up the number of occasions I've seen over the years when perfectly propositions and amendments - proposals that were, without question, clearly in the public interest - were defeated, for no better reason than personal hostility, the wish to obstruct others, career manoeuvring, competitiveness, and bitching ego-mania. That culture has always been strongly present in the States assembly - but became dramatically worse when Philip Ozouf was elected.
Stuart.
Post a Comment