Sunday, 13 May 2012

GRAHAM POWER’S STATEMENT – PART 1

The Policing Function in Jersey –
Not Fit-For-Purpose;

Oligarchy Politicians want to keep it that way

So they can eventually run Jersey as their own “independent” crypto-feudal fiefdom.

"I recall that in 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache and the Attorney General William Bailhache. The purpose of the group was to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence. I submitted papers to the group on the implications for law enforcement, and used some contacts from my previous role to offer suggestions as to who outside of the island, could assist in developing such a plan. I provided contact details of key figures in the Scottish Government and Administration including the Scottish National Party. "

"The duties of the Chief Officer of Police in Jersey are not confined to the running of the force and the management of the interface with the Honorary Police. In Jersey, the Home Affairs Department has no direct responsibility for policing, and only a marginal involvement in the development of legislation regarding the police. If there is to be any progress in this area then it normally falls upon the Chief Officer of Police to take the initiative, normally in consultation with the Minister for Home Affairs, the Law Officers and the Law Draftsman's department."

"Against this background the Chief Officer's actual responsibilities for the command of law enforcement in the island, are obscured in a mixture of outdated laws, customary practice, and the practical requirements of policing in the modern world."

"The role of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police is part police officer, part civil servant, part government policy maker and part ministerial advisor. I am not aware of any comparable role within any police service in the British Isles."

Graham Power, Queens Police Medal


I’m publishing below paragraphs 20 to 36 of the initial statement made to the Wiltshire Police by former Chief Officer of the Jersey Police, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.

Graham Power was illegally suspended following what we now know to have been months of criminal plotting involving the then Attorney General William Bailhache, the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, the Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis, the Chief Executive Bill Ogley, the Deputy Police Chief David Warcup, and others.

Jersey’s citizens’ media journalists have, over the months, sought-out, uncovered, and published many examples of dramatic and powerful evidence. All such work stands in remarkable contrasts to all of Jersey’s traditional mainstream media, who have – on the evidence – pro-actively colluded with the Jersey authorities in the illegal oppression of the legitimate Police Chief, and the subsequent unlawful hi-jacking and sabotaging of objective and impartial policing in the island.

The evidence I’m publishing here can be taken as another sorry indictment of media standards in Jersey.  The statement from which the paragraphs are taken – all 94 pages of it – was furnished to the BBC in Jersey, in September 2011. The document is dynamite, in so many ways.

But yet, the BBC – having been very willing to enthusiastically give full and extensive coverage to the Jersey oligarchy statements and actions in attempting to smear and attack Mr. Power – failed to report as much as one word of this important, documentary evidence. Failed – to provide any balance. Failed to uphold the BBC Charter. Acted illegally, against the Broadcasting Act.

So once again, we ordinary people in Jersey, the great majority of decent concerned citizens, must turn from the redundancy of the traditional media – and find and publish the real news – the important facts – ourselves.

In coming postings we will read further sections from Graham Power’s statement. The issues that arise from this document are of the utmost public interest importance – and go to the very question of whether, in fact, the community of Jersey can be said to enjoy effective, impartial policing?

When reading the section of the statement I publish below – another question, in addition to the troubling concerns in respect of the focus and control and objectivity of policing in Jersey – will occur to any thinking person, namely, “why – in a 21st century western democracy – do we ordinary people have to do our own investigative journalism – when the media organisation we fund via the licence fee – the BBC – is actually handed such dramatic evidence on a plate, but yet refuses to report a word of it?”

The BBC have had the full, 94 page document – since September 2011.

You might wish to ask BBC Jersey boss, Jon Gripton, to explain the conduct of the BBC. This is his e-mail address:

Jon.Gripton@bbc.co.uk

In the next posting, we will read further sections from the Statement of Graham Power – and consider some of the implications for us all, arising from the illegal suspension of our Police Chief.

Stuart


Statement by Graham Power, Queens Police Medal: Paragraphs 20 to 36.

20. Major Crime. Competency Issues Relating to the Force. The readiness of the force to cope with the challenge of a major and unforeseen criminal investigation is raised at this stage, because it has been an issue, not just during Rectangle, but from the very beginning of my tenure as Chief Officer. My initial appointment as Chief Officer of the Force was in the aftermath of a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), published in 2000, which was highly critical of the management of the force and its performance. There were also recognised serious professional standards issues to be addressed. I also became aware of a lack of self-sufficiency in the investigation of murder and comparable crime. In its simplest terms, it appeared to be the established practice for the force to effectively "hand over" major investigations to Devon and Cornwall Police. I did not think that this was sustainable for a number of reasons. These included the vulnerabilities created by such a dependency, for example, the acknowledged fact that the priorities of Devon and Cornwall Police must inevitably focus primarily on the needs of that force. In addition, visiting officers often found local law and procedures unfamiliar and it was necessary to provide them with guidance and support throughout an investigation. There was also the issues of local pride, the professional development of local officers, and the cost of mutual aid. There had inevitably been some local political and media criticism from those who could not understand why their local force was not undertaking a more visible role in major enquiries.

21. I addressed this matter on a number of levels. One involved a joint agreement with Devon and Cornwall which committed both parties to the specifics of what they would do, and in what circumstances. This also involved the permanent establishment, and periodic testing, of a H.O.L.M.E.S. 2 link in Jersey connected to the main Devon and Cornwall Computer. I also encouraged greater emphasis on the need to train and develop local officers by a variety of means, including secondments to U.K. forces.

22. A further opportunity arose when the officer who was Superintendent and head of Operations indicated that he intended to retire and it was known that the then Deputy Chief Officer (D.C.O.) would retire soon afterwards. I had a number of discussions with the then President of Home Affairs, (the name given at that time to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee) Alastair Layzell, and we agreed this created an opportunity to strengthen the local management team by recruiting a Superintendent and potential D.C.O. from outside the island. I told Deputy Layzell that we had a pressing need for a "heavyweight" detective who could take command in appropriate circumstances, and mentor local officers.

23. After candidates had been short listed, a selection panel was arranged. It is my recollection that the members were Deputy Layzell, Senator Wendy Kinnard, who was the Vice-President of the Committee, myself and possibly a member of the Appointments Commission. Towards the end of the process two candidates stood out. Lenny Harper, who I believe at that time was a Superintendent in Strathclyde, was the strongest, and the second was a Acting A.C.C. in the National Crime Squad, John Pearson. I discussed the candidates with the panel. I pointed out that Mr Harper would be a bold choice. He was a man who would "lift stones and rattle cages." He was likely to be relentless on ethical issues. If we were to appoint him then we should be alert to these characteristics. We then discussed John Pearson. I drew attention to the fact that that although not as broad in his experience as Mr Harper, he was nevertheless the specialist "heavyweight" detective we needed badly.

24. Deputy Layzell responded bravely to this situation and said that he would agree to change the establishment of the force on a temporary basis to accommodate both officers. Harper would be designated at Chief Superintendent and D.C.O. in waiting. Pearson was made Detective Superintendent. This was a controversial move, both within the force and externally. We had to address criticism that local officers were being deprived of promotion opportunities. This is a recurrent theme in island policing, which persists no matter how unrealistic some local aspirations may be, and one which is continually used as a means to attack the professional and political leadership of the force. Its significance should not be underestimated. I will refer to this factor again later in this statement.

25. Not long afterwards the planned retirements occurred and both officers moved into their intended positions. To complete this part of the narrative, the former Superintendent was Trevor Garrett, who is a local person who is still living in Jersey. The former D.C.O. was Roly Jones who was a good and committed officer who believed that he had not always had the full support he deserved. He did not have a long retirement and died some years ago. I recall that it was not very long after the selection process that Deputy Layzell was unexpectedly defeated in an election and left politics. He was succeeded as President of Home Affairs by Wendy Kinnard.

26. The Nature of the Role of Chief Officer of Police in Jersey. It is claimed by various authorities that the policing system in Jersey can be traced back over 800 years. There does appear to be evidence that something resembling the current honorary system was in place in medieval times, and there can be no doubt that in recent centuries there was a Parish-based system close to the one which exists today. Honorary police officers are elected by voters in each of the twelve Parishes. The senior figure is the Connétable (or "Constable"), who is also head of the parish and a member of the States. The next most senior in rank are Centeniers, who are responsible for the charging and prosecution of offenders. Vingteniers are the next rank. Some of the administrative functions of that role have in more recent times passed to other bodies, but they remain senior to the Constable's Officers, who are the junior and often most visible rank of the honorary service. One Centenier in each parish is designated Chef-de-Police and has delegated day to day control of policing on behalf of the Connétable. There is now an island-wide Honorary Police Association, in which the policing interests of all of the Parishes are represented.

27. In recent centuries notable events have from time to time highlighted the need for the honorary police to receive a measure of professional support. In 1853 Loi sur la Police Salariée were created to support the Connétable of St Helier, and subsequently the Paid Police (Jersey) Law 1951 extended the provision of paid assistance for Connétables to the whole island. In 1974 the Police Force (Jersey) Law came into force. This changed the name of the force to the States of Jersey Police and brought some degree of legal definition to the relationship between the States and Honorary Police. However, some important distinctions and powers have been preserved. Most notable among these continuing powers are those which relate to the charging and prosecution of offenders. The States Police do not bring charges or undertake prosecutions. The role of the force is to gather evidence and present it to the relevant Centenier for consideration as to what action he or she thinks it proper to take. In serious cases Centeniers are advised by the Law Officers Department.

28. Under Article 9 of the 1974 Police Law the Chief Officer is responsible for "the general administration and the discipline, training and organisation of the force." This is a role sometimes described as the "administrative head of the Force." Article 7 of the Law sets a requirement for the States and Honorary Police to exchange information on occurrences in parishes. In recent years I have agreed with honorary police representatives a means by which this is done electronically in the majority of cases. In other respects the law does not intrude upon the established position, that the role of the force is to provide professional support to the Connétables in the policing of their parish. This is re-enforced by Article 6 which refers to a schedule of prescribed offences. For the purposes of this statement it is sufficient to say that the schedule contains a list of offences which are more serious than others, and in respect of which a degree of professional skills are likely to be required. When such an offence comes to the notice of a member of the Honorary Police, he or she is required to "request the assistance force." Even for example, in cases of homicide, the position under the 1974 law is that the Force is to assist the member of the honorary police. There is no provision which allows the force to take command without the agreement of the relevant Connétable, or his or her delegate.

29. During my period in office I have entered into a variety of discussions and agreements, both formal and informal, which have sought to bring a measure of contemporary realism to these legal arrangements. This has resulted in a strong working partnership between the States and Honorary Police which has been of benefit to the island. During these discussions the honorary police have been well represented by a number of their senior ranks. In recent times the most active has been [Centenier A] who is the Chef de Police of the Parish of [B]. Should the investigating officer wish to verify my account of this relationship, or to obtain further information, it is probable that [Centenier A] would be willing to assist. His contact details are in the public domain.

30. The relationship with the honorary police also has implications for the type of laws and procedures which are appropriate for Jersey. Most honorary officers receive only a few days training, and some, little training of any sort. It follows from this that any policing procedure which is complex, or difficult for a volunteer force to absorb, can be seen as a threat to the honorary system. There are within the honorary service some strongly traditional and politically influential figures who have still not come to terms with the introduction of the "paid police." They can be suspicious and resentful of "foreign ways" which are seen as a threat to the survival of their traditional way of working, which is based predominantly on common-sense, local knowledge, and discretion, rather than any set procedure.

31. Such views are not confined to the older elements of the honorary service. They can be found, albeit in a more developed form, in the senior levels of government and the legal establishment where some notable figures favour an eventual severance of links with the U.K. and would see the ready acceptance of U.K. working practices as running counter to this agenda. I recall that in 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache and the Attorney General William Bailhache. The purpose of the group was to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence. I submitted papers to the group on the implications for law enforcement, and used some contacts from my previous role to offer suggestions as to who outside of the island, could assist in developing such a plan. I provided contact details of key figures in the Scottish Government and Administration including the Scottish National Party. I recall that some of the advice and contacts I provided were in an email I sent, probably in July 2007. This and other experiences reinforced my understanding that there was a tide flowing against closer association with the U.K, and a strong local agenda to develop working models and solutions within the island.

32. Over the years there have been attempts by myself and Wendy Kinnard, when she was Minister for Home Affairs, to address the issue of operational control and responsibility. The most recent of these being the failed attempt to introduce a new police law in 2008. The draft law' sought, in a tentative way, to make the Chief Officer the person who was formally in operational command and control of the force. The law achieved some public debate and made it as far as a hearing before a Scrutiny Panel (a body similar to a Parliamentary Select Committee in England) before running out of time due to the approach of an election, at which the sponsoring Minister, Senator Wendy Kinnard, did not propose to stand. The panel hearings and other discussions make it clear that political opinion is divided on the matter of command and control of the police. Some wish to retain the legal primacy of the Connétables for the policing of their parishes. Others think that operational direction should sit with the Minister for Home Affairs. With the exception of Senator Kinnard, and possibly Andrew Lewis, there was no major lobby in favour of placing greater operational or command powers in the hands of the Chief Officer.

33. The duties of the Chief Officer of Police in Jersey are not confined to the running of the force and the management of the interface with the Honorary Police. In Jersey, the Home Affairs Department has no direct responsibility for policing, and only a marginal involvement in the development of legislation regarding the police. If there is to be any progress in this area then it normally falls upon the Chief Officer of Police to take the initiative, normally in consultation with the Minister for Home Affairs, the Law Officers and the Law Draftsman's department. One example is the recurrent attempts to achieve a modern police law, referred to above, and regulations dealing with complaints against senior officers. As I recall it was my predecessor who took the initiative on the establishment of a Police Complaints Authority and the beginnings of a new Police Law. The Police Complaints Law was successfully implemented for most ranks of the service, but work stalled on the new Police Law and Senior Officer Discipline Regulations. After various frustrations I took on this work with Alison Fossey, who may have been a sergeant when the work began, and who is now an inspector. We worked with the law draftsman's department and produced a draft which, as described previously, went out to consultation and then to the Scrutiny Panel. Civil service involvement was minimal.

34. As a Chief Officer I also sit on the Corporate Management Board, along with Chief Officers from other departments. Together we share a collective responsibility for the administration of the governance of the island and for providing advice to the Council of Ministers. Very little of the board's business concerns law enforcement. It would be quite usual for me to be expected to contribute to discussions on education or health policy, and assist in prioritising the government's capital programme.

35. In addition to these roles, I would frequently prepare briefs for the Minister for Home Affairs prior to meetings, or draft answers to questions she was required to answer in the States, along with suggested "lines to take" during political questioning. I would engage regularly with the media and advise the Minister on "lines to take" during media interviews. Against this background the Chief Officer's actual responsibilities for the command of law enforcement in the island, are obscured in a mixture of outdated laws, customary practice, and the practical requirements of policing in the modern world.

36. The role of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police is part police officer, part civil servant, part government policy maker and part ministerial advisor. I am not aware of any comparable role within any police service in the British Isles. I will return to this topic later when I discuss the relevance of English and Welsh guidelines and the dangers of equivocation when discussing the responsibilities of a "Chief Officer."

Graham Power, QPM

121 comments:

rico sorda said...

Hi Stuart,

I think your readers should no that this Statement by Graham Power QPM is not his complete defence case to Wiltshire.

Mr Power received the complete Wiltshire Disciplinary Report in paper form. This contained everything - including statements and such. Mr Power received this so late in the day that he was rushed into writing this lengthy reply but it is in no way his defence case as the laughable Senator Le Marquand keeps trying to point out.

I think its important that this isn't forgotten.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

It's a disgrace to those in Jersey who call themselves "journalists." It should never have been left to you, or any member of the public, to publish Mr. Power's statement to Wiltshire. BBC Jersey, as you have said, are in possession of a copy and have been for around SEVEN MONTHS and not reported a single word of it......and they (BBC Jersey) want us to believe they're not State Controlled?

From the little you have published at least it shows to the world just how backward this island is and most Jersey folk think this is normal?

But here's the bombshell, reading the paragraph below it appears that the Bailhache Brothers have been planning independence since 2007! And Jon Gripton doesn't think the public need to know that?????

"senior levels of government and the legal establishment where some notable figures favour an eventual severance of links with the U.K. and would see the ready acceptance of U.K. working practices as running counter to this agenda. I recall that in 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache and the Attorney General William Bailhache. The purpose of the group was to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence."

Anonymous said...

Independence. That is always their contingency plan to insure themselves against any transparency, if not the stated goal. Transparency, robust checks and balances, truly representational democratic government and a functional unbiased judiciary are the enemy of those currently in power. They must be anxious now to press forward with their dream of an independent feudalistic dynasty with the uncontrollable independent on-line media providing the first ever threat to their traditional state media. Beware their upcoming appeal to pseudo-patriotism.

rico sorda said...

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/05/operation-end-game-23-corrupt-shambolic.html

The last End Game Posting

rs

Póló said...

A staggering indictment of the Jersey Way, calmly set out by a sane/sober participant/observer.

Graham Power's stature increases with every piece of his that I read.

And as VFC points out, the honchos scheming "independence" from 2007.

Where would Jersey be without at least the possibility of Crown intervention in the interest of good governance. Not that the Crown has distinguished itself to date.

Can't wait for the next instalment.

You guys ( you and VFC and Rico) are a truly hight class communications nexus. Shame on JEP and BBC. Whatever about the former, with its chequered history, the latter is a huge surprise to any outsider. I always had great respect of the the BBC in the old days, and particularly for the world service. However, since the Tony Blair/Alistair Campbell emasculation of the organisation, it is in a sorry state UK-wide.

Keep up the good work.

.

Anonymous said...

So many trying to get into these hot news stories everybody is going dizzy.

Anonymous said...

But Stuart, didn't Philip Bailhache claim during last year's election, that he was not planning for independence for Jersey?

So doesn't this authoritative statement by Mr. Power - who has been shown to have been right and reliable in everything he's said - show Philip Bailhache to be a liar?

Philip Bailhache actively lied to the electorate, and claimed not to be meddling with the utterly dangerous concept of 'independence' for Jersey, but secretly he really has been plotting just that, along with his brother William Bailhache?

The capacity of these people to shamelessly lie so readily is frankly jaw-dropping.

And yes, let me preempt you, it's 'the government we deserve'.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Yes - Philip Bailhache is a liar and a crook.

But that much was already well-established, on the evidence, already - prior to this revelation.

I can't understand why any thinking person would be surprised.

Phil Bailhache's despicable and cretinous conduct is already well-documented, in so many cases.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Are you an honest person Stuart?

Anonymous said...

With regard to `independence', thier are those within the EU, particularly the French who are rubbing thier hands in glee and anticipation of a Jersey that no longer has a place to hide!

Not to mention the USA who, without whitehall to protect Jersey's interests would along with the EU launch an economic attack so devistating to the finance industry of our Island, that we may all once again find ourselves picking spuds to support ourselves!

The Bs Bros, must be stark raving mad!!

Anonymous said...

"The Bs Bros, must be stark raving mad!!"
Or desperate to save their own skins at any cost.

the Beano is not the Rag

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"With regard to `independence', there are those within the EU, particularly the French who are rubbing their hands in glee and anticipation of a Jersey that no longer has a place to hide!

Not to mention the USA who, without Whitehall to protect Jersey's interests would along with the EU launch an economic attack so devastating to the finance industry of our Island, that we may all once again find ourselves picking spuds to support ourselves!

The Bs Bros, must be stark raving mad!!"

That is absolutely correct, and, frankly, those within the Jersey finance industry and the traditional establishment who support the Bailhache Brothers lost all reason and sound judgment a long time ago.

Both men are - quite plainly - deranged; desperate eccentrics, that any robust 'system' would have defended itself against, rather then permit itself to be lead and so influenced by them.

And the truth of the situation is quite easy to see; the Bailhache Brothers and their fellow-travelers, don't seek independence for Jersey because it would be good for the community, or even secure the future of the finance industry - it would do neither - indeed, would have the opposite affect.

They seek independence, so as to try and prevent the inevitable external investigation into their corrupt conduct and oppressive behaviours - arrest - and prosecution.

It's as plain as that.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Who else can't wait to see the Baillache Bros do a "Jonathan Aitken"?

Ian Evans said...

CORRUPT POLICE? CORRUPT LE MARQUAND? SOUNDS FAMILIAR :)

James said...

I have to say that this is the thing I find most disturbing:

In addition to these roles, I would frequently prepare briefs for the Minister for Home Affairs prior to meetings, or draft answers to questions she was required to answer in the States, along with suggested "lines to take" during political questioning.

It is this constant overriding of the separation of legal powers, this failure of checks and balances, that allows PB and co to ride roughshod over Jersey.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

I don't think you could single-out Wendy Kinnard for criticism about that - and certainly not Graham Power.

The vast majority of Jersey Ministers are wholly dependant upon what their civil servants, or other staff or office-holders, write for them.

I was the only Minister I was aware of who frequently re-wrote draft answers - or simply sent the draft answer back, saying, "this is not good enough."

But let's face it - take a long, hard look at the average Jersey Minister - and ask yourself how many of these people could really handle themselves in a serious debate - with meaningful questions, and a hostile environment - and without the ever-present protection of an overtly biased chair?

There isn't one of them.

But no point complaining - you elected these people.

The government you deserve.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Stuart,

Talking of civil servants, any truth in the rumour that the investigation into civil servant expenses in the wake of Pollard's guitar lessons revealed that, amongst other little treats paid for by tax payers was golf-club membership fees at La Moye for the top brass at H&SS?

Rumour has it that some of them were very busy out of the office on Friday afternoons. No doubt on a "course".

Zoompad said...

OK, NOW THAT THE MET ARE IN THE MOOD FOR ARRESTING PERVERTERS OF JUSTICE WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO COME FOR THE PERVERTERS AND PERVERTS OF JERSEY AND THE BRITISH MPS WHO HAVE COVERED UP FOR THEM?

And lets not forget that there were children from the West Midlands who ended up at HDLG.

Anonymous said...

Stuart, good work with twitter. can I urge your readers to make more use of Twitter? Its speed and topicality is so powerful.

A few questions if I may?

Jersey's senior judiciary are appointed by London, correct? The two crucial posts being the 'Bailiff' and 'Deputy Bailiff'?

And although those two posts are bizarrely conflicted because of the lack of a lawful separation of powers in Jersey, nevertheless, their central and vital role is as judges?

So what, then, is a judge, in fact the senior judge, the active, lead judge in Jersey, doing being so directly involved in such heavy-weight and extremist Political activity, as, according to no less a witness than the Police Chief, plotting to take Jersey down the road of 'independence'?

How can it be lawful for a judge, a role that absolutely has to be non-political, to be engaging in active politics?

But my most important question, is what on Earth is London, is the Crown, is the Secratary of State, doing in permitting such behaviour?

Surely the Secratary of State, in light of this revelation, must either issue a statement saying he does not believe the account of the former Chief of Police, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, or he must accept there has been a collapse in the proper and impartial functioning of the judicial system in Jersey, and the consequent corruption and perversion of the good name and authority of the Crown?

Silence just won't do, surely, in the face of such a dramatic situation?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:08:00 BST "So what, then, is a judge, in fact the senior judge, the active, lead judge in Jersey, doing being so directly involved in such heavy-weight and extremist Political activity"

A similar set up exists in Scotland where the crown appointed chief law officer (crown prosecutor) is also a member of the Scottish parliament.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Stuart.

Put up recordings from Yesterdays Sitting. You & your readers can listen HERE

Rob Kent said...

Interesting docs on WikiLeaks about how Barclays injuncted the Guardian to remove documents related to their offshore schemes. WikiLeaks have since published them:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Barclays_Bank_gags_Guardian_over_leaked_memos_detailing_offshore_tax_scam,_16_Mar_2009

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Anon @ Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:08:00 BST "So what, then, is a judge, in fact the senior judge, the active, lead judge in Jersey, doing being so directly involved in such heavy-weight and extremist Political activity"

A similar set up exists in Scotland where the crown appointed chief law officer (crown prosecutor) is also a member of the Scottish parliament."

That's not what the comment at 21.08 was referring to.

To be clear, the Scottish Lord Advocate is also the prosecutor, and legal adviser to the Scottish government - he is not an active judge.

A more accurate comparison with the Jersey situation, would be with the Jersey Attorney General. and in that respect, the position of Lord Advocate in Scotland is deeply controversial, with many learned opinions stating that the role of prosecutor cannot be compliant with the ECHR for as long as the function is combined with that of being legal adviser to the Scottish government.

The earlier commenter was referring to the fact that Phil Bailhache was an active judge - the lead judge in Jersey - but was being proactively involved in de-stabalising, extremist politics. And doing so covertly.

It is not, and never has been in modern times, acceptable for an active judge to be engaged in active politics. Especially active politics that seeks to by-pass and subvert the legitimate political processes of the elected politicians.

Philip Bailhache's political sub-versions are a constitutional outrage.

Stuart

Zoompad said...

Jack Straw is on Leveson right now and he has just been praising the independance of the judiciary!

Zoompad said...

Jack Straw has just said that the Lord Chief Justice has to swear an oath to uphold the independance of the judiciary.

Well, he broke that oath when he refused to do anything about the complaints he has had complaining about the collusion and corruption of the judiciary!

Anonymous said...

http://www.lillielangtry.com/judge-roy-bean.htm

Compare and contrast the clearly 'challenged' issues of Judge Roy Bean and those currently being exposed from the Jersey Judge benches and beyond. I am ,in particular, looking for psychological or psychiatric insights that may explain an individuals obsessive behaviour or delusory conduct.Marks will be deducted for all linkages with Pol Pot or the National Socialist Party of the 1930's as that it too obvious.

Anonymous said...

Stuart,

These comments made me think of those students of political science and international studies who compare and contrast the checks and balances various political systems have in place, particularly where a potentially conflicted judiciary is concerned.

We could call upon your international student readership, lawyers and others interested in this topic, to provide examples of any judicial system similar to Jersey's.

My initial suspicion is that most acknowledged Western democracies have more robust functional protections built into the checks against judicial conflict. Are these protections and judicial norms intentionally written to be weak, entirely missing from Jersey law, or are they simply ignored?

I am trying to understand.

Chelloise

Anonymous said...

Jon Days suspension cost the island of jersey 3 million and no one bats an eyelid. Wake the fcuk up jersey.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Funny you should mention the suspension of John Day.

I've just been writing today about the illegal actions of those behind that suspension.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

seems like the Jersey Senate has modelled itself upon this on this ancient Government

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

Some of the subjects to be discussed TONIGHT

Anonymous said...

So, we have a bent Crown Magistrate in court, defended by a Crown Advocate while prosecuted by a Crown Advocate. In a 9x5 mile island. Do they think we were born yesterday. It's going to get messy.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Syvret,

Do you not find it strange that a liar that headed Jersey's civil service left leaving a mess as did the head man of your Health and Hospital which is dysfunctional with excessive waiting lists for operations, unless you pay.

Your Justice system is obviously conflicted thereby corrupt, and reading another of your local blogs how long before the regulatory body called the Jersey Financial Services Commission gets jersey a bad reputation and yet again the top man leaves with a big bonus and pension.

Do your MP's actually have any power or are they all on dog leads ? What a strange place.


Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Spotted this in Jersey Today It is inviting submissions for a private member bill in the House of Commons. So many choices.... http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2012/05/private-members-bills.html

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

Interview with former Deputy BOB HILL

Anonymous said...

Tonights JEP (disclaimer, I didn't buy it, technically).

Under the section of "Jubilee Decades", you know, where the Queen signed over control of the UK to the EU, there are photographs of events in Jersey over these years.

And low and behold, there is a picture of two policemen outside Haute de la Garene with the words ".., scene of alleged child abuse". Alleged? Come on JEP, what about your 'shackles', what were they for then?

The JEP, just can't help themselves. It's so comical it gives children's comics a bad name.

The Beano is not the Rag

Zoompad said...

An alleged newspaper report of an alleged couple being allegedly put into an alleged jail for allegedly being found allegedly guilty at an alleged courtroom allegedly for alleged child abuse at an alleged children's home allegedly called Haut de la Garenne

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

Still no ANSWERS

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

In answer to a non-credible comment that isn't published - no - the "recording" of the oligarhcy figure is not genuine.

Such fakes are merely an insult to the intelligence.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Your an insult to most peoples intelagence .
Un educated but have networked your way through life to think you are an equal to people that have worked hard in this life .

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

What "networks" would that be, then, that I'm supposed to have gained advantage from?

The Clarence Court and Other Backstreet Slums Association?

The St. Helier Boys School / D'Hautree Old Boys Brotherhood?

Plainly, so much more advantageous than the Victoria College / De La Salle / St Georges / Oxbridge / 7 Bedford Row network.

Or the Jersey Freemasons and their brethren in London.

And would having "worked hard" mean living off the trust-funds daddy and grandma set up for you?

Or the struggle of managing the rentier income from the dozen properties you've inherited?

Or sorting out the careful management of all those bribes?

Well, true, I've never been "burdened" with those tasks.

But as far as being "uneducated" is concerned - yes - guilty as charged.

But if the averaged Jersey oligarch had had the same kind of childhood and start in life I had had, they'd be living on tramp juice and sleeping in the car-park.

Stuart

rico sorda said...

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/05/verta-1-report-what-are-council-of.html

First part of the Verita Report and the Chief Minister calling in Andrew Williamson

rs

Anonymous said...

Stuart,
re: trolligarch

Your own integrity and hard work have gained influence within one special interest group. That group would be the one composed of people who want real evidence and background information on the state of Jersey corruption, and who are not ignorant enough to rely on the state media for investigative journalism.

You must be having some impact. High level police and court room resources have been marshaled against you and you were gaining on that half-million unique reader number before someone made it stop recording and displaying the blog count.

Stuart has real influence, yes, but corrupt influence, never.

Anonymous said...

Hello Stuart

Can you give any more info on that apparent fake recording you referred to yesterday evening?

Do you think you were being set up?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Syvret,

Thanks for the answer to my question re. the fake recording of Bailhache

because I had been wondering about that for a while.


Even if well meant, the posting of fake or wilfully inaccurate material is an insult to posters of genuine information and evidence and potentially an insult to the droves of people wronged under regimes such as HDLG. Sometimes cripplingly wronged.


I disagree with you re. "an insult to the intelligence" @20 May 2012 20:26:00

The piece was moderately well put together (bar some of the mash graphics) and has had over 3000 views and largely positive responses. The actual content of the recording is credible in the context of real stories such as

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/8129122.stm

Even adults who do not appreciate the reasoning behind the press strategy would agree that the ‘REAL SCANDAL’ was actually the physical and sexual abuse of children in the supposed care of the states. Abuse that the Establishment mouthpiece masquerading as an "Evening Newspaper" is labelling "alleged" at every opportunity in spite of the court convictions.

There are so many real toe curling insults to our intelligence that it makes the fake one look credible.

Re. "trolligarch" @20 May 2012 21:41:00 is a looser troll who does not even realise that he is an unpaid lankie to his 'betters'.
The comment of "Un educated" just after using "Your" when he meant You're, is priceless.

Or perhaps he is just off his trolli avidly following a blog that insults his intelagence (sic)

:-)

Anonymous said...

Sean Power is on the radio. How come this bloke is still in the states and not in prison??????????

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Because Jersey's prosecution system is politicised, lawless and corrupt.

Stuart

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A highly insightful comment that was left on Rico Sorda's blog:

"Madame Fifi, Infallible Knower of All Possible Futures, has gazed into the almighty crystal ball and can guarantee a correct prediction: None of the key objectives of the Verita recommendations will be met in any COI.

To do so would bring a functionally unbiased and objective outsider view to the evidence, the honest results of which could only lead to the dismantling of the current Jersey Care System, political structure, Policing Services, including Honoraries, and the entire Jersey Judiciary. The cultural and financial repercussions for well placed child abusers and their enablers, mainstream media reporters and all of those connected to the aforementioned parts of the Jersey system would be catastrophic. High level criminals would be exposed. The City of London would be implicated. The media would be stripped of the last shred of an already shameful claim of practicing journalism, and the BBC might not ever recover.

That is all.

May 21, 2012 12:07 AM"

The comment quoted above relates to Rico's latest important posting - in which he publishes the first part of a report into the proposed public inquiry into Jersey's child abuse disaster.

Naturally - the Jersey oligarhcy are doing all they can to sabotage even that inadequate step.

Stuart

Póló said...

Can't find that comment on Rico's blog. Perhaps it has been removed.

Sounds like Lord Denning's "appalling vista" argument for not facing up to the problem. But the appalling vista was subsequently revealed in all its corrupt detail due to the sheer persistence of those who supported those wrongly imprisoned for IRA exposions.

Utimately the appalling vista will out. The question is in what century?

.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Polo, the comment is still there, under Rico's current posting.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Madame Fifi regarding the absolute certainty there will be no fair and just COI, but I think Polo is also correct in predicting the eventual full exposure of the corruption anyway - just not through any proper and deliberate procedure launched by the Jersey government.

"Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth." ~Buddha

Elle

Web Guru said...


http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/verta-1-report-what-are-council-of.html?showComment=1337555276847#c735406038558220149

Póló said...

Stuart & Web Guru

Thanks. I hadn't copped the later post.

My bad.

Pól

Anonymous said...

Look at the disgusting review of the 2000-2010 decade by the filthy rag JEP, published on Friday 18th May 2012.

The abuse inquiry was excruciating for the government and many islanders, apparently, because our feelings were obviously more important than those of the victims, and the small issue of something called 'justice' elsewhere in the world.

Mr Shipley spins that there were a 'small' number of prosecutions, to downplay it all - I wonder why there were such a small number?

Jersey's 'good name' was dragged through the mud - again I wonder why, and surely it wasn't ALL of Jersey, and the parts of Jersey it applied to thoroughly deserved to be dragged through any amount of mud IMHO.

And the inquiry is again smeared as a farce.
Lies, lies, lies as usual, no bodies buried there, the shackles raise their head again (sigh.....), and to close it all off, the trusty coconut device is wheeled out again (that one really appeals to the brainwashed idiots).

And a parting shot, the photo is captioned with 'alleged' despite the prosecutions already admitted to in the article.

If this is the quality of journalism and spin the islanders of Jersey really want to continue funding to the tune of £150 a year, more fool them!

Anonymous said...

Hmm. Interesting how the JEP knives are out for Ozouf now that Philip Bailhache is in the States.

Not long ago the Lime Grove fiasco would have been spun as plucky Ozouf standing up for the public purse against greedy and incompetent civil servants.

Now he's an over-bearing bully.

If I were Gorst, I would be watching my back, very carefully.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

I know, I know - The Rag and its apparatchiks are disgusting - but have patience.

There is going to be a reckoning.

Stuart

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

The JEP remains as divorced from the facts as they ever have been, and in a tragic kind of way, they are quite comical by churning out the same propaganda week in week out.

The very short video in THIS LINK gives you the "facts" behind the child's skull.

The rest of the Blog is documented evidence of child's remains found at Haut de la Garenne.

What's more it was Diane Simon, of the JEP. who was the first "journalist" to mention "shackles" as Lenny Harper had refused to label them as that.

Still the JEP can't get their head around facts and stories.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant reply on twitter to news that Ozouf is to blog about Lime Grove House. "Will that be 45 or 78 rpm". Tears rolling down my cheeks.

Anonymous said...

I remember how you were accused of 'bullying and harrasing' civil servents in your duty to get them to perform correctly, so it makes me chuckle somewhat to see Ozouf accused of that re: Lime Grove :)

They've really got it in for him - I wonder what they've fallen out with him over?

Sam Mézec said...

Stuart,

If any of your readers care about what happens with the islands Electoral Commission, please read this blog post -

http://sammezec.blogspot.com/2012/05/time-for-action-re-electoral-commision.html

It contains a template email that anyone can send forward to the EC so we can collectively pressure them and let it be known that we need a proper democracy in Jersey.

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

Tomorrow (Thursday) night at 7pm Rico Sorda will be live and interactive discussing subjects including the Child Abuse (sabotaged) Committee Of Enquiry, the Treasury Minister's political future (if he has one), the releasing of Reports and generally how things are done in Jersey........Which has got the island into such a mess.

We will be broadcasting from HERE

Ian Evans said...

JERSEY POLICE...LEADING BY EXAMPLE!

Anonymous said...

When can we have part 2 of Mr Power's statement and can you give us a clue as to what will be in it?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A good point. I will see what I can do.

What it is in it?

So many apocalyptically significant things - it's difficult to comprehend.

Here's one, brief, quote:

“a meeting on 23rd May 2008 attended by myself, Wendy Kinnard, the Chief Minister Frank Walker and the Chief Executive Bill Ogley. The meeting was not a harmonious event. During the course of the meeting Frank Walker expressed annoyance that the enquiry was continuing to generate unwelcome media interest in the island, and adopted a bullying and offensive tone towards Wendy Kinnard. He made threats of suspension against both myself and Lenny Harper. I believe that the term he used was that he "was under pressure to suspend the Chief and the Deputy Chief." He did not say who the "pressure" was from, nor did he give the impression that he was personally opposed to the idea. My notebook records that I made an email record after this meeting. (Notebook 08/95 page 34.)”

And the picture of the Jersey establishment that emerges from the document doesn't get better.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

"During the course of the meeting Frank Walker expressed annoyance that the enquiry was continuing to generate unwelcome media interest in the island, and adopted a bullying and offensive tone towards Wendy Kinnard. He made threats of suspension against both myself and Lenny Harper. I believe that the term he used was that he "was under pressure to suspend the Chief and the Deputy Chief." He did not say who the "pressure" was from, nor did he give the impression that he was personally opposed to the idea."

Pretty much says it all, don't you think?

Elle

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Yep.

Frank Walker - and whoever was pressuring him - were acting in an unambiguously criminal manner, in attempting to coerce, and threatening, the Police Chief.

That was Jersey's Chief Minister.

What else do you need to known, really - about the "standards" of governance in this place.

Stuart

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

TONIGHT

Anonymous said...

"During the course of the meeting Frank Walker expressed annoyance that the enquiry was continuing to generate unwelcome media interest in the island, and adopted a bullying and offensive tone towards Wendy Kinnard. He made threats of suspension against both myself and Lenny Harper. I believe that the term he used was that he "was under pressure to suspend the Chief and the Deputy Chief." He did not say who the "pressure" was from, nor did he give the impression that he was personally opposed to the idea."

This shows one side of an argument, and - on its own - can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

You choose the way which benefits your agenda, of course.

Jack dg

Anonymous said...

I submitted this on

www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/05/22/islanders-views-to-be-sought-on-states-reform/

It is factual and uses only the tamest BBC links.
I suspect that the JEP will censor it, but you never know

Title: Rohypnol Voter
Submitted : May 24, 2012 at 5:19 pm

"Dave G" @35
So you think it is acceptable for St Mary's 1,600 to have the same Constable-representation as St Helier's 30,000 do you Dave ?

As for Bailhache : Sir Philip has something of a light touch to matters such as child abuse as is demonstrated by his own words and actions:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/8129122.stm

Jersey's former bailiff has said he was justified giving a speech on Liberation Day 2008 about child abuse

&

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7354069.stm

"Sir Philip was Attorney General at the time of Holland's appointment and was informed he had been convicted of indecently assaulting a 14-year-old girl, but decided to allow him to keep his post"

This disgusts many on the island who do not buy into the "sweep it under the carpet and it is safely put to bed" policy.

This is just one of many, many reasons why Bailhache cannot unite this island and never will.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader say:

"This shows one side of an argument, and - on its own - can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

You choose the way which benefits your agenda, of course."

No - it does not show one side of an argument.

And there is no possible ambiguity about interpreting the incident.

The only possible dispute can be - "is it true?"

Is Graham Power being dishonest - or is he telling the truth?

Let's assess that this way: there is not one occasion on record in any of this controversy, of anything that former Police Chief Graham Power, Queens Police Medal has said that has been wrong.

So proceeding on the entirely reasonable basis that Mr. Power's description of events is accurate and honest - then there is no ambiguity: attempting to coerce and threaten the Chief of Police and the Deputy Chief of Police - because they are investigating serious crimes by government employees and government departments - is a straightforward act of naked and brazen criminality.

End of.

It is overt mafioso-style corruption.

Simple as.

It's a collapse in lawful government and the rule of law.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

Well said Stuart.

When are you, Graham, and Lenny ready to pounce?

Surely it must be soon?

Anonymous said...

"During the course of the meeting Frank Walker expressed annoyance that the enquiry was continuing to generate unwelcome media interest in the island, and adopted a bullying and offensive tone towards Wendy Kinnard. He made threats of suspension against both myself and Lenny Harper. I believe that the term he used was that he "was under pressure to suspend the Chief and the Deputy Chief." He did not say who the "pressure" was from, nor did he give the impression that he was personally opposed to the idea."-- from Graham Power's Statement

Your Blog Reader Jack DG, comments, "This shows one side of an argument, and - on its own - can be interpreted in a number of different ways."

Jack DG then adds, "You choose the way which benefits your agenda, of course."

There may be multiple views of a given comment, but what should be manifestly clear from Frank Walker's words, is that Graham Power was understandably appalled by the threatened political interference in the unfolding abuse investigation. A reasonable person from any other jurisdiction would be concerned and might well consider that the words themselves were enough to violate accepted legal principles of the kind Jersey cloaks itself in.

For Frank Walker to make that statement to a principled Chief of Police with high level experience in the ethics of public service, demonstrates the arrogance of a politician who knows he can behave as he wishes, as long as it is within the framework of the medieval patronage system he represents.

But beyond that, and even if you question Graham Power's recollection, which he rightly recorded immediately after that incident in email documents, the proof of the political will to improperly interfere with the police investigation is contained in the massive amount of evidence easily found in the public domain.

Graham Power was suspended under multiple acts of political desperation. The very words of Frank Walker were borne out in actions taken. The excuses used as evidence against Graham Power could never hold up to any meaningful objective scrutiny and will not be allowed meaningful objective scrutiny, no matter how many times a defender of the status quo pretends the suspension was "upheld" by those who benefit from the patronage system that demanded his suspension.

Further evidence will be seen soon enough in the excuses given to head off any fact finding in a COI. Any outside exposure or objective fact finding about Jersey child abuse or Graham Power's suspension will be fiercely opposed by the Feudalists in power, no matter what millions more they must spend to do so.

rico sorda said...

Stuart, work this one out


The Attorney General:

I stand with an element of confusion because it had been whispered in my ear that I am conflicted in giving an answer but so far as I am concerned I am giving legal advice and the benefit of my legal opinion to the Assembly, and I am not entirely certain on what basis it can be suggested that I am conflicted in doing so. The Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund is established under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law and the relevant Article is Article 24. Article 24 provides that the fund is separate from the general revenues of the States and is a specific purpose fund. Articles 24(4) and (5) are, I believe, the relevant provisions and the Deputy of St. Mary is correct when he says that there are certain purposes that the fund must be used for in promoting or supporting measures that in the opinion of the Minister - and for these purposes that is the Minister for Treasury and Resources - may assist in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct, in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct or without prejudice to the generality of those clauses facilitating the enforcement of any enactment dealing with criminal conduct, discharging Jersey’s obligations under asset sharing agreements and meeting the expenses incurred by the Minister in administering the fund. Before supporting any measure under that paragraph the Minister has an obligation to consult with the Attorney General. The question, as I understand it, is whether or not I agree that the fund can be used for the purposes a Committee of Inquiry. The Minister for Treasury and Resources, I think, gave a written answer to a written question in February in which he indicated that having consulted with me the view was taken that it would be difficult to argue that the inquiry, depending upon its terms of reference, could be taken as dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct. That is the view that I hold. The vires that enables the fund to be used seems to me to point to dealing with the direct consequences of criminal activity or actions taken to stop criminal activities occurring or in processing the prosecution of crime. I think an investigation, if I may say so, into the care regime, in whatever form it takes, would not be the consequences of criminal conduct. It may be knowledge about it and concerns about it arise as a result of investigation into criminal conduct but I do not think that an inquiry into the care system is a consequence of criminal conduct. In my view the fund is not designed for such a purpose. In indicating I am not sure why the thought might be there that I might be conflicted in giving that advice, it seems to me this is a matter of legal interpretation and that is my interpretation of the Article and the proposition, of course, or indeed any of the amendments does not purport to point to a particular source of funding. I am merely indicating what my view is of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

It isn't even rational.

There's no need to ponder long such overt garbage.

It is lies.

If it is OK to channel elements of the COCF towards "paying" London lawyers - and judges - then it's OK to spend some of it into inquiring why Jersey's public administration has acted criminally towards so many vulnerable children in care.

Still - Le Cocq isn't universally known in Jersey legal circle as Dim Tim for nothing.

Look, Tim, just consider it this way: you're conflicted - because the legal firm you left, to become a Crown Officer, has earned lots of money - by representing various significant individuals - who should have been prosecuted for gross crimes - were it not for William Bailhache - and you, Tim.

"Conflict of interests" - ask someone to explain it to you. (though not the Solicitor General, obviously.)

Stuart

Anonymous said...

"The vires that enables the fund to be used seems to me to point to dealing with the direct consequences of criminal activity or actions taken to stop criminal activities occurring or in processing the prosecution of crime. I think an investigation, if I may say so, into the care regime, in whatever form it takes, would not be the consequences of criminal conduct. It may be knowledge about it and concerns about it arise as a result of investigation into criminal conduct but I do not think that an inquiry into the care system is a consequence of criminal conduct."

Huh?

Anonymous said...

I think an investigation, if I may say so, into the care regime, in whatever form it takes, would not be the consequences of criminal conduct. It may be knowledge about it and concerns about it arise as a result of investigation into criminal conduct but I do not think that an inquiry into the care system is a consequence of criminal conduct.

WTF

These loons are dangerous.

Zoompad said...

Best not forget this

or this

"How did I feel about a paedophile being in the ranks of the honorary police?"

And as you can see in the video, most people are pretty much disgusted by it. But one man tried to lie about it, and shift the blame for it to someone else.

And that is the calibre of the man who now the chief of Jersey. A coward, a liar and an employer of paedophiles.

Anonymous said...

"I do not think that an inquiry into the care system is a consequence of criminal conduct."

What planet is Dim Tim on?

If there had been no criminal conduct there would be no need for an inquiry.

Therefore the inquiry is a consequence of that conduct.

Anonymous said...

Has any one of our representatives not thought about obtaining the advice of a non-conflicted experienced barrister in the UK on the interpretation of this law?

Dim Tim's opinion is just that, an opinion. Nothing more.

It doesn't sound too complicated a question.

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

Last night's live and interactive broadcast can be viewed HERE

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Has any one of our representatives not thought about obtaining the advice of a non-conflicted experienced barrister in the UK on the interpretation of this law?"

Let's be clear about this - and not even buy into their diversionary paradigm in the first place. There is simply no need for an opinion from any barrister. The facts are plain already.

A public inquiry into the various failings of Jersey's child protection apparatus, would be addressing the consequences of crime. Certainly, in a lot more relevant sense than some of the other things Tim Le Cocq and Philip Ozouf spend the COCF on.

Their problem - of course - is that they just don't want to admit that the whole disaster has involved extensive criminality.

Because to make such an admission, would be to accept that Jersey's entire system of governance is a failed, corrupted and dangerous mess.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Stuart, I see from local media that Senator Alan Breckon has been charged with violent assault against a woman. Isn't this the second time he has been charged with criminal conduct towards women? He was acquitted last time, if memory serves?

He'd simply have to resign as Senator if convicted, it just wouldn't be possible for him to remain as a serving States member, just convicted of grave and criminal assault....on a woman.

But....hmmmm.....a by-election? In which someone like you might be a candidate? Oh dear.

Methinks yet another acquittal is on the horizon.

Urquhart.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Jersey voters have precisely the government they deserve.

If there's a by-election - the candidates will be a few Jersey oligarchs - Ben Shenton, Freddy Cohen, etc - the obligatory hypocritical run by sleazebag party candidate, like Geoff Southern (nice and safe, come what may, in his Deputy seat) - and, of course, the usual slew of time-wasting no-hope loons, encouraged to run by the oligarchy as the more deadbeats there are clogging-up the hustings - the more unlikely it becomes for any meaningful questions to be asked by the public - and for any real challenges to the candidates.

You can hear the speeches now.

I'd sooner get puked on by fulmars.

This place is - overtly - run by gangsters. And that's just the way you like it.

The government you deserve.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

'puked on by fulmars.'

What's all that about, then???

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

cliff-nesting sea-birds - that projectile vomit as a defence mechanism.

A kind of stinking, semi-digested liquidised fish-oily spew; delivered with demoralising accuracy - when you're trying to climb - and the only holds take you near their nest.

The stink is unreal.

In fact, maybe getting puked on by fulmars is marginally worse than Jersey politics.

You don't want to get puked on by fulmars. Just trust me on this.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Puked on by Fulmars.

So now we will have two Senatorials if the JEP gets their way and harrass poor Pip into 'spending more time with his wife and family'.So then we will have two more 'right thinking' people in office .

Turn around, unclip and let gravity do the rest!

Anonymous said...

Syvret can't stand for 7 years. He is an ex jail bird with an appalling criminal record. In other words just another scum bag ha ha ha.

Anonymous said...

If Senator Ozouf faces a vote of no confidence for disgracing a public office then obviously so should Ian Le Marquand for wasting public money on unnecessary reports, being above the law of the land, by making up rules as you go along and of course blatant lying.

Sean Power should be prosecuted, for stealing private emails and then using them to try and discredit you.

This of course will not happen because there is no will to run an honest Government, its all about how many foreign trips you can squeeze out of the taxpayer before the next election.

Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Frank the female batter has the money?!

Anonymous said...

So, a Jersey Olympic runner is sussed out at the last minute to be a peado?

Stuart would you really want to take his place?

Anonymous said...

"...harrass poor Pip into 'spending more time with his wife and family'"

lol! Perhaps he will need to take some "gardening" leave.

Ian Evans said...

GRAHAM POWER suspension & Jersey CHILD ABUSE

Anonymous said...

How come you're trolling Ozouf on Twitter?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

I don't troll - on any forum.

I've posted two tweets - under my own identity - that make legitimate criticisms of Philip Ozouf.

That is not trolling.

Stuart

Ian Evans said...

BRIDGET GETS ARRESTED AGAIN

voiceforchildren said...

Stuart.

Another Citizens Media EXCLUSIVE

Anonymous said...

I recommend VFC's balanced interviews with Senators Ferguson and Ozouf and congratulate him for doing the what the MSM won't.

I have a lot more respect for politicians when they talk freely like this to Citizen's Media.

It gives me the feeling that, while I generally despise the know-it-all attention seeking nature of politicians, they actually do a lot of work 'for the people' (following their own beliefs as legitimised by whatever vote they get from the poor electoral turnouts as influenced by the Jersey Evening Propaganda) and perhaps it's not ALL their fault when Jersey is poorly governed.

The real power lies in the super-wealthy and their pet lapdogs in the legal sphere and the media. The States are held in as much contempt by the rich as the poor, with all sides trying to exert their own influence. The politicians are just the 'useful fools' caught in the middle.

Anonymous said...

I hope you have got your evidence nicely lined up for when you are called to support the States in the response to the claim that a certain nurse was wrongfully accused and not protected by the States.

YCMIU

Playing out beautifully IMHO

Anonymous said...

Thinking about it ,that is the MOST STUPID! thing he can do ,bearing in mind the burden of proof in a civil action.

Every Dog has his Day!

Anonymous said...

I see your favourite nurse is on the front page of today's paper in his bid to sue the states over your blog.

Removal Company said...

You guys ( you and VFC and Rico) are a truly hight class communications nexus. Shame on JEP and BBC. Whatever about the former, with its chequered history, the latter is a huge surprise to any outsider. I always had great respect of the the BBC in the old days, and particularly for the world service. However, since the Tony Blair/Alistair Campbell emasculation of the organisation, it is in a sorry state UK-wide.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Bring it on.

However - who wants to place a bet - that neither side calls me as a witness?

You see this phenomena, in what passes for "judicial" proceedings time and time again in Jersey; in certain cases - there will be highly relevant witnesses - that just won't get called - because the testimony of the witnesses in question would be very "inconvenient" to both sides.

For example - John Day was not called - by defence - or prosecution - in the manslaughter case against the locum.

Graham Power and Lenny Harper were not called - by defence or prosecution - in the abuse-of-process hearings made at an early stage of certain of the child abuse prosecutions. That was shortly after the illegal suspension of Graham Power - and the Judge, Chris Pitchers, was enthusiastically spouting a "report" by a spin-doctor, Matt Tapp - that falsely sought to smear the work of the police.

Yet neither side called the two, key witnesses - Mr. Power and Mr. Harper.

But - just so both parties know - I'm ready and willing to be a witness - give evidence - and be cross examined under oath.

Don't both rush at once.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

As you know, this will never get to court. AG will advise out-of-court settlement to avoid a bad smell, Nurse M's lawyer will take a big cut, and Jersey taxpayer gets the shaft - again.

Criminals and lawyers enriching themselves at the public expense - the Jersey Way.

Anonymous said...

Why would they call you in as a witness? You have already been found guilty of breaking data protection law so your part in it has been dealt with. The fact remains that the Nurse was never charged with the accusations made on this blog so that's slander and he has every right to sue the States for your actions. It also goes for a number of other unfounded accusations you have made on this blog that have never materialised into anything and you have to admit that eventually.

Web Guru said...

Nurse sues States over murder claims on blog

Ian Evans said...

BAILHACHE on himself & Nurse M on SYVRET

Anonymous said...

This will interest the national media. There is no way that Jersey can fudge this one. The can of worms is now open and outside interest might finally force the end of the Jersey way, if not the reputation of Jersey itself as a safe nice place with an establishment that has integrity.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

"Why would they call me as a witness?"

Because the credibility of the argument of both parties - States and the killer nurse - depend upon questioning - and if needs be - if they're confident - discrediting me - and - of course - the dramatic expert witness defence case - that has never been heard in court - because I was prevented from using it in the corrupt prosecution against me.

And the position of the States in this is - frankly - desperate - and disastrous.

The deep and dramatic and profound ultimate public interest - requires that the States call me. But - of course doing so - so as to destroy the claims by the lunatic nurse - would simultaneously destroy the "credibility" - such as it was - of the corrupt, repressive actions taken against me.

It's a fascinating case, all round, really.

Nightmare disaster for the Jersey authorities.

What do they do?

They either robustly defend the public interest in this individual case - and the deeper more profound public interest of protecting vulnerable patients from maniacs - or - they seek to prop-up the shabby and corrupt actions they took against me.

They can do one - or the other.

Not both.

And as this is the Jersey oligarchy of which we speak - and the conduct of Michael Birt - who was instrumental in improperly pulling the plug on the 1999 investigation of the nurse - none of us can be surprised when the public interest loses out - again.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

They really did blow it, didn't they?

Do you think any of them still think this is all just going to fade away eventually?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Some of the thicker ones may still think that.

The smarter ones hope the unavoidable day of reckoning can be held off until they're out of the scene.

They're going to be disappointed.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Stuart, a topical quiz question for your readers.

'What connects the political prosecution against you and the breathtaking perjury of a key prosecution witness, with a whole different case of violent rape?'

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

I believe you could be referring to a certain organisation, with a four-letter acronym - and an employee of the said organisation?

Let's see if there are any other guesses, before I spell it out.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

"...he has every right to sue the States for your actions". Uh, since when could you sue one party for the independent acts of a third party?

Anonymous said...

You really live in another world. Its not up to you to bring charges against people.

Anonymous said...

Fauldener

rico sorda said...

Hi Stuart,

I have just published part 2 of the Verita Report concerning a Committee of Inquiry into decades of Child Abuse.

It can be read here

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/05/verita-2-terms-of-reference.html

These are the Terms of Reference

rs

Damocles said...

anon - Monday, 28 May 2012 15:16:00 "The fact remains that the Nurse was never charged with the accusations made on this blog so that's slander and he has every right to sue the States for your actions"

Anon fails to realise the different burden of proof between criminal and civil cases. Rightly or wrongly, someone decided not to charge Nurse M based on their assessment of whether there was a reasonable charge of conviction in a Jersey court. Just because someone is not charged does not mean they are not guilty - it often just means that the evidence or the political will is not strong enough. Sometimes, but more rarely, innocent people get charged and convicted when there appears to be a lot of evidence against them.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Its not up to you to bring charges against people."

Quite right.

I was not a prosecutor.

And I didn't bring 'charges'.

I was, however, one of your elected representatives - with a duty to serve the public interest - by exposing cover-ups and the corrupt, politically motivated concealment of crimes - especially in the clinical environment.

And when it is actually the prosecutor - who has been instrumental in the cover-up - then it falls to someone else in public authority to expose the truth.

The irony is - it is this case that has exposed Jersey's judiciary for the corrupted enterprise it is - a bent and conflicted apparatus - that is structurally incapable of protecting the public; unable - and unwilling - to even deliver the protections of Article 2.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

"Its not up to you to bring charges against people."

Stuart did no such thing. However, it was up to the prosecutorial system to bring charges and they failed to properly consider the potential case on its factual merits. The political influence stemmed from protecting Jersey image and perhaps, coffers, not from anyone's professional duty.

When both police investigation and prosecutorial procedure fails to support a just judicial system, the vacuum should pull in others. That's called balance of power.

In this case, Stuart was better placed to act in the public interest than those who had demonstrated they were too beholden to a process clearly suffering from undue political interference. He sought to rectify that in a way which would absolutely stand up to public scrutiny outside of Jersey.

That is why it is curious that anyone besides Stuart would bring this issue back into the public
forefront.

Viewed from outside Jersey, to anyone without bias, the sympathy will be entirely for Stuart. What he did has been done many times by investigative journalists the world over. In fact, it is properly expected of them. Should journalists fail to hold government to account for undue influence over police and judicial matters, opposition politicians are expected to provide additional checks and balances, if they find themselves in a position to do so. I would argue that Stuart was, in fact, fully obligated to do so.

What is troubling is that an action such as this case will have been blessed by the same powers that have turned the concept of acting in the public interest on its head. We don't yet know why they have decided to encourage this action. Surely some plan has been hatched to use this case in some new way against Stuart. It is hard to imagine that a clean court case on this matter would ever be permitted to take place.

How exactly will they try to offset the risk of increasing public exposure of a previously charged and violent criminal nurse whose suspicious behavior clearly remained "underinvestigated" for far too long? This can only bring greater attention to a matter which began with the political decision to keep the nurse's behavior completely secret. The nurse is demonstrably a strange poster boy for the kind of proper behavior Jersey likes to publicize.

Elle

Ian Evans said...

"We don't yet know why they have decided to encourage this action."


Yeah, we do.

It's because they know they are screwed. All they have left is to be seen to be trying to do the right thing.

That opportunity left their command many many months ago :)

Anonymous said...

From Anonymous
This kind of corruption exists everywhere,it just wears different clothes.