So Corrupt, they Protect Killers and Rapists
If that’s what it takes
To Protect their System. Jersey readers may have seen that the island’s only “newspaper” – a journal with a more than passing interest in concealing serious crimes, as will come to be seen – reports the attempt by a rogue nurse to sue the States of Jersey – for the allegedly unjustified public interest disclosure of the fact he had serious rape allegations against him – and that colleagues – and subsequently the Police – had very compelling grounds for believing him to be a clinical serial-killer.
I exposed the nurse in question, after all other avenues had failed.
And every bit as important as it was to expose this man, who may have attempted to murder you – or may have murdered members of your family – it was as important to expose the stagnant, corrupted and dangerous system that had protected him – and failed to protect you.
That meant pointing out the fact that the original 1999 police investigation into the killer nurse had been improperly, prematurely abandoned by the police – and that instrumental in driving that cover-up, was Jersey’s prosecution function – the Attorney General.
Back then, in 1999, Michael Birt – currently the Bailiff.
Having the truth of this frightening and lethal scandal exposed, was catastrophic for Jersey’s traditional ruling establishment. All their false claims – of how Jersey’s systems of governance work well and can be relied upon to protect the public interest – were exposed as the lies they are. Individual oligarchy figures – like Birt himself – were finished.
Unless – of course – this disastrous turn of events could be “contained” – could be “managed” – could be “spun”.
What to do?
Only one feasible path that could succeed in “getting the lid back down” on the crises:
Discredit and trash the source.
So – after a wholly illegal massed police raid – carried out without a search-warrant – and without all relevant due process – Michael Birt’s close friend and ally – William Bailhache drove the political prosecution against me (in the process, misappropriating a vast amount of your money, in order to fund this spin-doctoring.)
In one “clever” stroke – the failed and corrupt Jersey prosecution system had protected itself – and painted me as the villain.
What could possibly go wrong?
The “perfect solution” to the “needs” of the Jersey oligarchy.
Guaranteed to salvage Mick Birt’s knighthood – and keep the whole corrupt show on the road, for a few more years.
What went wrong is this:
I argued public interest disclosure – as per the provisions in the law. Bailhache and Birt argued, “no – that defence has no merit – because the 1999 investigation was good – so you had no justification in criticising it.”
So that was the argument that the case hinged around: “was the public interest disclosure justified?” If the 1999 investigation was good – then the prosecution claimed, “no”. If the 1999 investigation was rubbish, then “yes”, my defence was achieved.
To cut a long story short, I and an expert witness for my defence, spent three months – with the full knowledge and acceptance of the prosecution and the court – working on the public interest disclosure defence.
The expert witness reports were submitted to the court as my defence case.
The reports were catastrophic for Jersey’s authorities.
Three days later – the prosecution – with the agreement of William Bailhache’s friend, magistrate Bridget Shaw – suddenly decided that the entire defence case was “no longer relevant”.
My entire defence case – after three months work – was suddenly ruled “inadmissible” – just as soon as the oligarchy received the expert witness reports – and realised they simply had no answer to them, and their case had collapsed.
So when reading in the Jersey media – about this poor, poor nurse – and how Jersey’s courts convicted me for exposing him – just understand what a corrupt, politicised process it was.
One which corruptly excluded the defence case – after three months work – just as soon as Jersey’s judicial claque realised they had no answer to the defence – and, worse yet, the expert witness reports had exposed the scandal to be even worse than originally feared.
It gets worse:
For even though I was expressly prevented from running the public interest disclosure case, examining the failures of the 1999 investigation – the judges nevertheless still allowed the prosecution to then proceed to base their case almost entirely on claims that the 1999 investigation was “good”.
Claims I had been expressly prevented from answering.
And in case that isn’t enough corruption for you – consider this:
Throughout the prosecution – and the subsequent appeal – Jersey’s judicial authorities were aware of the existence of a vital, key witness. A person with compelling grounds for believing that they were one of the nurse's attempted murder victims.
Jersey’s judicial authorities told the witness not to make themselves known to me.
That is perverting the course of justice.
I only became aware of the witness by happenstance, after the politicised and corrupt processes of Jersey’s courts had ended.
After becoming aware of the witness, I advised them to go to the police and give a statement about their experience at the hands of the nurse.
Notwithstanding this outrageous concealment – the courts refused to let me reopen the case – and imprisoned me.
Meanwhile – no doubt with great reluctance – the Police had to commission an expert witness of their own – to examine the medical notes of the concealed witness. The key conclusion of that expert was this:
“the possibility of foul play could not be completely excluded.”
In spite of convicting and imprisoning me for telling the truth and exposing the gross failures of their friends – and for trying to obtain a fair hearing - Jersey’s shabby excuse for a judiciary had to cover itself; it had to include – amongst all of the absurd and Kafkaesque condemnations of me – a little “insurance policy” – because the plain, public interest truth – concerning the nurse – is that stark and inescapable. Amidst all the verbiage – this is that “get-out” clause, by which the Jersey judiciary managed to face both ways: -
“[The nurse] should not be permitted to work in any capacity as a nurse in Jersey (or indeed elsewhere) and that there was evidence that, although now not working in a nursing environment, he was still interested in returning to such employment. It was clearly in the public interest that [the nurse] should not be able to work as a nurse in Jersey.”
Get an understanding of the full, evidenced nature of the scandal – upon scandal – by reading these three substantive articles.
Given just how far Jersey’s corrupt and dangerous authorities have dug themselves into this hole – we can have no expectation that the real public interest will be strenuously advanced in resisting the claim.
Stuart.
Posts
186 comments:
"Throughout the prosecution – and the subsequent appeal – Jersey’s judicial authorities were aware of the existence of a vital, key witness. A person with compelling grounds for believing that they were one of the nurse's attempted murder victims.
Jersey’s judicial authorities told the witness not to make themselves known to me.
That is perverting the course of justice.
I only became aware of the witness by happenstance, after the politicised and corrupt processes of Jersey’s courts had ended.
After becoming aware of the witness, I advised them to go to the police and give a statement about their experience at the hands of the nurse.
Notwithstanding this outrageous concealment – the courts refused to let me reopen the case – and imprisoned me.
Meanwhile – no doubt with great reluctance – the Police had to commission an expert witness of their own – to examine the medical notes of the concealed witness. The key conclusion of that expert was this:
“the possibility of foul play could not be completely excluded.”
If this is what you call "The Jersey Way", then the whole of the secret family courts in the UK has been "Jerseyfied" because they are run on the same principles of corruption, concealment, perversion of the course of justice and perjury. This is a frightful scandal, but it is just the tip of the iceberg, because the corrupt gangsters who run Jersey are being protected by the UK Government.
Stuart
I have no illusion that any just court case involving you can take place in today's Jersey. I do have a question, one posited to me a while back by a friend in the legal profession:
Could an individual or family who have a good faith claim to believing they were probably harmed by the nurse, sue the States of Jersey for damages? Or, might they have any other right to force legal some action to more fully open the evidence files concerning their claim or even press the police to investigate any other - still unknown - dangers the nurse posed?
Elle
"SHARED" :)
So whats Nurse M really after????
Is he hoping they will try and bury this by paying him off????
How they going to hide that one???? Maybe using a criminal compensation fund.Now that could be ironic
Surely not!
JRCbean
It is worth pointing out that there is an overlooked public interest element to your disclosure of the police report into Nurse M, namely the way it heavily criticised managers at health for their failure to cooperate with the enquiry.
What sort of a health service is it that employs senior staff who actively undermine a police investigation into possible mass murder of patients by a nurse? And doesn't sack them when the fact is revealed?
Mr Syvret, I'm confused. I read your internet article last night, and was especially interested to see that the judgment had come to the conclusion you quote -
“[The nurse] should not be permitted to work in any capacity as a nurse in Jersey (or indeed elsewhere) and that there was evidence that, although now not working in a nursing environment, he was still interested in returning to such employment. It was clearly in the public interest that [the nurse] should not be able to work as a nurse in Jersey.”
- I did not have time to check the Data Protection Law last night, but I have now done so. So far as I can see, the public interest disclosure sections, which you relied upon, are very clear and simple. Data can be published for the prevention and detection of crime, and for journalism.
Having read just some of the material concerning the rogue nurse, it is, as you have argued, very difficult to conceive of a case more strongly justified as a public interest disclosure.
What is so alarming about the conduct of Jersey's courts, is that the judgment quoted above has had to, unavoidably really, come to the same plain and obvious conclusion.
But yet they still 'convicted' you?
I'm a middle-class professional, and until the actions taken against you, I would have regarded any suggestion that British judiciary could be corrupt as only a dubious conspiracy theory. But now, with the facts on display, and irrational judgments that, as you say, 'face both ways', one has to come to a different conclusion.
I'm shaken by this.
Yes.
Let's not mince our words.
As I said to Pitchers in open court -
"Jersey's judicial system is a criminal enterprise."
And it is.
Stuart
There were some useful comments under the previous posting - a few of which I may reproduce here. For example, a reader 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?'"
My guess at the answer to that question is the -
"Jersey Financial Services Commission".
The "regulatory" authority which is largely responsible for keeping the coffers of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund nicely topped-up - and thus able to fund an army of lawyers - and judges.
The Jersey oligarchy - don't ya just love em?
Stuart
Stuart, you need to have some fun with a megaphone, with VFC filming :)
Anon wrote:
"So far as I can see, the public interest disclosure sections, which you relied upon, are very clear and simple. Data can be published for the prevention and detection of crime, and for journalism"
People see too much evil in the suppressions and cover ups we have seen. Here is an alternative explanation for the seemingly widespread Jersey corruption that pervades these matters.
The answer comes down to the "bolshy" Jersey character of those in positions of power.
The problem is the personalities of those who assess evidence and decide whether to prosecute, investigate or drop charges.
In essence they are excessively egotistical. They make decisions based upon their prejudices - just like most people everywhere but if someone or evidence comes along that threatens to expose their decisions as unjust, wrong or stupid they go into denial/defensive/attack mode which goes something like this (My comments are in italics):
I am an important person in society; they pay me a lot; I have an important title; I run/am part of an important organisation THEREFORE I am better than anyone who challenges my work; my principles, outlook and goals are better than theirs THEREFORE my ego won't allow me to even contemplate that they are credible or right or worthy of attention.
Whatever they are saying - no matter how plausible or evidenced CANNOT be right - MUST not be right because that would mean my egotistical self-opinion was misplaced and (very important point)all of those people who look up to me would be disappointed in not only me but (extremely important point here)the position I hold - which would shake the fabric of Jersey society. As that is the worst thing I can contemplate we mustn't allow that so all's fair in love and war and suppressing dissenters.
In short, the great and the good might THINK they are protecting society but, in reality, they are protecting their own fragile self-important egos which, long ago, they (in their own minds) associated as being the same as the needs of "the State"
"L'État, c'est moi" - Louis XIV
You are right - insofar as these people are all - transparently - personally inadequate.
But you make the mistake of putting their conduct and behaviour down to stupidity and personality defects alone.
These people also know - perfectly well - just what they are doing - and why.
They are criminals.
Stuart
Murder claims action: States blame Syvret
April 17th 1999-Nurse M was arrested on returning to the Island, his home address was searched, recovered from his home address was a knuckle-duster, a Police radio, Six firearms, with large quantity of ammunition, One expired Firearms Certificate, cannabis resin, tablets and scales, a bag containing various medications, Eleven syringes with clear liquid within, and other medication, including two bottles of potassium chioride.
Nurse M was interviewed concerning the medication found, and at first suggested that the insulin in the eleven syringes was intended as an aid to body-building. He later changed his story, in that he intended to kill himself with the medication, by marching down to the Cenotaph in military dress, where he could inject himself with a lethal dose of insulin and potassium chloride.
Stuart
"Murder claims action: States blame Syvret"
That is the quintessential Jersey state media headline of all time. It sounds like you were the one they blame for the murder. You really should frame a copy of that headline, as long as you don't have to buy the paper.
Are we going to see Sir St.John-Birt en-nobled by Prince Charles at the renaming of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Park aka the town park.
If so the surprising news was told to me by a market trader three years ago.
So we have from the 1999 investigation that "[The nurse] should not be permitted to work in any capacity as a nurse in Jersey"
And quoting from the JEP that " The nurse, who worked at the General Hospital and in Jersey care homes in the 1990s and 2000s"
Those 2 statements show why you had to out "The Nurse".
And of further interest; why was it that Health told the Nursing Home he was working at when you released his name to "no longer employ him"? Arse covering??
If Health had no concerns about him upto when you released his name why then ask for him to be dismissed?
Maybe Health had concerns but because in 1999 they covered up what he did they had to let him continue in nursing/care?
Maybe they knew what he did do back then and have the evidence (that they didn't give to the Police)and with you releasing his name new members of Health Mangement having relooked at the evidence they have about him said "what the F*&K" why is he still working in a Health Department Regulated Establishment? !!
Hi Stuart.
Just put up audio from today, questions & Statement from Chief Minister.
Your readers can listen HERE
That propaganda paper is a joke.
Stuart, it's been terrible for you, because you've been persecuted so much for being a caring person, and trying to protect vulnerable people. These creatures have persecuted you in full glare; it does not take much imagination to think of what they are capable of doing to people who are not in the light.
Stuart,
As far as I can see, the more publicity they give this nurse matter, the better for you and the safer even for any potential future victims of the nurse.
There's one frequent comment which bears repeating: No one anywhere outside Jersey could fail to place their sympathy with your cause in this matter. No one outside Jersey would want to let this nurse treat their loved ones. Really, no one in Jersey would either, but in Jersey they might lie about that if there was no risk of him treating them personally.
Every time this nurse comes up in the media and courts, you only look more concerned with acting in the public interest than anyone else involved, from the State Media to the States, to the Civil Service. That impression should be all but impossible for them to reverse, by now.
Elle
Stuart, Nurse M is still on the nursing register, and for the last decade has been able to work in private care homes in Jersey, or indeed as a nurse anywhere in the world.
Unless would-be employers read this blog, there is no way they would know of the serious concerns about him.
It seems clear that, despite the decision not to prosecute, police officers remained concerned that he posed a genuine threat to vulnerable patients.
Is there any evidence that the Jersey police gave unofficial warnings to actual or would-be employers in Jersey?
If they didn't, they would be open to charges of failing to protect the vulnerable.
If they did, they would be guilty of breaching data protection law, as interpreted by our regime.
While preparing for your court cases, did you ever ask the police to confirm whether they had given such warnings?
"He, who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it." ~ Seneca
It was admitted by the police in open court that they considered him dangerous - and that they were, occasionally, giving unofficial warnings to employers. Although that approach by the police was very haphazard and random - and in no way constituted an effective or reliable means of protecting the public from the plain danger the nurse poses to vulnerable people.
And - of course - what ever defective approach the Jersey police were taking, could never protect vulnerable people in those nursing settings in the UK - where the nurse went to work occasionally.
So, yes - the situation is that - at various stages - the police, the Jersey Attorney General, and the Jersey courts - have all acknowledged that the nurse is a very serious danger to vulnerable people - and should never have been nursing.
But that corrupted apparatus still convicts me - for alerting the public to that danger.
Jersey's prosecution and judicial apparatus - a criminal enterprise.
Stuart
Stuart, in that case, in terms of data protection law, haven't the police done exactly the same as you?
I don't see how they could have lawfully given unofficial warnings to employers without disclosing personal data, other than relying on the "public interest" exemption in the law.
Since this defence was denied to you, what is different about the police doing it that makes them immune to prosecution?
Of course, I am in no way criticising the police for doing this - in fact, failing to do so would be a dereliction of duty - but I would really like to know what protects them from prosecution under the provisions of the law?
Jersey's prosecution function - the Office of Attorney General - is a gangster operation.
It decides who it will or won't prosecute - according to who is in favour with - or not in favour with - the feudal 'court' of the Jersey mafia.
Stuart
Does it not seem a bit surreal that we are all still calling him Nurse M when his full name appeared on the Judicial Greffe court list recently. His name, by his own choice, is now in the public domain.
Also, wasn't there some kind of NHS hearing to do with him recently? What happened to that, anyone know?
Useful craft idea for anyone daft enough to be still wasting their money on the JEP
Well blow me down with a feather, I'm astounded with utmost surprise that the JEP online story blaming Stuart..... doesn't allow comments!
I must sit down.
Stuart, you wrote, 'It was admitted by the police in open court that they considered him dangerous - and that they were, occasionally, giving unofficial warnings to employers. Although that approach by the police was very haphazard and random - and in no way constituted an effective or reliable means of protecting the public from the plain danger the nurse poses to vulnerable people.'
Obviously, no right thinking person supports the nurse, and he certainly needed exposing, and you did a great public service by exposing him, which none of the others would have done. As a member of the public I want to thank you for your bravery and selflessness.
But to explore the issue, if the police were, as you say, secretly monitoring him and causing employers to reject him, doesn't he have a point in respect of his legal claim under article 6 of the human rights convention, which is the right to a fair hearing?
By deciding, covertly, that he was a dangerous maniac, and intervening against him, was he not denied his right to a fair hearing? Should the Jersey authorities, if they believed him to be dangerous, which they clearly did, not have just followed the due process, and applied to have him struck-off? That way he would have known what the allegations against him were, and he would have had a full opportunity to make a lawful case against them, in his defence.
One has to say on the basis of the evidence now in the public domain, had that proper course of action happened, he would have been struck-off, no doubt about it. But at least he would have 'had his day in court' so to speak.
Isn't the bottom line that Jersey's authorities illegally denied him that right to a fair hearing?
A reader says:
"Isn't the bottom line that Jersey's authorities illegally denied him that right to a fair hearing?"
Yes.
As much as one has zero sympathy for him - he is a dangerous and deeply obnoxious individual - who deserves nothing - and whose conduct and behaviour, when all is said and done, is "the bottom line" - from a strictly legal perspective, it's very difficult indeed to argue with that conclusion.
I'm not yet familiar with all the claims he makes - but so far as I'm aware, there is only one credible cause of action he could claim, and that is the Article 6 point. All the rest are nonsense that would never fly in any credible jurisdiction.
But - even the Article 6 claim - in my opinion - is weak.
The test for any public authority that engages in actions and decisions that abridge any of the Convention Rights, is the test of "proportionality", and of "necessity". The Jersey authorities should, and must, claim the "necessity" of securing the higher right - that of Article 2, the Right to Life - for other people.
But, of course, to make that claim, would be for the Jersey authorities to - in the same breath - de facto admit that everything they had done against me was a load of corrupt oppression.
And as this is the Jersey oligarhcy of which we speak - obviously, they'd far sooner give a load of your money to a rapist and murderer - than ever admit that I was right and that they had illegally oppressed me.
But in any event, even if the Jersey authorities do run a robust defence of the public interest - as opposed to politically motivated sham defence - they still face the not insignificant hurdle of persuading the court that, although there was "necessity" - in order to safeguard broad Article 2 Rights, why there was any legitimate, lawful reason for them not to have followed the obvious procedure - and applied to have him struck-off - back in 1999?
It's not looking too clever.
Don't be surprised if he ultimately wins on that narrow point.
Blame Michael Birt: the then legal adviser to the Health & Social Services department - and legal adviser to the Police Force - and who was, at the same time, the sole prosecution authority in Jersey.
Stuart
The net widens State sponsored abuse case.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Interesting. It seems no one in Jersey has the right to a fair trial. Any "justice" in the public interest is handled in a covert manner or, in your case, prosecuted because yours was a more public, if last gasp effort to prevent additional grave harm to innocents.
"Interesting. It seems no one in Jersey has the right to a fair trial."
Boy, you ain't kidding there. Nevertheless, we won another parking ticket today. The pursuance of a £30 ticket has cost the taxpayer and the States dearly today.
To add to this, and my point in commenting, Prosecutor Lawrence O'Donnell today told Cyril that jurisdiction of the court in a court case IS IRRELEVANT!!!
Jersey Justice for you....
Dear Mr Syvret,
It is now almost one and a half years since the awful Green Island 'accident'? in all this time what has taken so long to establish just what happened on that night? If I were the parents of the young lady who so tragically died that night I would be tearing down the so called 'Royal Court' building. This must surely be the longest ever "investigation" into the blindingly obvious and is a very worthy candidate for the Guiness Book of Records for HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO CONCLUDE THE B.....Y OBVIOUS.
Dear Stuart,
Following on from the article in our favorite local snews paper it would now seem that YOU (now why does that not surprise me) are the GUILTY one with regard to the nurse saga. Setting aside the comment to that article of 'Total Bollocks' it would seem that the pieces are being set in place to prevent a duly elected Minister being able to request documents relating to various departments activities. Once again we see the complete reversal of the norm, Civil Servants are there to conduct and implement the policy of the elected government and in so doing they are also required to be accountable to the Minister in question and that means when the Minister requests evidence to show what, how and when the Ministers dictives have been carried out the Public Service is compelled to respond...O.K well in any other place that is except here in Jersey.
This outsider saw the JEP headline and thought they must have worded it to make it appear that Stuart Syvret was involved in the murders, themselves. Wouldn't surprise me if they held an in-house contest to see who could make him look worse on a regular basis. It is not far removed from the joke about Mr Syvret heroically tearing down a door and rushing into a burning building for a rescue attempt only to be described by the local media as committing a crime of breaking and entering.
Vulnerable patients dead, an already well evidenced violent criminal implicated, the police investigation prematurely halted due to political pressure, the police engage in covert warnings about suspect, the court rules there is no public interest at stake whilst allowing that the suspect is unfit for nursing employment and still the scandalous act is Stuart impolitely saying so?
Is this correct?
Yes. That is correct.
That is the collective course of events, and outcome - brought to you courtesy of the Jersey authorities.
Stuart
Shouldn't be any great surprise, when the former bailiff describes the "real scandal" of child abuse in Jersey being the exposure of child abuse in Jersey.
We all know that the "real scandal" about the ex-Bailiff's "real scandal" speech was that he lost his job over it.
Has nobody ever heard of free speech in Jersey? He was only telling it straight, and a good man lost the job he was born to do.
Who can blame him for wanting to declare UDI and reclaim his birthright as rightful ruler of the island?
I followed this link newspaper boss faces sex charges from the commendable Jersey Today. Could be instructive to follow up and see how ownership was used to mask, hide or plain cover up for the boss.
Just a change of subject, I had to laugh listening to that lot in the big house on tuesday, poor young philip ozouf, saying sorry so many times for wasting public money,and then suggesting he has been badly treated regarding his bad behaviour in office and alledged bullying of staff,and that it was most unsatisfactory that he has not been allowed to put his side to the inquiry,well does that not remind us of the way Stuart and Mr Power have been treated? well thats your Jersey way phil,when the boot was on the other foot ie Stuart and Mr Power were saying the same thing that they wanted their side to be heard you and the other lot in the big house did sod all to achieve justice for them so no sympthy from me Im afraid thats the jersey way mate and you helped design it,do us all a favour and resign,Ive lost so much faith in you I would,nt trust you to manage my childs money box,finally I do hope the unions continue to call for you to go you may walk over states members and civil servants but I don,t think the unions will let you walk over them.
Re JEP smears
Back in the 90s I remember a front page headline 'Man accused of raping 6 year old girl'.
Next door was a picture of Stuart grinning ear to ear above a separate story, yet positioned in a manner which may have confused the casual reader as to which piece it related.
Rather ironic given what transpired next, don't you think?
Well - the Jersey Evening Post is a disgusting operation.
Just how disgusting will become clear in the near future.
Stuart
Stuart
Can you confirm in big bold letters,what this nurse was found to be in possesion of when arrested.And can this be backed up by police records?
Someone asked the question what happened to the prosecution of the driver of the Lotus which crashed at Green Island killing the female passenger Dita Paverniece.
Last i heard the driver,Niall Linden was supposed to be appearing in court at the beginning of May.
Looks like that never happened and its been over a year and a half since the crash.
A reader asks:
"Can you confirm in big bold letters,what this nurse was found to be in possession of when arrested.And can this be backed up by police records?"
Sure; here's the relevant quote from the police report:
"On Thursday, 1st April, 1999, Police Officers attended the home address of a female who disclosed that NURSE M, a Staff Nurse on Corbiere Ward, had stolen and stored drugs at her home address. The female, an ex-lover of Mr. NURSE M, produced to the officers, drugs in the form of Valium and Hypnoval, together with a syringe containing clear liquid and several packets of Coproxamol. These have since been identified and their content verified. Hypnoval is more commonly known as a 'date rape' drug. Enquiries confirmed that the drugs were from the hospital and indeed had been sent from the Hospital Pharmacy to Corbiere Ward, where Mr. NURSE M worked.
A check on the Firearms Register held at Police Headquarters, revealed that Mr. NURSE M had possession of several firearms, and that his Firearms License had expired in October, 1998. The female who handed the drugs to the Police confirmed that NURSE M had attended at her premises with a loaded firearm.
Mr. NURSE M was arrested on returning to the Island on the 17th April, 1999, and, armed with a Warrant, his home address was searched. During the search, the following property was recovered.
1. One lump of brown cannabis resin, tablets and scales.
2. Knuckle-duster.
3. A Police Philips radio (in working order).
4. Bag containing various medications.
5. Eleven syringes with a clear liquid within, and other medication, including
two bottles of potassium chloride.
6. Six firearms, with large quantity of ammunition.
7. One expired Firearms Certificate.
NURSE M was interviewed concerning the medication found, and at first suggested that the insulin in the eleven syringes was intended as an aid to body-building. He later changed this story, in that he intended to kill himself with the medication, by marching down to the Cenotaph in military dress, where he would inject himself with a lethal dose of insulin and potassium chloride.
He claimed that the medication recovered from his ex-girlfriend's address by the Police, which prompted the investigation, had originated from himself, but that he had taken it to the location by mistake, from Corbiere Ward, having left it in the pocket of his nurse's uniform.
Police Surgeon Dr. Michael HOLMES first expressed concern when he viewed the drugs recovered, in that a combination of insulin and potassium would be very difficult to detect in the body. Added to this, the amount of drugs in the possession of Mr. NURSE M cast doubt on his account, in that he had several lethal doses of drug. If a person with a serious medical history were to be injected with the combination of drugs found in the possession of NURSE M, the cause of death would not be clearly apparent. His possession of such drugs was therefore regarded as suspicious."
Stuart, Nurse M played the Gulf War Syndrome / PTSD card to excuse his criminal behaviour, and to garnish a certain amount of misguided sympathy and support.
I have never seen this challenged (in the same way as Maguire's miraculous cancer was conveniently never checked).
Nurses in busy A&E departments must routinely see some pretty ghastly sights. I guess they get used to it and develop coping mechanisms such as black humour. You don't tend to hear about them having PTSD or developing suicidal tendencies.
So what exactly did Nurse M experience in the Gulf that could explain his alleged trauma? It certainly wouldn't have been shell-shock: it was a completely one-sided war, and as an army nurse I bet he never got within 50 miles of the enemy.
Could it be that the Gulf War schtick and the rather melodramatic threat to "march to the Cenotaph in full uniform and commit suicide" are, in fact, nothing more than figments of the imagination of a very manipulative individual?
I wonder if the court ever bothered to check his army records?
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Can I just interrupt before we go through public business? I would like to raise a matter of privilege.
The Deputy Bailiff:
What is the matter of privilege that you wish to raise?
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
It is the fact that I have put a proposition to you seeking to have the release of the transcripts of the 2nd December 2008 in camera debate, or part of it, to be released to the public. I have asked for this proposition to be put forward to the States because I believe the States were misled by the former Minister for Home Affairs at the time. My matter of privilege is that you have denied me the opportunity to bring this proposition, which I think needs to be heard by the House and the decisions need to be made by the House, and I believe the public must be assured that information that was put out at the time is correct.
The Deputy Bailiff:
The matter of privilege must relate to something which you, as a Member, have a right to do. Under Standing Orders ...
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
I think it is a matter of privilege.
The Deputy Bailiff:
Can I please finish? Under Standing Orders the arrangements are that when a Member wishes to lodge a proposition he or she needs to have the consent of the Bailiff before it is an option. It seems to me that it is impossible to say that an issue of privilege arises. Unless there is any other point you wish to raise I would make a ruling here and now that no issue of privilege arises.
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
I would make a point on that. I believe that, as I have stated to you in our correspondence, the proposition itself meets the 3 tests laid down by the Bailiff, as I have indicated in the letter. It is lawful, it corresponds with Standing Orders and it is not anything detrimental to States business.
The Deputy Bailiff:
Deputy, I am sorry, this is not an issue of privilege. I might also add that you have asked me to reconsider the decision, which I am in the course of doing, and in those circumstances it seems that this is a premature matter in any event. It certainly is not an issue of privilege.
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
If I can respectfully disagree and I will state why I believe it is a question of privilege.
[10:15]
This House is a sovereign parliament and it should be for Members of this House to decide if a proposition is in accordance with Standing Orders and the Bailiff’s 3 tests it should be decided upon by Members of this House who have the ultimate authority in these matters.
The Deputy Bailiff:
Very well, I rule against you. It is not a matter of privilege because the Standing Orders make it plain that a Member has no right to lodge a proposition without the leave of the Bailiff. That leave has not yet been given and therefore no issue of privilege currently arises.
So basically the baliff rules then?
Re nurse M's alleged PTSD.
I'm very reliably informed that some of those games of basketball played on the outskirts of Riyadh were quite traumatic.
Saw one or two cases of very nasty sun burn.
Stuart
Nursing, 'The Jersey Way'.....
'1. One lump of brown cannabis resin, tablets and scales.
2. Knuckle-duster.
3. A Police Philips radio (in working order).
4. Bag containing various medications.
5. Eleven syringes with a clear liquid within, and other medication, including
two bottles of potassium chloride.
6. Six firearms, with large quantity of ammunition.
7. One expired Firearms Certificate.
NURSE M was interviewed concerning the medication found, and at first suggested that the insulin in the eleven syringes was intended as an aid to body-building. He later changed this story, in that he intended to kill himself with the medication, by marching down to the Cenotaph in military dress, where he would inject himself with a lethal dose of insulin and potassium chloride.'
Nice guy.
Real nice.
Really stable.
Just the kind of person you want to have around your vulnerable, ill family members, at 3 in the morning, on his own, in the dark, blocking drips, and cranking up diamorphine pumps.
You know, it strikes me as actually irrelevant whether they had enough evidence to criminally prosecute him for the murders. Simple basic starting point: 'is this man safe to be a nurse?'
In no way or form.
As a father, I want answers from the States as to how in the name of God they didn't move to get this obvious loon struck off from nursing back in 1999?
How? How? How????!!!
And as far as I'm concerned as family man and a tax payer exposing these bloody scandals and dangerous nutters who hide in the public sector is exactly what we elect you lot for. And I couldn't give a sod if it does 'hurt the feelings' of these expensive cover up merchants.
We really need our politicians to do a bit more 'bullying' of our unaccountable public sector, not less.
Psycho killer nurses, rapists, child abusers, and £150,000 slackers with gold plated pensions who can't and won't stop the rot?
At least you tried Mr. Syvret. For what it's worth, thank you for kicking a few arses.
We need more of that.
People wont hear about any of this via the JEP or the BBC either. Please tell as many people as you can about what you have read on this blog. It is everyones business to know that someone like this might be in charge of your welfare when you are at your most vulnerable.
Tell people what has happened.
Nurse M was also investigated by the hospital for threatening to rape a fellow nurse.
Was the complaint ever passed to the police or did the drunken Senior nurse sweep under the carpet.
AGAIN
By the way guess who the Legal Adviser was at the time of 1999?
Mr Ian Christmas!!??
I don't recollect Ian Christmas being involved.
The two layers were Cyril Whelan - and his boss, Michael Birt. Both absolutely instrumental in the cover-up.
Whelan - who now works for Birt's friend Stephen Baker - was involved in working on the prosecution against me at Bakers.
"The Jersey Way".
Stuart.
The hypocrisy of Philip Bailhache.
On Tuesday, he stood up in the States chamber and made a speech in favour of secret voting. He said "the only true vote is a secret vote".
Today, I received the leaflet from his captured Electoral Commission.
On the back page the leaflet says "Your submission will be made public and will be attributed to you unless you request confidentiality, in which case the reasons for non-disclosure will need to be accepted by the Commission."
You could not make this guy up if you tried.
Even the theft of the drugs from the hospital should have been enough to take immediate action against Nurse M. Of very serious threat to vulnerable patients is the theft of pain relief drugs and other drugs for either for personal use by medical personnel or for resale. These drugs are often taken from a patient's correctly prescribed dose and can result in patient trauma, shock or death under certain conditions. A nurse or other hospital employee found with any street drugs, stolen medical merchandise or prescription drugs should be considered dangerous. This nurse was caught on this occasion with these items. No one knows what other drugs and stolen items he may have possessed on other occasions.
Stuart.
Ian Christmas's name is there on your famous posting. As Police Legal Adviser.
Stuart
Are there any current states members showing an interest in this Nurse M.
I find it quite incredible,the fact alone of what he was in possesion of,that not one single States member has expressed any concern that this man was not fully investigated and at the least, prevented from working with patients.
Realistically Nurse M should have been struck off in 1999.
But the big question is. Why wasn't he?
I remember the police investigation, they did not interview the doctors - bit of clanger
Surely this his case will be picked up and investigated by the National Media!!!
Comment at Thursday, 31 May 2012 17:18:00 BST, says "Nurses in busy A&E departments must routinely see some pretty ghastly sights. I guess they get used to it and develop coping mechanisms such as black humour. You don't tend to hear about them having PTSD or developin (sic) suicidal tendencies."
This is an example of the sort of misinformed heartless dissmissive commentary that I would expect in a tabloid newspaper. In order to 'rubbish' one person you drag in a thousands of highly dedicated people as though you can just wave them around like 'exhihit A' with no reference to facts.
Fact: In the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, research was reported which concluded that PTSD was found in 24% of frontline, hard core nursing in places like intensive care. I quote their report:
"ICU nurses have an increased prevalence of PTSD symptoms when compared with other general nurses. These results may increase awareness of these symptoms in nurses and lead to future interventions that improve their mental health and job satisfaction and help retain ICU nurses in their profession." This was in 2006. The research also suggested that even amongst 'ordinary' nurses (ie general wards less stressful than A&E, etc, PTSD was at 14%. That's huge.
Fact: Suicide rates amongst nurses according to the UK Government (so obviously played down) is at minimum of 37% higher than the rest of the population. Some research indicates it could be as high as 400%. Wherever the truth lies, Nurses have a massively higher suicide rate than normal.
The sort of uninformed, generalised, unsupported opinionated muddle-speak that prompted me to write this is truly offensive.
My point has nothing to do with 'Nurse M, N, O, P, Q' or anyone else. My point is that the 'PTSD' post is based on no facts, a view plucked from the air and a desire to look clever at other people's expense. And as for Gulf War 1 being a place where no-one can have seen any casualties, try telling that to the family of one of the 47 British troops killed, or one of the kids of one of the 247 US troops killed... I could go on.
All in all a truly uninformed, prejudiced, bigoted insensitive comment that I would expect from 'a bloke down the pub'.
Very offensive to those of us who have really had to deal with the realities of PTSD. A disgrace.
The comment concerning PTSD was from a reader.
Whilst the studies you cite are interesting, your comment misses the point concerning nurse M.
The specific claims that were made by nurse M are further proof of his dangerous fantasy world; and the fact they were not properly investigated, and blindly accepted as 'fact' by the relevant authorities, is further proof of the serious failure of the investigation.
Nurse M claimed to have PTSD as a direct consequence of treating mutilated war casualties, immediately in the rear of battle zones.
Those claims were lies.
He saw no such action - at all - and never went anywhere near a combat zone.
That evidence was readily ascertainable from TA colleagues of nurse M. So, why did the Jersey authorities fail to make those inquiries?
Why, instead, an actually indecent willingness to find, and support, excuses for nurse M?
There are certain, inescapable, points concerning the PTSD claim by nurse M: regardless of the truth or falsehood of the claim - the authorities should have properly investigated its plausibility - certainly, as a test of how "reliable" the claims of nurse M were. If the man was lying about his Gulf experiences (which he was) that would render everything else he said as wholly unreliable.
And quite regardless of whether nurse M had PTSD - still, the overriding consideration of all relevant authorities is patient safety. That comes first - no matter what.
So even if there had been some kind "excuse" for the psychotic behaviour of nurse M - still, no matter how unfortunate for him - he should have been struck-off.
Even if his own claims had been true.
An airline pilot may develop an illness that gives an elevated risk of heart attacks. That's very very sad for the pilot.
But his days of flying 300 passengers around are over.
Even though he is in no way to 'blame' for his condition.
The bottom line with nurse M remains - 'should this man have been left on the nursing register?'
No.
Absolutely not.
Stuart
Stuart
Thank you for your considered response.
You say
"Whilst the studies you cite are interesting, your comment misses the point concerning nurse M."
Please let me repeat my comment that "My point has nothing to do with 'Nurse M, N, O, P, Q' or anyone else."
My point is that the earlier post was uninformed in its comments about any link between Nursing as a profession, and the likelihood or otherwise of anyone in nursing developing ptsd.
The earlier reader posted what he/she regards as self-evident views from which a conclusion could be drawn. My point is those views were nothing but unsubstantiated opionions (and incapable of being substantiated). By speaking of nurses and related professions in that manner, the earlier post was offensive.
Thus, with respect, it is you that is missing the point.
Yes, you did say you weren't directly addressing the case of nurse M. I should have made that clear.
Stuart
Thank you for that acknowledgement.
Stuart, your comparison with the pilot is a valid one. If Nurse M was suffering from PSTD, that should be added to the list of reasons why he should have been struck off the list. Like the pilot, a nurse who is aware he's unable to function safely in that job actually has an ethical duty to remove himself.
Any danger to patients should be the absolute first priority to the hospital administration. That is far and away more critical than the hypothetical definition of PSTD, or Nurse M's own suffering, if even applicable. Those in the hospital's conflicted administration not only failed to rigorously handle staff complaints about Nurse M, but were further let down by the prematurely halted police and judicial process. Every official step taken was a potentially lethal one.
Elle
you got to give Deputy Higgins (31st MAY )credit for trying. Best thing he can do is to bring forward a proposition to take away the Bailiffs right to overrule elected members.
ex JHB
Oh come on, commenter - you're quote mining and misrepresenting to rubbish a reasonable general comment - a bit like a prosecuting lawyer. The other commenter didn't say or mean what you are accusing them of.
Here's an unedited quote from the relevant bit.
"I guess they get used to it and develop coping mechanisms such as black humour. You don't tend to hear about them having PTSD or developing suicidal tendencies"
Note the bit "don't tend to hear". That is exactly true. Take a representative sample of the general public and ask them and they would not be familiar with the very specific pieces of research you quote. For your contention (that nurses suffer greater rates of PTSD than normal) to be valid, you would need to come up with a fair bit more peer reviewed evidence than you did to prove that the research you quoted was mainstream opinion and not an outlier.
Quoting isolated single pieces of research to club your perceived opposition over the head with a claim of scientific superiority is a rather dubious debating tactic.
Part 2
You also wrote, in your bullying and inaccurate misrepresentation of the views of the first commenter.
"And as for Gulf War 1 being a place where no-one can have seen any casualties, try telling that to the family of one of the 47 British troops killed, or one of the kids of one of the 247 US troops killed... I could go on"
Yes - no doubt you could go on...
Here is what the first commenter actually wrote.
"it was a completely one-sided war, and as an army nurse I bet he never got within 50 miles of the enemy"
Again, they wrote nothing like what you accused them of meaning. No claim that there were no casualties at all. You simply made that up. If your ability to comprehend others' meanings is so poor, I would suggest you do not attempt to comment any further, because you are only muddying the waters.
It could also be that you are deliberately misrepresenting them to defend Nurse M by proxy, which would be rather more Machiavellian.
Stuart,
do you have any idea or knowledge of why nurse M is being protected from prosecution?
Sure.
Stuart.
"Suicide rates amongst nurses according to the UK Government (so obviously played down) is at minimum of 37% higher than the rest of the population. Some research indicates it could be as high as 400%. Wherever the truth lies, Nurses have a massively higher suicide rate than normal."
Interesting. In an online article in Business Insider, "The Top 19 Jobs Where You're Most Likely to Kill Yourself", using 2011 figures from the UK Govt National Institute of Safety & Health, nurses don't even feature.
If the figure of 37% quoted above is correct (which it apparently isn't), that would put nurses in 11th place between Estate Agents and Electrical Equipment Assemblers.
Also, not wishing to be pedantic, but, why on earth would somebody misquote a post and then put "(sic)" after their own erroreous quote?
These words were uttered by Frank Walker in September 2007 on the removal of Stuart Syvret as Minister.
How right you were Stuart
Now, as Members know it all started with an answer given by the Health Minister in this House to a question put by Deputy Martin on 16th July and if it had stopped there - the Senator did in his answer make accusations about the performance of staff involved in child protection - nevertheless if it had stopped there, I would have spoken to the Health Minister, discussed his comments and concerns with him and I think almost certainly we would have been able to agree how to deal with them without necessitating this sort of debate and the saga that we have had over the last few weeks. But sadly, Sir, it did not stop there. On 17th July - and Members will forgive me, I hope, and you will too, Sir, for quoting from some emails and other documents - there was an article in the Jersey Evening Post in which the Senator is quoted as saying among other things: “I could not even begin to count the times I have seen grotesque and surreal degrees of utter incompetence by civil servants merely passed over. How does it really serve the public interest to retain some utter clown in a post and just guillotine some politician instead.” Sir, that is not the language of a Minister in my opinion"
Just brilliant
rs
Re: Rico saying, "How right you were Stuart," this quote from cartoonist Bill Watterson seemed perfect -
"Careful. We don’t want to learn from this."
Denver Gals
The problem with the Nurse M situation, beginning with the initial suspicions of his co-workers, and continuing through the ridiculous and ineffectual cover-up and prosecution of the wrong man, Stuart Syvret, is that any ordinary unbiased 10 year old can see what should have been done. Does Jersey need an infusion of 10 year olds to advise the States, the police, the entire prosecutorial system and the hospital?
Beth
Stuart, Rico.
Was Stuart still talking to the rags journos four and a half years ago? The sad thing is why was Frank CM quoting from it!
Who would even read it/pick it up these days?
Stuart, matter of interest who was the rag journo and is he/she still there?
Stuart,
Do you have any thoughts on why an alleged scam by a big bank, Standard Chartered Jersey ltd, will not be investigated by JFSC or the police and yet four men have been taken to court for exactly the same type of crime. What message does this selective treatment, give out about fair justice in Jersey. What are they afraid of ?
Anonymous
There is nothing surprising about those kind of wholly inconsistent prosecution decisions.
There was also an earlier comment somewhere, that asked why the Police Chief Mike Bowron would decide not to prosecute such actions.
fundamental point - you must understand about Jersey. The police do not decide who will - or who will not - be prosecuted. The Police Force in Jersey is basically a private "enforcement" agency - run by the local legal mafia - and its operational core, the Office of Attorney General.
That's why Lenny Harper and Graham Power had to be attacked and obstructed by the Attorney General and his vassal politicians. Mr. Harper and Mr Power departed from "tradition" - and were doing objective, impartial policing - as opposed to party-political policing, which is the norm in Jersey.
And - of course - to 'keep up appearances' - the Jersey authorities have to go after a few token alleged 'money launderers' every now and again - to show the outside world just how "tough" they are on financial crime. So they need the occasional set of plebs - people who are not "well-connected" - or people who are foreigners - to nail.
Couldn't possible go after a big institution; why, if any of the "too big to prosecute" operations felt the law - they'd leave Jersey.
Of course - prosecuting the smaller people has another advantage - in that it keeps the money rolling into the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund - which is thus able to carry on serving very handily as the Jersey oligarchy's main slush-fund.
As far as the Jersey Financial Services Commission is concerned - just have a think about whether every member - and every employee of that body, could pass a "fit and proper person" test? Once you've made that assessment - you'll know all you need to know about the true nature of "governance", and the rule of "law" in Jersey.
Stuart
What does that say about Police Chief Mike Bowron ? or should that be Mike " the puppet " Bowron ?
It sort of makes sense that he will get a brand new police station, and a very big shiny office for being a good boy.
Anonymous.
And what does this say about Mike Bowron?
Jersey Police Force Shocking Links City of London Scandal
The Carroll Foundation Trust one billion dollars organised crime tax fraud case took a further disturbing new twist with yet another UK Police Authority revealed in the explosive compelling dossiers. It has emerged that the former City of London Police Chief Constable Mike Bowron who began his new post as the Chief Constable of the Jersey Police Service concealed shocking offshore money laundering fraud files directly linked to the fraudulent incorporation of HSBC International accounts and forged and falsified Coutts Bank dummy banking arrangements.
Sources have confirmed that the London lawyers Manches premises were penetrated by the FBI Scotland Yard targeted offshore crime syndicate which removed specific Carroll Foundation Trust archival records in what is believed to have been an attempt to destroy forensic paper trails leading back to the co-ordinated criminal seizure and liquidation operation of the Carroll Global Corporation's world wide interests.
It has emerged that the primary "Manches blue files" are currently held in custody under supervision of the elite law enforcement officers charged with this embezzlement operation which stretches the globe. These further shocking revelations follow on from British and American media reports concerning the criminal destruction of the Gerald Carroll estate records at an Essex firm of solicitors Prestons Kerlys.
Political commentators have leaked that private investigators who are thought to be working on behalf of a US Government sponsored organisation have disclosed that the City of London Police files also contain forensic material reflecting a startling litany of criminal obstruction which are thought to have impulsed these shocking break-ins burglaries and multiple criminal seizure offences.
International News Networks:
http://jerseypolice.blogspot.com/
Carroll Foundation Trust
23 Aug 2011, 22:16
Stuart.
Chief Minister Gorst next in THE FIRING LINE?
The comment above, concerning the FBI and Scotland Yard, neglected to mention shape-shifting space-alien lizards.
Stuart
Stuart, why do you bother to publish this obvious cobblers about the Carroll Trust? Somebody needs to re-arrange their tin-foil hat and take the pencils out of their nostrils.
It is about as credible as Le Marquand's "expose" of Operation Blast.
Like I said, they forgot the shape-shifting space-alien lizards.
Stuart
"Like I said, they forgot the shape-shifting space-alien lizards."
This comment is very interesting Stuart.
The above comment could also be used by anyone outside of Jersey who is being given the complete story of the breakdown of the rule of law here.
So unbelievable is the Jersey situation that they themselves could say -"Like I said, they forgot the shape-shifting space-alien lizards."
Why should someone believe what we are saying and not believe the comment at 9;23
This is something I think about.
You have used an absurd comment to debunk the posting. This tactic has been used against us. The posting should be dismissed because of reasons a,b, and c
We all want to be believed and not ridiculed for having our beliefs
just some thoughts
rs
Rico, you're certainly correct to say that the Jersey oligarchs and their allies and spin-doctors do, indeed, try to discredit and dismiss the exposing of their corruption as mere "conspiracy theories" - as "fantasy".
And, yes - certainly, so extraordinarily corrupt - so brazen - so total has been the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey - it can, indeed, seem implausible. I know that. After all, it was me who popularised the expression "couldn't make it up" to describe the overt crookedness, dysfunction and unembarrassed madness of Jersey's public authorities.
But - you know what distinguishes us - from the "space-alien" brigade? You know what the Jersey mafia hate and fear about us?
Evidence.
Facts.
Rationality.
Truth.
I'm proud of the fact that the work we do - to the utter shame of Jersey's msm - and to the terror of Jersey's entrenched gangsters - is evidence-based.
That's the difference.
In any respectable tribunal - in any decent court of law - we easily demonstrate the evidence, the facts.
Never lose sight of the fact that that is our strength - and the oligarchy's weakness.
Facts.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
Some more evidence. I just wasn't sure what the Alien thing had to do with the comment that was left? The interviews I've seen from Sky News on the subject seem legitimate.
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/06/verita-3-terms-of-reference-in-full.html
Stuart
I trust what you, Rico and VFC write because you personally read or investigate the evidence. What can bring a loss of credibility to any great independent on-line journalist is public association with blogs or news outlets which do not have the capacity or willingness to cautiously verify what they post. Many blogs consist of indiscriminate conspiracy theories on a host of different topics, and there is no claim to verifiable independent evidence to support these theories. You can risk your own solid credibility when you do not hold others to the high standard you have lived up to, yourselves.
Elle
BETRAYED & FORGOTTEN - THE JERSEY WAY
Next Tuesday's oral question number 3 concerning John Day should be interesting:
3. The Connétable of St. John will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Would the Chief Minister inform members whether the agreement made earlier this year between the former consultant gynaecologist and the States Employment Board contained a provision that the Chief Minister would make a public statement relating to the consultant’s retirement and, if so, when will the Chief Minister be making this statement?”
<A href="http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyOrderPapers/2012/2012.06.12%20Order%20Paper.pdf>http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyOrderPapers/2012/2012.06.12%20Order%20Paper.pdf</A>
NO CHILD PROTECTION NEEDED IN JERSEY
Stuart, remind you of somebody
Yep - Jon Haworth. I tweeted the link already.
The song could have been written about him. Several of his victims have pm'd me to say how remarkably it fits him - down to some of the hater-phrases even being almost word-for-word like his.
Though the consensus seems to be the masturbating gibbon is the most apposite Haworth likeness.
Stuart.
Seeing as Jon is away on holiday I doubt he could give a shit Stuart but funny how youur fixation with him and others continues. Maybe you really do need a life after all?
Hi Jon; you misspelled "your" - "youur"
In ironic keeping with the insight of the song lyrics: "You wished me cancer and misspelled “canser”.
Do gibbons get RSI?
Stuart
Stuart.
Jersey Finance WELL REGULATED?
SSTAG points out that the allocation of housing accommodation for convicted sex offenders will be on the agenda at the next public meeting. All are welcome to attend and participate from 3pm Thursday 14 June at the Eastern Good Companions Club, Le Marais, St Clement.
In view of the recent death of Alphonse le Gastelois this discussion is especially timely.
Fuller details on the SSTAG blogsite
sstagjsy.blogspot.com
Stuart.
Vote of Censure LODGED
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/06/electoral-commission-another-shambles.html
RS
In a diversion from the topic at hand, I want to bring up the behaviour of sex offenders which is still being misunderstood by your authorities and members of the public in Jersey.
I read the online Channel TV article about the child molester who was living near the children's playground. The online comments section is filled with people who think child molesters are deterred and made safe around children after being prosecuted and processed through the legal system. In other words, these people seem to believe the abuser will not necessarily re-offend and that families with children should consider his dues paid, with full rights for him to live anywhere without encumberment.
There seems to be a much bigger misunderstanding in Jersey than elsewhere about the nature of child molesters. Their impulses last their entire lifetimes. They can't be expected to curb their dangerous impulses because of prior punishment for similar crimes. The body of evidence is massive. It should be treated as a chronic condition, in some ways like a chemical addiction.
Yes, it is a complex problem for society and there are no easy solutions, but absolutely no one with child abuse related experience in the psychiatric or law enforcement field would ever consider children to be safe around an individual who has molested 10 year olds.
I am not from Jersey, and encountered the article and these blogs for a different reason, but it was so astonishing to see that people considered the hypothetical risk of vigilanteism to be greater than the almost certain risk of this man re-offending.
There is a balance of rights at stake. Any solution requires wisdom and education on the subject. Unless people have reason to believe the man was falsely accused in his original cases, his rights to do as he pleases are not as important as the rights of children to be protected from his overwhelming impulses.
I do not think this is as poorly understood outside of Jersey and I wonder if that is part of the reason so much child abuse has taken place there and gone unaddressed in this modern era.
http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=499945
The honest jersey bloggers giving you the facts straight.
Mick Gradwell, you have a lot of explaining to do.
rs
I'd go for another jog love, your obviously not drawing much attention these days .
Trying to be objective about your rants of Jersey the judiciary being rotten to the core, I was more than surprised to hear some deputies having a real go at the Minister for home affairs who also carries the title of Minister in charge of police.
The lotus driver comes to mind, for some strange reason, why has this simple case taken so long, corruption maybe ? The deputies questions are striking at the heart of law an order and good policing, by those we are supposed to trust, asking questions that decent people who trust the Jersey police, would find alarming.
The chair, either greffe or bailiff even joins the debate, not that he is allowed, being supposedly neutral but still advises the MInister on what to say.
“Would the Minister inform members who, if anyone, has the power to ensure that the States of
Jersey Police carry out investigations into alleged wrongdoing etc.
http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/06/questions-without-answers-120612.html
Well worth a listen.
Anonymous
A reader says:
"Trying to be objective about your rants of Jersey the judiciary being rotten to the core, I was more than surprised to hear some deputies having a real go at the Minister for home affairs who also carries the title of Minister in charge of police."
Jersey's judiciary are naked emperors.
So much so, that as the reader observes, it's becoming clear to increasing numbers of people.
A judiciary - any credible judiciary - must to rely upon public trust; has to be seen to be beyond reproach.
"Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done" - as that famous English jurisprudence has it.
The Jersey judiciary - and I include in that the various English judges that Phil, Mick and Bill recruit and wine and dine - have chosen themselves to depart from that established standard.
Which is why the criticisms of them are not "rants" - but fact-based observations, that take the law as the starting point.
It is not lawful for a judge to proceed to hear a case - if that judge is conflicted.
It is not lawful for a judge to hear a case, if the judge is a friend of directly interested parties.
It is not lawful for directly interested parties to select and appoint their own judge to hear the case.
It is not lawful for a judge to refuse to declare conflicts of interest.
The current relevant Jersey legislation - "The Royal Court Rules" - is not lawful.
The provisions of that law - for example, the unavoidable involvement of Jurats in hearing cases - when all of the Jurats are structurally conflicted - renders the legislation non-compliant with Article 6 of the CHR.
Likewise - the fact that a judge cannot be selected and appointed by a non-conflicted external agent - but can only be selected and appointed by the conflicted, 'interested' parties of Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff - also renders the legislation non-compliant with Article 6 of the ECHR. Plainly so.
And if the judges in question - such as those recruits of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff brought in from England - were worthy of the respect - they'd acknowledged that the current Jersey judicial arrangements are not lawful.
It is - after all - that obvious.
Like an elephant in a room.
"A person cannot be a judge in their own cause" - which is what, of course, they are doing, if they recruit and appoint the judge who will hear their case.
"Not only must justice be done - it must be seen to be done."
That's not a rant. It is the law.
Stuart
Spot on Stuart, and myself and Cyril will be making a shocking revelation later on today :)
Jon says:
"I'd go for another jog love, your obviously not drawing much attention these days."
Apart from yours, Jon. As much as you may secretly fancy me, it will forever be unrequited. Perhaps that's where all your rage and hate come from?
Stuart
Stuart.
What do you make of our latest States Members/Assembly?
Their sittings are getting shorter and shorter.
Besides the few that talk and ask questions, where do you think the Jersey States Asssembly is heading?
Do you think Sir Philip will survive? Or do you think he will take enough rope to hang himself?
Do you think he will survive his present term?
How to bring down A GOVERNMENT
Well blow me down! It is going to be Sir Michael St.John-Birt. As predicted to the day three years ago on this very blog, along with the Queens Diamond Jubilee Town Park (sorry Prince Charles hasn't said that quite yet).
If any of you still don't believe that the 'Great Game' could possibly be that choreographed then you are as stupid as Stuart thinks you must be.
Birt knighted are they so sure of themselves now & why has it taken so long to do it?
Congrats on the OBE Mick
A fascinating piece of Jersey history, revealed in that YouTube video.
As I recollect, the chants of the protesters, of which I was one, were -
"Michale Birt - lets off child abusers - Michale Birt - lets off murderers."
Sometimes the truth will be spoken - no matter how "impolite".
It was entertaining, as only "The Jersey Way" can be - that on that day, Mick Birt was sworn-in as Bailiff by Frances Hamon - the man who had been chairman of the board of governors of Victoria College - when the deputy headmaster - now Jurat John Le Breton - and headmaster, Jack Hydes - were proactively covering up child abuse - for years. This even included direct attempts to humiliate and intimidate certain boy victims into withdrawing their complaints.
Jack Hydes, at one stage, spoke to Frances Hamon, and asked Hamon what he should do about the child abuse complaints? Hamon - whilst he and Hydes were "playing a game of squash" - told Hydes to ignore them.
Michael Birt was Attorney General in 1999 - when all this came out.
He corruptly failed to prosecute those responsible for the child abuse cover-up - Piers Baker, Jack Hydes, John Le Breton and Frances Hamon.
So there was a certain "Jersey" symmetry in Hamon then later presiding over Birt's swearing-in as Bailiff - whilst the Jurats - including Le Breton - looked on approvingly.
And then, of course, there are the victims of the States of Jersey Blanche Pierre child abuse atrocity. Utterly betrayed and broken young people - abused for years by Jane and Alan Maguire with the knowledge of the Maguires States employers.
Michael Birt corruptly abandoned the prosecution of the Maguires in 1998.
And the young victims - who were legal aid clients of Bailhache LaBess (Senior Partner, William Bailhache - later Attorney General, now Deputy Bailiff, and friend of Mick Birt's) were professionally failed by their lawyers - and got no justice, at all.
Then, of course, there's nurse M.
And so many different examples of conspiracies to pervert the course of justice - and of misconduct in a public office.
All conveniently brushed under the carpet by Michael Birt.
Suitably rewarded by The Queen - for protecting the ruling elite - and concealing their crimes and malfeasances - against the interests of ordinary members of the public.
Thank you Your Majesty - and happy birthday.
Stuart
Well, Operation "Save Birt's knighthood" was a complete success.
Now we launch Operation "Let's get Syvret convicted of treason"
How long do you have to rake over this Jervis-Dykes case before you realise that nobody swallows 'your' sensational version of events Stuart? Even back in 2008 when you handed out copies of the Sharp Report to the Press nothing new came out of it and here we are 4 years on. This blog is waste of time.
Frances Hamon appears now to be genuinely ill and confused .So one now pointless target, but that still leaves plenty!
Stuart.
Even though you predicted Birts misjudged Knighthood.
Hope you are still ready to give them what they deserve.
The old saying, what comes around etc, etc
Let's just see what transpires .
In delivering the court’s sentence, the Deputy, Bailiff, William Bailhache, said that the court was bound by a ‘clear and established’ policy to jail employees who criminally breached their employer’s trust.
JEP saturday,one law for us one for "them"
A reader says:
"How long do you have to rake over this Jervis-Dykes case before you realise that nobody swallows 'your' sensational version of events Stuart?"
As the reader says - copies of the Sharp report were distributed. And as anyone who reads that report can see for themselves, my explanation of the Jervis-Dykes child abuse scandal is not some "sensational version" - rather, simply the facts as relayed in the Sharp report.
The fact that the real, culpable people were never prosecuted for the conspiracies to pervert the course of justice - just as so many other plain and evidenced criminals in Jersey have not been charged and prosecuted - does not support the position of the Jersey oligarchy and their vassals. Rather - given the range of witnesses, victims and evidence available - that lack of an appropriate response from the Jersey authorities - i.e, objectively enforcing the rule of law - shows how startlingly corrupt this place is.
Stuart
Jervis-Dykes, his protectors & fellow abusers = unfinished business. An OV.
You again do a post on just 'your' opinion of the Jervis-Dykes case without full consideration of the facts at the time which go further than the Sharp Report. But one pertinent question is that if you felt so strongly about what happened then why didn't you come out with any of this in 1999, why wait for 9 years?
Stuart.
Hope your last paragraph of your comment at 12:26, doesn't mean that you are giving up?
"just as so many other plain and evidenced criminals in Jersey have not been charged and prosecuted"
NAME THEM.
http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=492864
listen to this interview with Deputy Sean Power. It really does sum up the calibre of our States Members. He was caught red handed and yet can't even admit it.
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/06/graham-powers-judicial-review-part-2.html
Where the power really "LIES"
rs
A reader says:
"You again do a post on just 'your' opinion of the Jervis-Dykes case without full consideration of the facts at the time which go further than the Sharp Report. But one pertinent question is that if you felt so strongly about what happened then why didn't you come out with any of this in 1999, why wait for 9 years?"
The Sharp report contained the facts. My comments reflect that report - not merely "my opinion".
Actually, I eventually succeeded in obtaining a copy of the Sharp report in 2000 via a source - after official access had been refused. I had to seek out the report and obtain it in that way, on behalf of a constituent - the parent of a victim.
After furnishing the families and their lawyer with a copy - I then gave a copy to the Jersey Evening Post. I personally met with, and handed it over to, Dian Simon, Rob Shipley and Chris Bright.
Jersey's only "newspaper".
They utterly buried it.
Never reported a single word of it, even though it's dynamite. And of the most profound public interest importance.
I suggest you re-direct your question to the Jersey Evening Post. And its parent company, the Guiton Group.
And maybe their Chief Executive - John Averty.
Stuart
A reader says:
""just as so many other plain and evidenced criminals in Jersey have not been charged and prosecuted"
NAME THEM."
Oh God - where to start?
So many crooks - so little space and time.
Tell you what, I'll do a select list tomorrow.
Stuart
From Rico's current Blog:
Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:
"The principal check on possible judicial bias or lack of independence in Jersey or elsewhere is the high standards of integrity of the judges and other persons acting in a judicial capacity, but in addition to that, a party to any judicial proceedings has a right to challenge the judge or the presiding person if a lack of independence, real or apparent, is suspected. All courts and tribunals in Jersey, whether criminal or civil, are public authorities and are obliged to conform to Article 6 of the E.C.H.R. (European Convention on Human Rights) which guarantees the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, every member of the judiciary subscribes to a code of conduct which at paragraph 15 states that: “They shall not sit in a case where they have a financial or other interest or where the circumstances are such that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the given facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the member was biased.” In all other cases, they are bound not to abstain from their duty to sit. If a judge and I include Jurats, has a financial or other interest in the outcome of a case, he will disqualify himself and decline to sit to determine that outcome. Similarly, if in his view, a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased, he will also disqualify himself. As I mentioned, any party has the right to apply to a judge to disqualify himself and the judge will consider that application by applying the correct legal tests. If the judge declines to disqualify himself, then that decision can be challenged in the case of a judge at the Royal Court by an appeal to the Court of Appeal."
So, can you tell us how hard you laughed (or cried) when you saw this?
'Oh God - where to start?
So many crooks - so little space and time.'
Do a new post on them all.
Stuart.
We need BOTH SIDES
Yes.
I know.
Don't worry.
Stuart
Stuart,
Just an observation regarding retired Police Chief Graham Power's updated employment contract that had been locked in his office cabinet, some time after he had been suspended and at his insistence, It could only be opened if his lawyer was present. They ignored that request and broke in anyway, taking away other items including a tape.
The focus appears to be on his updated contract which gave him protection in the courts as the States agreed to pay for legal representation.
Is it not strange that this document has " been lost " as has the copy at the States employment board both have disappeared into thin air.
One contract may go missing but two is just silly.
Would you know if the police are investigating the loss of Graham Powers contracts and breaking of data protection law, as a tape was taken at the same time and transcribed, or are they trying to sweep this under Jerseys football pitch sized carpet ?
Anonymous
Stuart
Would you say the basis for much of what Jersey considers checks and balances is simply "Trust Us" because there is nothing else in place?
A reader says:
"Would you know if the police are investigating the loss of Graham Powers contracts and breaking of data protection law, as a tape was taken at the same time and transcribed, or are they trying to sweep this under Jerseys football pitch sized carpet?"
Sadly, I am able to answer that question.
No. The Jersey Police are not investigatigating these matters.
I know that - because I am the principle complainant concerning the wholly illegal suspension of the legitimate Police Chief Graham Power.
I - along with a lot of other people in Jersey - am a victim of that criminal act.
I have submitted very substantial quantities of hard, documented evidence to the SOJP - and given a formal face-to-face statement, in the presence of an independent witness.
The Jersey police e-mailed me a couple of weeks ago, saying that they wouldn't know "if any criminal offences" had been involved - "until they had asked a local law firm."
Couldn't make it up.
The actions against Graham Power are an unambiguous criminal enterprise.
Really, it just doesn't get any clearer or more evidenced, when considering examples of wholly corrupt, illegal interference with proper objective policing.
I guess the Jersey Police Force are going to be taking "legal advice" from Applebys - formerly William Bailhache's law firm - or maybe Ogiers, former legal practice of current Attorney General Tim Le Cocq - and still the legal practice of Julian Clyde-Smith - the part-time judge who corruptly threw-out Graham Power's judicial review application - whilst legally representing a serious criminal under investigation by the Police under Mr Power's leadership.
So, no - the States of Jersey Police Force - being under corrupt leadership and capture - are refusing to investigate the illegal suspension of Graham Power.
But - don't worry.
That inevitable, predicted, response adds dramatically to the causes of action against the Crown and Privy Council.
Be seeing you in your courts, yr Maj.
Stuart
A reader says:
"Stuart
Would you say the basis for much of what Jersey considers checks and balances is simply "Trust Us" because there is nothing else in place?"
Yes.
Well,at least that is what the Jersey oligarhcy ask us to do.
It is not, of course, a lawful situation.
"Just Trust Us" has been no credible part of British jurisprudence or law for centuries.
Established law is that "not only must justice be done - it must be seen to be done".
That is the established, settled law - from long before there even was a European Convention on Human Rights.
The Jersey system is wholly corrupted - and simply structurally incapable of meeting that basic, settled legal standard.
Which is why corrupt oligarchs like William Bailhache, Tim Le Cocq, Mike Birt and Phil Bailhache are reduced to the "Just Trust Us" line. Because Jersey has no functioning checks and balances.
A fact which is quite stark.
"Just Trust Us" is all the oligarchs can say.
The emperors are naked.
The silly little men behind the curtain, as in the Wizard of Oz, are exposed.
Stuart
- The Jersey police e-mailed me a couple of weeks ago, saying that they wouldn't know "if any criminal offences" had been involved - "until they had asked a local law firm." -
The Jersey police have their own in-house qualified lawyers in Laurence O'Donnell, Advocate Robin Morris and Susie Sharpe.
What a terrible state of affairs must exist at Rouge Bouillon if their own learned legal advisers don't know what constitutes a criminal offence.
"The Jersey police e-mailed me a couple of weeks ago, saying that they wouldn't know "if any criminal offences" had been involved - "until they had asked a local law firm."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The law enforcers don't even know the laws! This really has gone beyond the ridiculous now!
So, basically, whats happening is that lawyers, who can make up the laws as they go along (Phil said so himself remember) are advising the police on what the law is, and they are also advising Parliament and the Crown as well. So basically, lawyers are in charge of everything.
No wonder everything is in such a stuff up.
Submission No: From:
Dated Submission:
107
Peter Drummond 13 June 2012
I am surprised to see that there are a number of people using the 'same template' to submit their thoughts and I hope the Commission discards blatant attempts to hijack the consultation by a minority which appears to be going on here. On the subject I would like to see more Senators. The Hustings for the Senators is always the largest for public interest and the only time we all vote as a family. I cannot see what the problem is with Constables in the States yet I do see there are a number of Deputies who have said they want to get rid of them and that is possibly down to the Constables voting records.
They fail to see that the Constables voting is closer to the needs of the parishes than some Deputies realise. I would also like to see Deputies narrowed down and forced to stand in an Island Wide mandate after a maximum of two terms as it is wrong that some never test their politics with the whole Island yet claim to speak for them.
My money is on this being a bogus submission by haw haw haworth.
Of course the Jersey Police know what the law is.
Hell, you don't need any kind of legal training at all, to see with stark clarity the fact that the actions taken against Police Chief Graham Power constituted a brazen criminal conspiracy, targeted against proper, objective, fair policing. Thanks to Jersey citizens' media, there is more than enough hard, documentary evidence in the public domain, accessible to anyone to read, and come to the inescapable conclusion.
What the Jersey Police are seeking by asking Jersey lawyers if criminal actions were involved, is an excuse. The Police are seeking to divest themselves of responsibility for making the decision. They want to be able to write, "sorry - we're not investigating or seeking to charge any of these people - because some lawyers told us we couldn't. Not our fault - yada yada - legal advice - blah blah blah - bugger off plebs".
But it isn't surprising.
Think about it - one of the first and most significant people they would have to arrests and charge - would be their boss, Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand - an overtly evidenced crook, central to the criminal enterprise against Graham Power.
Stuart
Stuart.
Ian Le Marquand gets owned by GRAHAM POWER QPM
Res Nullius says:
"The Jersey police have their own in-house qualified lawyers in Laurence O'Donnell, Advocate Robin Morris and Susie Sharpe."
Oh dear.
You mean like the Jersey Police used to have as an "in-house" lawyer, Bridget Shaw?
An individual so devoid of any grasp of the rudiments of the rule of law, she believes it's OK to hear a case as a judge, when you are directly conflicted?
A person whose idea of upholding the rule of law, and the principle of magna carta, that no one is above the law, including state officials, involves suddenly ruling a person's entire defense case as "no longer relevant" - after three months work - just as soon as your friends in the prosecution realise they've lost?
A person who spent several years working with the likes of bent cop Andre Bonjour - who was failing to take appropriate action in child abuse complaints - and tipping-off former colegaues they were under investigation? (See Lenny Harper's affidavit.)
Yes. We really do have faith in what you describe as "in-house" police lawyers - who aren't, actually, because although working largely permanently with the Police, are in fact officers of the Attorney General. So no conflict there then.
Let's not beat about the bush.
The simple fact is, that the Jersey authorities - their allies and vassals - have engaged in so much crazed and unashamed criminality and oppression in recent years - it simply is not possible for the indigenous apparatus to ever clean it up.
Because to clean it up - would be to "clean" themselves up.
And that ain't going to happen.
Quite regardless of whether Gameshow Mike's boys use Dim Tim's "in-house" lawyers - or use Clyde-Smith's Ogiers - or Uncle Reg's Mourants - or Barking Bill's Applebys.
The Jersey system is an apparatus that has choked on its own vomit.
Stuart
Andre Bonjour is a good bloke and unlike you he has kids of his own. You know you talk about cowards but I do wonder when you are ever going to repeat all these accusations in front of a proper live media camera instead of hiding behind a USA blog all the time?
Stuart.
You have already, in the last 24 hours, made quite a list of local crooks....
Please carry on and name all effected and all going to be effected!?
OH THOSE ILLEGAL RAIDS!
A reader makes an esoteric comment concerning an individual they name, and making reference to having "worked with their wife".
I'm afraid you'll have to explain yourself further. I don't see the context of the name in this case.
Stuart
A reader says:
"Andre Bonjour is a good bloke and unlike you he has kids of his own. You know you talk about cowards but I do wonder when you are ever going to repeat all these accusations in front of a proper live media camera instead of hiding behind a USA blog all the time?"
Look, fool, *sigh*, if bent cop Bonjour wishes to dispute what I've written, what Lenny Harper has said in a sworn statement, and other available evidence - then he is perfectly able to bring a defamation action.
I am a known, identified, person. I am not anonymous.
Bonjour would even have Jersey's entire corrupt judicial system on his side - and it is not possible, as experience has shown, for me to get anything approaching a 'fair hearing' in any Jersey court.
So let Bonjour, and the rest, bring it on.
I look forward to the disclosure of the South Yorkshire Police Force Report.
Stuart
"I look forward to the disclosure of the South Yorkshire Police Force Report."
ME TOO!
Whatever happened to that line of inquiry???
I know, I spoke to the victim who explained the waterworks valley perpetrator :)
You leave Rene Le Sewer alone.
Gary Glitter.
Andre Bonjour only got promoted 11 Months ago so what does that tell you? Perhaps how insignificant your blog is Stuart?
"repeat all these accusations in front of a proper live media camera instead of hiding behind a USA blog"
That would require the 'proper media' actually being interested and capable of shining a light on the issue instead of trying to bury it under the carpet to keep their mates and 'superiors' happy.
"repeat all these accusations in front of a proper live media..."
What like Channel TV or the Rag?
LOL
A reader says:
"Andre Bonjour only got promoted 11 Months ago so what does that tell you? Perhaps how insignificant your blog is Stuart?"
Yes, that promotion is widely known. And viewed with contempt by two thirds of the SOJP.
What does it tell us?
It tells us that it's back to "Business As Usual" as far as policing in Jersey is concerned, after the era of Graham Power and Lenny Harper, when for the first time ever in the history of Jersey, the Police Force was cleaned-up - and was actually engaging in objective, impartial - lawful - policing.
Bonjour's contempted promotion tells us that the traditional Jersey oligarhcy have re-asserted their control over policing in Jersey - once again ensuring that it operates as, essentially, their private enforcement wing - which will never investigate them, and instead will harass and oppress opponents of the Jersey mafia.
Bonjour's promotion tells as that Mike Bowron is a weak, inadequate, "anything-for-a-quite-life" time-serving place-man - with no courage or wisdom. (Bowron, incidentally, when he isn't posing in King Street, spends hours riding around with Bonjour on the recently acquired police motorcycles.)
Bonjour's promotion tells us that - in Jersey, under the control of the traditional oligarchy - good people, like Graham Power, are oppressed, and inadequate yet obedient and "useful" vassals like Bonjour get promoted.
Bonjour's promotion tells us that policing in Jersey is geared towards protecting the interest of the traditional oligarhcy - and turned against the interests of ordinary, powerless people.
A state of affairs that is an unlawful failure of the Crown to ensure good governance and the proper rule of law in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.
Stuart
Stuart - why don't you try to get a face to face meeting with Mike Bowron so you can lay bare the real situation he finds himself in. So far, he is a victim of what he has been told by "the great and the good" who will have spun the truth and cherry picked the facts that they have presented him with since he arrived. You need to show him the other side of the coin.
Why not also get MB to contact Lenny or Graham directly (not by letter or email) for a "refresher course" in the Jersey Way?
Minty?
whats happened to minty lately?
Ask Mike Bowron about Operation Bohan.
And the definition of irony isf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlJuNPpetc
Off subject slightly, but related.
Phil Bailahahahache and his chosen committee are holding a meeting for the public so that they can raise their concerns regarding his "Electoral Commission Sabatage".
The meeting is at The Town Hall,on a week day at 10:30am....
That eliminates the majority of working class 16 to 65 year olds!?
OPERATION BOHAN
The link between Operation Bohan and Mike Bowron needs more research. Could be pivotal.
I have been looking for a job for a year,how come a ex police officer done for fraud (burn a car)get a job at the hospital as security and we have to have CRB check did he?.
One of the cops done for the insurance fraud?
The cops who burnt the car?
Got a job with Hospital SECURITY???
*Sigh* - what can you say?
Couldn't make it up.
It can only be a matter of days before the re-employ nurse M - on night-shifts - with frail, female patients.
I've said it before - I'll say it again - you people just so totally have the government you deserve.
You really do.
Stuart
They need employees like Nurse M to carry out the Liverpool Care Pathway.
MAD-DOG
In the last two weeks I have spoken to three states members(ministers)and they have all said that they won,t support any action against pip ozouf,saying words to the effect that he is just what the states need to keep the civil servants in check,in other words their minds are made up before hearing any debate,it reminds me of terry le main shopping in normans while a lenghty debate was taking place he spoke with me and others for at least three quarters of an hour,then said he had to go and finish his shopping as he had to getback for the vote,asked why he had not listened to the debate he said their was no point as he had already made his mind up days before how he was going to vote,again without lisitening to any debate,what a waste of space these so called polititions are,polititions my ass.
I stop buying THE RAG.
Then the blogs dry up.
Hope its not for long (the blogs going quiet).
SWEEPING OUT THE YARD
Stuart, this essay offers one possible explanation for the disturbing tendency in Jersey for some ignorant people to blame the victims of abuse.
Sandusky Verdict: When Seeing the World as Good Is Bad
From TIME MAGAZINE ONLINE
June, 2012
...“The verdict brings some amount of relief to the boys — who are all now adults — who came forward to testify against Sandusky. Their painful testimony described crimes of abuse and rape stretching back 15 years. But arguments by Sandusky’s defense, including character testimony by his wife maintaining his innocence and rebutting claims made by two of his accusers — she called some of them “clingy” and “conniving,” while the defense cast the victims as motivated by financial greed — makes it hard not to wonder how bystanders to Sandusky’s wrongdoing could have repeatedly ignored the signs of child abuse or may continue to defend his pedophilic behavior, even after conviction.
Blame the “just world” hypothesis, say psychologists. The theory suggests that in order to avoid psychological disintegration, humans have a fundamental need to see the world as at least somewhat fair and predictable. You might think that a strong belief in justice would increase our drive to prosecute offenders. But, paradoxically, viewing the world as a fair place, where people receive their appropriate deserts, can often lead us in the opposite direction. It elicits denial of hard-to-face realities and results in the blaming of victims for suffering that has clearly been inflicted on them by others.
The just world hypothesis was developed in the 1960s by social psychologist Melvin Lerner. Fundamentally, it’s based on the idea that believing the world is fair offers a psychological sense of comfort and security. This predisposition is strongly held: even little children are intrinsically obsessed with fairness, as parents of bickering siblings know too well.
But witnessing extreme suffering or injustice, such as that described by Sandusky’s victims, threatens our feelings of safety and predictability. It upends our entire worldview and forces us to cope with the difficult reality of a confusing, amoral and chaotic universe. Therefore, it becomes easier psychologically to blame the innocent victim. Accepting the truth would otherwise threaten onlookers’ entire psyche, not just their views about a particular event..."
"Child sexual abuse seems particularly likely to trigger this response: it’s such a profound betrayal of trust and innocence that no one wants to believe that anyone — let alone someone they love or admire — is capable of it. That makes it much easier to reframe seemingly clear-cut situations to view the victims as liars..."
"More recent research has expanded on these findings. For example, one 2009 study primed participants to think either about their social connections or about themselves. When they were faced with situations that highly threatened their just-world beliefs, people who were encouraged to think about their social group were more likely to blame the victims. This finding has particular resonance for the Sandusky case because the former coach’s crimes occurred against the backdrop of a much-loved football team — the community’s intense focus on the team would have certainly vaulted thoughts of the group over those related to any one individual..."
(continued)
..."As the evidence suggests, a sense of justice is clearly important to human beings’ mental health. But whether it leads to blaming of victims or the search for meaning in pain depends on the context. Which is why fair convictions of perpetrators have wide-reaching impact: it helps not only that offender’s victims, but also similar victims who may be enduring undue blame in other cases.
Acknowledging and being mindful of the effects of our just-world beliefs may also help us carefully consider our responses to cases of sexual abuse and override our tendency to dismiss and deny."
How they do it in NORTH YORKSHIRE, the Weirdcop Way.
The jury, passing on the prisoner's life,
May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two
Guiltier than him they try. What's open made to justice,
That justice seizes: what know the laws
That thieves do pass on thieves? 'Tis very pregnant,
The jewel that we find, we stoop and take't
Because we see it; but what we do not see
We tread upon, and never think of it.
You may not so extenuate his offence
For I have had such faults; but rather tell me,
When I, that censure him, do so offend,
Let mine own judgment pattern out my death,
And nothing come in partial. Sir, he must die.
(Measure for Measure, 2.1.19),
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/06/deputy-higgins-p482012.html
RS
I know this is 'off comment' but..
It now turns out that my European British Islands Bailiwick of Jersey passport that says ' the holder is not entitled to benefit from the EU provisions relating to employment or establishment' ie I am a Non-EU /EU citizen.. turns out not to be my passport at all but belongs to the UK government according to ILM!
So let me get this right, I have a passport that makes me a citizen with no rights to be in the area that the passport covers and it belongs to a government that I cannot democratically influence.
Then Tw*ts like Sir Philip want independence from that!
Did I just see a white rabbit going down that hole?
Stuart.
Will we see the EVIDENCE?
"Utter Malfeasance"
A riddle.
What's the connection between Stuart and the owner of the land that the hoard of coins have been found on?
Answer ; Neither of them are running with the Olympic Torch but for different reasons.
Lucy Mason has slagged off the electoral website and told readers to google the 120 names on it to see they have hijacked it for their own ends.
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/06/truth-honesty-and-integrity-in-gutter.html
Another kick in the teeth for truth, honesty and integrity.
These people have no shame
rs
The second half of the most recent posting by St Ouennais is excellent. A fact based shredding of Bailhache's argument for preparing for independence.
A view from the West
Consideration of how our little densly populated island can cope in a resource constrained world makes me greatly worried by the campaign of Senator Bailhache to prepare us for independence. See http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=500033
He said "There are many small countries - not just in the world but in Europe, which are considerably smaller than us, which manage to cope with sovereignty. If it should become in our interests to break the ties with the UK then I think we should be ready to do that."
So I looked at how many small countries there are in Europe that are 'considerably' smaller than us. There is a comprehensive list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries.
There are 5 territories with an area smaller than Jersey. That includes Guernsey and Gibraltar, neither of whom have full sovereignty. It also includes the Vatican, which is a rather exceptional case. So that leaves San Marino and Monaco. Interestingly in 1945 San Marino had the world's first democratically elected communist government.
Of course Sen Bailhache might choose a different measure such as population. Then the candidate list would add Liechtenstein, Andorra, the Isle of Man, and the Faroe Islands.
The Isle of Man is no more a sovereign state than is Jersey already , so they can be discounted. The Faroese have slightly less control of their own affairs than we do (Denmark is responsible for police, justice, defence and foreign affairs), so I think we can also discount them.
Thus, Senators Bailhache's many small countries in Europe dealing with sovereignty is more like a handful, before we even consider whether they handle that sovereignty well or effectively. I doubt any of them would be a viable state in a resource hungry world being massive consumers and having precious few natural resources of their own. Just as telling, if you check the history of these micro states, nearly all were originally sponsored or protected by a larger state. They only look viable in the perspective of monetary flows. Which is fine until someone turns of the in flow tap.
There is simply no way that Jersey going independent would benefit the vast majority of the island's population.
And the oligarchs like the Bailhache Brothers and the rest of the local mafia know that perfectly well.
They are plainly not interested in the real welfare of this community - rather, their interest is seeking independence, so as to try and protect themselves from one day being held to account for all of their corruptions and malfeasances.
Look, if the days of off-shore finance are over - then they're over.
They're over because it was an historic inevitability that large nation-states, and blocs like the EU, would have to stop the hemorrhaging of tax revenue - sooner - or later.
If that is what is happening - then there's not one damn thing Jersey can do about it - whether we go independent or remain loyal to the Crown.
Just look at our politicians; a collection of ignoramuses, inadequates, idlers, liars and crooks.
You think the destiny of Jersey, and the welfare of this community would be better if our collection of gangsters and halfwits were given even more untrammeled and unaccountable power than they have now?
If so - then you could be getting a government you deserve even more than you deserve the current grifters convention.
Stuart
Stuart
The Guardian is currently publishing a series on the Channel Islands with an article on this Bailhache threat of independence.
Noteworthy, including the number of comments, over 500, and the unusually high percentage of those which were previously posted but are now delisted, saying "comment removed." Curious.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/series/channel-islands
Beth
"Anonymous said...
A riddle.
What's the connection between Stuart and the owner of the land that the hoard of coins have been found on?
Answer ; Neither of them are running with the Olympic Torch but for different reasons."
Don't get it. If it's a riddle it's very obscure! What IS this about?
Sir Philip Bailhache, the island's assistant chief minister, said: "I feel that we get a raw deal. I feel it's not fair … I think that the duty of Jersey politicians now is to try to explain what the island is doing and not to take things lying down.
Today Guardian,what happened to our Chief Minister surely on such an important topic a mere Assistant is not good enough to speak on this matter.
Bailhache must think he knows better than everybody else - surely he cannot be so daft as to think that Jersey would be better off against what would then be 'open season' against an independent tax haven by the mighty powerful EU, but I guess he is!!
Post a Comment