Senator Stuart Syvret Blog

LETTER FROM EXILE: # 4

2009-11-10T20:12:00.002Z

LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM

FROM REALITY.

LEAKED!

Top-Secret Minutes

From Operation

“Salvage Mick Birt’s Knighthood”!

In yet another amazing example of fearless and public-spirited ingenuity on the part of my moles, the Quite Vile Blog has been able to obtain the detailed minutes from a meeting of the Gold Command group, who are leading and co-ordinating the Jersey oligarchy’s strategy to destroy me – and thus salvage Michael Birt’s Knighthood.

But – before we examine a section of this unique and fascinating insight into the innermost workings of the Jersey oligarchy and their ‘Friends at Court at Whitehall’ – notice of some forthcoming postings.

As remarked in a comment, I had deliberately not written about the States debate on the question of whether to establish a Public Inquiry into the management of the Health & Social Services Department. I took the view we would just wait – and see.

Sure enough – the proposal was rejected.

A result so immoral and imbecilic, that you’d have had a hard time getting a room full of Palermo Councillors to support it – even if each of them was blindfolded, handcuffed, and had a Beretta to the side of their heads.

So – later in this coming week, hopefully - after the Hansard of the debate is fully available – we’ll be taking a very – very - close look at this latest act of self-inflicted disrepute by the States of Jersey.

Also – when time permits, I’m writing a letter to the Jersey Evening Post in response to the predictable mish-mash of disinformation, diversion, lacunae and lies we have so come to expect from Jersey’s only “newspaper” – The Rag.

They won’t print it of course – so in due course - it will be posted here.

Further – in the course of preparing the legal papers for serving upon the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, I’m obviously writing a detailed account of my case, the facts involved, how and why things have reached this state of affairs – and the various gross abuses of the policing and judicial procedures we see being engaged in by the Jersey oligarchy.

As readers have asked for a straight, and easily understandable description of the situation - because people aren’t getting such facts from any of the Jersey media - I will abstract the key points from the legal case, and post it as a guide to the situation.

I guess, that will be around next week some time.

But – before then – contemplate the very latest exclusive scoop from the Channel Islands’ leading news source.

You know – I know – we all know – none of the Channels Islands' traditional media – especially BBC Jersey - would report any of this material; real news and dynamite scoops not, apparently, being of interest to Jersey news editors.

So here – in yet another apocalyptic exclusive for the Quite Vile Blog – I reproduce the first few items from the leaked minutes.

There is simply too much of it to publish in one go, so during the next week, readers will be able to ponder the remaining sections.

But – to be going on with – here is Part 1 of our exclusive.

Stuart.

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.

OPERATION SALVAGE MICK BIRT’S KNIGHTHOOD

(OSMBK)

MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GOLD COMMAND MEETING

FRIDAY, 30TH OCTOBER, 2009.

Present: -

William Bailhache. (WB)
Michael Birt. (MB)
Sir Philip Bailhache. (PB)
David Warcup. (DW)
Dave Minty. (DM)
Mick Gradwell. (MG) (By video link)
Emma Martins. (EM)
Bill Ogley. (BO)
Kathy Kier (KK)
Terry Le Sueur. (TLS) (attending on Behalf of Chief Minister Senator Ozouf)
Bridget Shaw. (BS)
Stephen Baker. (SB)
Lieutenant Governor. (LG)
Agent X: Ex Cathedra. (AXE) from the Department of Justice, representing the “Friends at Court at Whitehall”. (FACAWs)

Items Discussed:

1: Signing of minutes.

2: Consideration of mission statement.

3: Status up-date.

4: Team-OSMBK discussion and assessment.

5: View of the FACAWs.

6: The 'Syvret' issue.

7: Opinion management up-date and discussion.

8: Strategic assessment of options.

9: Budgetary considerations.

10: Fix date of next meeting.

1: The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a correct record, and duly signed by William Bailhache (WB).

2: Consideration of mission statement.

William Bailhache (WB) began by reminding members of Team-Operation Salvage Mick Birt's Knighthood (OSMBK) that the exercise had grown out of the Program for Limiting Effective Plebeians (PLEBs) which had been initiated by several of the current members of OSMBK, following Syvret's success in the 2005 general election.

WB stated that the present exercise constituted the third attempt to oppress Syvret since PLEBs had been initiated. The first attempt to neutralise Syvret followed his writing of a satirical open letter. However, that attempt had been abandoned when it was realised most members of the public regraded the letter as an accurate and amusing depiction of power in Jersey.

The second attempt had proven more effective, in that it did succeed in removing Syvret from Ministerial Office, but this had only been viable because Syvret had been foolish enough to discover that the senior management of his department had very badly failed in respect of child protection. Obviously, this serious tactical error on Syvret's part, of expecting them to be carrying out their jobs effectively, resulted in the entire top-tier of the island's civil service uniting against him.

WB continued, however this was only a partial success as Syvret continued to be a significant threat to the oligarchy's hegemony, and, in particular his activities were making it extremely difficult to maintain the Culture of Concealment, with particular regard to the child abuse.

WB reminded those present that Team-OSMBK had been formed when events took on an altogether more serious and urgent nature. This had occurred when Syvret had published on his blog, in March of this year, a 1999 police report he had obtained.

The report revealed that a male nurse appeared to have murdered 13 frail elderly people during a two-month period on Corbiere ward of the hospital, during 1999. The investigation had not been effectively pursued, for the customary reason, and it had been felt at the time there was no need to inform the relatives of the deceased of the strong likelihood their loved ones had been murdered.

However, whilst somewhat embarrassing, by far the most significant and problematic aspect of Syvret's publication was that it suggested that the then Attorney General, Michael Birt (MB) was, in some way, accountable for the discontinuation of the murder investigation.

The custom and practice of traditional Jersey oligarchy Attorneys General had always been to minimise prosecutions for serious crimes, when such prosecutions would be damaging, or in some other way, problematic, for the establishment. MB had, when Attorney General, followed this standard procedure.

However, MB had had the misfortune to have had at least four of his “not in the public interest” non-prosecution decisions resurrected; co-incidentally, all by Syvret.

The four non-prosecutions in question being: -

(a) Not prosecuting the States of Jersey for the criminal act of dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly toxic municipal incinerator ash into the sea-porous land reclamation sites around St. Heller.

(b) Abandoning the prosecution of Jane and Alan McGuire, even though they had spent over a decade committing monstrous acts of child abuse against orphans.

(c ) Not prosecuting Jack Hydes, Frances Hamon, John Le Breton and Piers Baker for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and for concealing child abuse.

(d) Not prosecuting nurse M for multiple prima facie counts of murder against frail, elderly people. This case appeared particularly problematic for MB, given he had played a role in the group decision made on the 20th May, 1999, to the effect that the families of the relevant patients wouldn't be told or interviewed in phase 1 of the investigation. It was also recognised as especially problematic for MB that, although Nurse M had been remanded in custody for a number of other, serious charges, MB, as Attorney General had decided to not oppose bail, so Nurse M was released from custody, two days after the launch of an investigation, based upon powerful prima facie evidence, that Nurse M was, in fact, a serial-killer.

WB informed the meeting that whilst tremendous latitude was given in such matters by the Friends at Court at Whitehall (FACAWs), it had been felt that the customary and automatic granting of a Knighthood to MB may be hampered somewhat by such 'clouds of controversy' hanging over him.

Whilst no indication had been given that this problem would influence the conferring of the Knighthood, it had been agreed that it was better to be certain, and thus seek to exculpate MB before Christmas 2009.

It had, of course, been recognised that the salvaging of MB's knighthood had a double advantage in that it would also produce, as a consequence, another opportunity give effect to the objectives of Operation PLEBs, namely destroying Syvret.

There had, therefore, been complete unanimity that OSMBK would be launched.

WB concluded that, a;though an all-out attempt to eliminate Syvret involving all arms of the state had been initiated, it was still proving surprisingly difficult to bring the exercise to a successful conclusion.

WB invited acting Chief of Police, David Warcup to provide the status up-date.

3: Status Up-date by DW.

David Warcup (DW) informed the meeting that Operation Salvage Mick Birt’s Knighthood (OSMBK) had suffered a serious set-back since the previous meeting.

He stated that Syvret had escaped from Jersey on Monday the 19th October, and that the escape had been effected two days before the pivotal judicio-prosecutory manoeuvre – namely the ruling that Syvret’s entire defence case – previously accepted as admissible for the preceding three months – be now deemed inadmissible.

This action – simply ruling the entire defence case inadmissible – would have secured a conviction for the Establishment.

However, Syvret had recognised this tactic, and had fled to London.

DW offered the assessment that SB and BS had, perhaps, revealed too much of the hand during the last directions hearing Syvret attended.

BS responded to this by saying no blame could be attached to her as she simply followed the instructions of SB, as the transcripts show, and asked why the police had not prevented Syvret from escaping?

DW responded, saying that, as has been previously noted by the group, Syvret was under 24 hour-a-day surveillance, and although MG was no longer based in Jersey, Mark Cane and Julia Jackson continued to oversee the monitoring of Syvret.

However, there were limits to what even DW and the SOJP could get away with. If Syvret had revealed any indication that he was leaving Jersey and not planning to return, the SOJP might have had some semblance of an excuse to arrest him at the airport.

But as Syvret had not discussed his plans via any electronic means of communication, and had purchased a return ticket for the Wednesday morning, effecting an arrest at attempted departure would have been legally problematic – even with the obviously available support from WB and MB.

DW continued, the SOJP had three non-uniformed officers present at the airport in connection with this operation, but that two of them were recognised by Syvret.

DW conceded that the actions of the officers – pointedly sitting at a table next to Syvret in the coffee shop in the departure hall, staring at him, and saying, “hello”, may not, with hindsight, have been an appropriate tactic, given it had long been plain that intimidation and other types of psychological warfare had zero affect on Syvret.

AXE agreed with this last observation, and said some serious thought would have to given to this subject when Team-OSMBK reached agenda item No. 6.

DW continued. Notwithstanding this encounter, CID in co-operation with Customs - were able to delay the flight departure for one hour, thus enabling a comprehensive search of Syvret’s hold baggage. It had been expected to reveal two lever-arch files containing copies of the 1999 evidence disclosed to Syvret. Though Syvret would have had a legitimate purpose in taking the evidence out of the island in connection with obtaining legal advice, it would, nevertheless, have furnished OSMBK with sufficient excuse to arrest on grounds that the spin-doctors could have then peddled as legitimate.

However, no such material was found in Syvret’s baggage, thus disposing of the last opportunity to effect arrest.

The standard fall-back procedure of planting a quantity of cocaine in his bag was considered, as would be expected, but it was felt that this might be too implausible, notwithstanding the ‘Special Latitude’ applying to OSMBK.

However, a further profound problem was revealed later that morning via surveillance. After Syvret’s departure, it became clear he had electronically scanned every single page of the disclosed evidence, and, before departing for the airport, had e-mailed the resultant quantity of PDFs to several secure e-mail addresses, to which only he has access.

DW accepted that the resultant loss of control of the data could well be a fatal turn of events for OSMBK. It was now recognised the 1999 evidence destroys the prosecution case against Syvret and secures a watertight public interest disclosure defence. But worse, in respect of the objectives of OSMBK, the evidence demonstrates a criminal investigation failure even greater than Syvret had previously suggested.

DW accepted that the surveillance operation could have been more alert, and spotted the e-mailing of the PDFs before Syvret was able to escape, thus enabling his arrest.

However, DW remained strongly of the view that the SOJP could not always be expected to recover the serious errors of other agencies involved in OSMBK.

He pointed out that the terminal error had been committed by the prosecution in first agreeing that Syvret had a right to run a public interest disclosure defence. Had the prosecution not done so, the 1999 evidence would never have been disclosed to Syvret in the first place.

Not only would an ‘inadmissibility’ instruction to BS have kept this profoundly damaging evidence out of Syvret’s hands, it would also have protected the prosecution and the court from the immensely high-risk and unprecedented gamble of attempting to turn back time, and have the public interest disclosure defence deemed inadmissible, three months into proceedings.

SB intervened at this point, and reminded Team-OSMBK that permitting Syvret to run a public interest disclosure defence had been agreed by all, as it was felt important for cosmetic reasons that some kind of defence argument was available to him.

KK agreed with this view, stating that the credibility of the proceedings had already been difficult enough to maintain, given Syvret had been denied access to the vast majority of evidence he required as disclosures for his defence, prevented by the court from calling all but two of the witnesses he sought, and denied adjournments – even though he was self-representing and without legal advice.

KK continued, if, at an earlier stage, Syvret had been denied a public interest disclosure defence, the proceedings against him would have had no public credibility at all.

It was explained that whilst this was not a problem within the Jersey media, there were limits to what could be maintained at a national media level – even with the very substantial bribery slush-fund made available for use on certain freelance “journalists” by OSMBK.

KK also pointed out that whilst the manipulated and forged e-mails used against the Historic Child Abuse Investigation had been very effective, that strategy had become perilously close to being exposed at a national level, and may still be so.

DW concluded his status up-date by informing Team-OSMBK that he was not now certain how events would play out from a police force perspective. Obviously, had events been confined to Jersey, the policing element would have been able to act as predicted.

But now that the Met had been pre-emptively approached by Syvret, and MPs who were supporting him, and had agreed a single point of contact, and had indicated that no enactment of a ‘backed’ arrest warrant would be undertaken without due legal process, the chances of recovering the situation via customary policing interventions were now extremely limited.

WB accepted the status report, but expressed serious dissatisfaction at the turn of events.

He explained that the normal constraints on policing activity did not apply in Jersey, generally – and that in a “Special Latitude” case, such as this, the police would have been legally secure in respect of virtually any action they had taken against Syvret, short of machine-gunning him to death in the airport departure lounge.

However, WB continued, even that action may have been legally secure given that Syvret possessed a copy of The Guardian in his bag, and is a member of Greenpeace, thus justifying an ‘extreme prejudice’ anti-terrorism intervention.

PART 2 OF THE QUITE VILE BLOG'S AMAZING SCOOP TO FOLLOW LATER THIS WEEK!

LETTER FROM EXILE: # 3

2009-11-01T18:22:00.001Z

LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM

FROM REALITY.

STRIKE BACK AT THE HEART OF DARKNESS:

PUBLIC PROTEST.

10.30 ONWARDS.

MONDAY 2ND NOVEMBER.

Bill Bailhache’s Swearing-In

As Our Latest Unaccountable Feudal Baron.

Whilst it is difficult to know, with certainty, I would estimate that the great majority of decent people in Jersey do not like the ruling political establishment.

In fact, that’s probably another “offence” on the charge-sheet. A brazen breach of the Protection from Understatements (Jersey) Law October 2009.

People see incompetence, an absence of strategic thinking, a broadly very poor degree of senior management in the public sector - which frequently hinders, rather than helps, the front-line work force, ruination of our environment, increasing tax burdens on the less well-off and a States assembly in which the majority of members seem to lose all awareness of the public’s existence a week after the election.

In nearly all walks of island life – apart from a narrow grouping who find the status quo extremely beneficial – you come across dissatisfaction and exasperation with the States.

But here, our flimsy speculations founder upon the intellectual rock of the Jersey oligarchy.

‘What nonsense’ - our lords and masters say - ‘the great majority of people in Jersey are perfectly content with the political establishment. Why, if they were not, there would be political expression of that dissatisfaction. But look – a majority of the same type of States member gets returned at every election – and voter turn-outs are extremely low, less then 30% in some urban areas. That must be because people are broadly satisfied. If they weren’t – they’d turn out to vote.’

Whilst those of us familiar with Jersey know that around 85% of the population would not agree with that argument – we must concede, it possesses a certain crude logic.

We are, after all, a democracy; people could decide to try a different government, if they wanted. So why don’t they?

We never succeed in changing the Jersey government – because we are fragmented and divided.

We fail to see that certain issues which may anger us as individuals – inflation, job-insecurity, destruction of the environment, too much tax on the poor and not enough on the wealthy – and a hundred similar issues – are all symptoms of the same problem.

A shallow, short-termist and stagnant political environment which - for decades - has grown stupid and complacent through an absence of competition.

Some of us may protest to protect our coastline from over-development; some may protest at nurses not being paid a realistic salary; others protest to make the establishment deliver the Town Park; others still may protest at being taxed on basic food-stuffs; some will protest at the failures of our judicial system to protect abuse survivors and punish the guilty; many will protest against construction in the green zone – and any number of other causes.

What we are very poor at doing is recognising the interrelated nature of all such problems – and the need to unite to combat that which causes them – namely a failed, stagnant and unresponsive power-structure.

Which is why I hope a few people will come to the Royal Square at 10.30 – 12.30 this Monday morning – to take part in the public protest at the swearing-in of William – Barking Bill - Bailhache as Deputy Bailiff.

I could write at very great length indeed about this man’s many, many malfeasances.

I could also write at great length – cataloguing many of the monstrously brazen Political abuses he has made of his unelected position as Attorney General.

I could go into very well-documented examples of his various denials of justice to abuse survivors.

I could explain in considerable detail how this man is so, frankly, divorced from reality – to the point of being irrational – as to think it appropriate, desirable or sustainable to abuse his position and powers to engage in direct, calculated political oppression – of a kind that wouldn’t be out of place in the former East Germany.

I could point out his brazen breaking of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law – which is designed to protect your elected representatives from blackmail, menace, obstruction and threats.

I could refer to the fact that he – apparently – thinks that he knows best who should sit in the States assembly – your parliament – and if he thinks that you – the voting public – have “elected the wrong person” – he will “put right” that “mistake” by oppressing and obstructing your democratically elected representative.

I could point out just what a lying, posturing, paternalistic, self-regarding, dangerously megalomaniacal, neo-Victorian nincompoop and buffoon Mr. Bailhache is.

I could point out that – for the “utility” of employing this man – who lets-off real criminals – and instead oppresses your democratic freedoms – you will be paying him around £300,000 per year – plus vast final salary pension.

I could elaborate upon all of those things.

But I won’t.*

*Not today, anyway.

I won’t – because to do so would be to fall into the same traps that usually work for the Jersey oligarchy – namely:

‘Divide to rule’.

And

‘Get people narrowly focused upon a symptom – so they don’t see the real underlying cause.’

Because no matter what a toxic, power-crazed, deeply unpleasant and, frankly, dangerous man is Bill Bailhache – he is a symptom – not the cause.

The cause is the intellectually and ethically bankrupt, stagnant and unchallenged monopoly of power we have let the Jersey oligarchy enjoy.

And it is because such characters as Bill Bailhache are symbols and figureheads of that corrupt system – that we should protest against them.

Those who don’t follow Jersey politics in a close way may not have picked-up on the nuances - but make no mistake – the small protest that was mounted against the swearing-in of Mick Birt – protector of child abusers and serial killers - as Bailiff was like a dagger in the heart of the traditional oligarchy.

You see – protesting against people like Terry Le Sueur – or the Chief Minister, Phil Ozouf – whilst always a worthwhile thing to do – just doesn’t have any lasting impact upon the real forces of power in Jersey.

People like me – and the establishment States members are – when all is said and done – just here today-gone tomorrow politicians.

Convenient ‘safety-valves’ perhaps – upon who the public can vent their dissatisfaction and anger occasionally – whilst the real power at the centre of “The Jersey Firm” remains unseen, unchallenged – and simply carrying on as usual.

But, for the first time in 800 years – for there to have been a noisy public protest at the swearing-in of a Bailiff – when the usual course of events would have been for us ordinary people to be lined-up outside - in awe-struck deference at the sheer majesty of the clowns in fancy dress and their plastic pageant – shook the Jersey oligarchy to its core.

You see – being narrowly focused on our individual concerns – and certain symptoms of States failure – we would usually not see the real problem.

Instead we - the peasants - would be gathered in the Royal Square – expected to doff our caps at these oligarchy lynch-pins – grateful that they have taken on such a burden for us – and only charging us £300,000 a year.

Plus pension.

I mean – if they didn’t – well, who else would protect various States departments from prosecution for their variously corrupt and criminal failings?

Who else would shoulder the burden of giving legal advice to the oligarchy States members – to enable them to stitch-up the public interest and taxpayers – again?

Who else would use their Oxbridge connections in the British judicial old boys’ network – in order to ensure the Jersey oligarchy remain free of any democratic control or legal accountability?

Who else would sit there, in the States chamber - ready at a second’s notice - to come charging into battle like the Seventh Cavalry – to rescue the Jersey Establishment Party from a looming defeat?

So grateful - and ignorant – are we supposed to be, that we’re not meant to notice these oligarchy characters’ anti-democratic ascension into power.

We’re not supposed to notice their politicisation; we’re not supposed to notice the fact that they always protect the oligarchy from the broad interest of ordinary people; and we’re not supposed to notice the fact that we pay these people vast amounts of money to – essentially – oppress us.

But at Mick Birt’s swearing-in – for the first time, people did finally begin to focus their anger at the real core of power in Jersey. Which is why that small protest so rattled the Jersey Establishment Party.

They worry, that they are, perhaps, seeing the first stirrings of a growing awareness on the part of Jersey people that we have been taken for a ride; utterly betrayed – and that our various and fragmented problems are all just symptoms of a bent and rotten system.

Which is why the oligarchy are doing all they can to minimise public awareness of Monday’s protest.

Which of the Jersey media have reported it?

Has BBC Jersey given any coverage at all to the protest – and the reasons for it?

Perhaps they will interview one of the organisers at 7.10 tomorrow morning, to ask why the protest is happening?

Though, somehow – and I can’t for the life of me quite put my finger on it, but I just have this distant suspicion – I doubt it.

It is a Monday morning – 10.30 – 12.30 - and most people will be at work, so it’s difficult to get there – but if you do have a bit of time on your hands tomorrow morning – try and get along to the Royal Square. If you can’t make the whole 2 hours, 11.30 would be a good time to show up – or perhaps come along in your lunch break.

If the States and the Jersey oligarchy generally, have ever angered you – if you’ve felt betrayed by them – if you feel they’ve led Jersey to ruination – tomorrow represents a chance for you to express those views.

Express them at a time and place which will cause the maximum possible irritation and annoyance to the Jersey Establishment Party.

STRIKE BACK AT THE HEART OF DARKNESS.

10.30 ONWARDS.

MONDAY 2ND NOVEMBER.

You know it makes sense.

Stuart.

LETTER FROM EXILE: # 2

2009-10-29T17:10:00.002Z

LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM

FROM REALITY.

On the Uses – and Criminalisation

Of Sarcasm.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Anatole France.

“It is by acts and not by ideas that people live.”

Anatole France.

Well, I’m a hardened desperado now; on the run from what, I suppose, we must refer to as the “law”.

And the charges just keep mounting up.

Frankly, I’ve lost count.

But like a hardened street gangster – I display my crimes as brazenly as scars and jail-house tattoos.

Consider the effrontery:

I’m already facing a ten-straight stretch for breaking the ‘Sarcastic E-Mails (Jersey) Law (2.00 pm, 21st October) 2009’.

Yet, in an act of crazed defiance I trample the said law again – by quoting Anatole France’s - in-no-way-sarcastic – observation on the “majestic equality of the law”.

There – I’ve done it again.

By the time I’m apprehended, clapped in irons and returned to Jersey I’ll be facing straight life - no parole.

I imagine that’s what comes of reading too many people like France.

I’ll have to try throwing myself on the mercy of the court.

“It ain’t my fault Gov – I was led astray by all them bleedin wicked “finkers” – wat wiv their fancy “ideas” n’ leedin us in ta sarcasm – really Gov, just gimme anaver chance an’ I’ll always doff me cap from now on – innit?”

But - no.

I’m long beyond that stage now.

As such a hardened outlaw - almost as committed to crookery as a Wall Street investment banker – and - even – sink in terror at my approaching shadow - nearly as bent as a Jersey planning officer – I’m well into ‘you’ll never take me alive, copper’ territory.

Err - well, OK - at least not unless they take me be surprise again – with a ten-strong SWAT-squad.

Like last time.

But, damn “the law” – what would our gang-leader - Anatole France - have thought of our desperate stand?

What, might he have said, by way of “criminal” sarcasm, in belligerent defiance of the forces of ‘good order’?

You know – I actually think he’d have been challenged to capture the sheer, hypocritical abuse of power to be observed on the island.

Of course, Anatole’s sarcasm simply didn’t go far enough - just wasn’t capable of encompassing the sheer Milgramesque experiment in boundary-pushing we observe on the part of the Jersey oligarchy.

France may have paused, and begun forming a phrase something like, ‘the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from committing perjury….err.’

Or – ‘the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to conceal evidence….err, no, that doesn’t really describe the phenomena we are confronted with’

How about - ‘the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to abuse ancient feudal laws to drive out and bankrupt a family-run skip truck business’?

No – that just doesn’t fit, either.

‘What’, our leader might have asked, ‘is going wrong with my analyses here?’

Though a great intellectual, and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, our icon of sarcasm would have been defeated by the sheer asymmetrical lawlessness - the brazen abandonment of any pretence at “equality” - as exhibited by the Jersey oligarchy.

But only for a short while.

He would quickly have seen that fundamental to his famous observation on the ‘majestic equality of the law’ – was the basic premise that the law was, indeed, equal - but in a way that scarcely troubled the rich.

But even that fundamental – but sarcastically observed – ‘truth’ would be rendered null when considering what passes for the administration of justice in Jersey – where little attempt is made at even a pretence of ‘equality’.

Let us be grateful that France was not alive during the age of e-mail.

So gross would have been his crimes – the tribulations of Boris Pasternak would have seemed easy in comparison.

The ‘law’ in Jersey – in all its shameless and stagnant inequality.

It is in defiance of such neo-feudalistic conjuring-tricks with a few tatty pastiches of what, we’re told, is ‘the law’ – that I am here in London.

I’m extremely grateful for the quantity of support I have received – telephone calls, e-mails, texts, letters – and the similar messages to those providing me with help. I’ve always had confidence in people’s ability to think for themselves.

But our incubus – the Jersey oligarchy – who, alone, labour under the delusion they’re capable of being ‘clever’ – remain convinced that people are stupid – and can be conned into forgetting why I had to flee to London.

Namely – a prosecution and court system so brazenly corrupt that when the prosecution case was utterly destroyed by the defence case – they solved this somewhat inconveniencing fact – simply by seeking to have the entire defence case deemed ‘inadmissible’.

Makes one proud to be a Jerseyman, eh?

One can tell the Jersey oligarchy has entered some kind of ultimate ‘end-game’ of decadence, simply by examining the sheer poverty of intelligence on display in their criticisms of people like me.

Consider the Jersey media, and comments I receive on this blog. We have yet to encounter as much as one single cogent and intellectually robust argument against my position. Believe me – if the Jersey oligarchy possessed any such argument – they would have deployed it.

And they can produce no such argument – not because of any particular intelligence on my part – but simply because their position is enfeebled, wrong and indefensible.

Instead, the Jersey oligarchy is reduced to comment such as this:

Received on the 26th October:

“You really are an objectionable little man. What do you think gives you the right to ignore the laws of this Island. Should these laws apply to everyone else but yourself? (SeanF).”

Obviously – we see displayed in such remarks an underlying intellectual capacity so awesome as to be greater than that of Susan Sontag and Noam Chomsky – combined.

I’m frightened of confronting such devastating criticism – for example, by writing a very, very extensive - and tediously depressing - list of all those decades-worth of crimes - of every scale and type – committed by the Jersey oligarchy and its members – with apparent immunity from the “laws of the island”.

To do so would be cowardice on my part – in refusing to confront the implacable fact at the heart of such criticism – namely that such laws apply to ALL obstreperous, uppity plebs – including me.*

* (But, obviously, not senior oligarchs. Well, it goes without saying – innit?)

No, instead – in flight from such unanswerable damnation – I must turn to an altogether tamer example of criticism.

A comment was submitted by reader ‘JV’ a few days ago, and I promised we’d take a close look at it.

Received on the 23rd October:

“Dear Stuart

Just as a simple question that I hope won't trouble you enough to answer.

When will things be enough before you fit back into the political mainframe and stop branching out on such a limb? I know there are answers to be had from the current political establishment, but what in your own terms will quench your thirst for political upheaval? What possible answers are there before you cease the legal proceedings and get on with the task of representing your constituents, and not yourself in the Magistrate's court?

I am neither a supporter nor an oligarchy-supporter, although my education in Jersey would have you believe I am firmly routed in the Oligarchy; a fact that I am not too pleased has been banded around this blog far too often.

So in short, what do you hope to achieve from now on in? Clearly the hateful crimes committed in Jersey are a problem but what then? What political manifesto may you employ once this sorry tale has been put to bed? Or are you just a political troublemaker in a time when our thoughts should be on more pressing matters?

JV”

The first thing one must do in analysing such a positional statement, and the questions embedded within it, is to identify the premises that are being put forward.

What are the underlying assumptions – the ‘givens’ - the author would have us simply take as statements of established fact?

We might deconstruct the comment as claiming thus:

1: That I have unreasonable expectations of the political environment and culture of Jersey.

2: I am not engaged in mainstream political work, but, instead have split-off into some narrow path of irrelevance to the community.

3: That I am driven by a ‘thirst’ for ‘political upheaval’ for its own sake.

4: That there is nothing that would, or could, make me stop this campaign.

5: That the ‘legal proceedings’ are somehow of my initiative – and that I could ‘cease them’.

6: That what I am engaged in does not constitute representing my constituents.

7: That it isn’t clear what I ‘hope to achieve’.

8: That the ‘hateful crimes’ committed in Jersey are ‘a problem’ – and it is enough merely to recognise that fact – without fighting for justice.

9: That I have no other political manifesto apart from fighting against the Culture of Concealment – and that, somehow, just isn’t enough for a politician to be doing.

10: That I am merely a ‘political trouble-maker’ – wasting my time when I should be working on ‘more pressing matters’.

In what was not a sarcastic observation – so I hope I include this quote without it going on the rap-sheet - Anatole France wrote:

“It is by acts and not by ideas that people live.”

One can find any number of Jersey politicians who will propound such ideas as transparency, accountability, the proper rule of law, the good administration of justice, and working for the public good.

The ‘achievements’ of such ideas are there to be observed in the rackety, decayed junk-yard scrap-heap that is Jersey’s public administration.

Ideas are as spent upon the Jersey polity as the energy of Sisyphus was spent upon that boulder.

After 20 futile years of ideas – I have acted.

I have acted in an attempt to drive forward the changes oh-so-badly needed by the great majority of my constituents.

And we can use the ten premises propounded by ‘JV’ to examine why that is so.

1: The ‘mainstream’ political environment of Jersey is simply too rotten to repair. My expectations of Jersey politics are that it be honest, genuinely democratic, transparent, accountable, effective – and not riddled with corruption.

I don’t want to ‘fit back into that mainstream’ – I want to change it.

2: It is difficult to imagine a more centrally important tasks for a politician to shoulder than trying to address the complete absence of any effective checks and balances; in which victims of child abuse get betrayed by the authorities – and those who abused them remain in top-jobs.

A political and ‘judicial’ culture that is capable of driving into bankruptcy a small, family business with legal costs incurred through trying to defend themselves against the corrupt manipulations of senior oligarchs – is not capable of reforming itself.

One can hide from that conclusion no longer.

3: As described above, what I wish to see achieved is a modern, lawful, democratic community which is governed with a degree of intelligence, wisdom and ethics.

Not remotely an unreasonable or ‘extremist’ aim.

The ‘political upheavals’ I find myself involved in are not of my choosing; they occur because I am trying to do my job to the best of my ability – for example, trying to expose and prevent child abuse.

It is not my fault that so corrupted, decadent, lawless and anti-democratic are the Jersey oligarchy that they should regard trying to achieve child protection and punishing abusers, to be as some immense and anarchic threat to society.

4: I would very happily stop campaigning against the frankly embarrassing bent, inept and literally incredible chimera that passes for the administration of justice in Jersey – just as soon as it is cleared-out and fixed.

If Jack Straw e-mails me in the next 30 minutes saying he’s accepted the mountain of unarguable evidence – and the UK will take direct control of the prosecution system, police and courts in Jersey for the next two years – whilst a functioning system is put in place – I’ll get on a plane back to Jersey tonight.

5: If ‘JV’ wishes these ‘legal proceedings’ were stopped – then we are of like-mind.

However – it was not me who decided that it would be appropriate to send around a squad of ten cops to arrest a democratically accountable representative of the people – lock him in a police-cell for seven-and-a-half hours – whilst the cops turned over the entire property from top-to-bottom – without a search-warrant – and then attempt to prosecute the politician – for doing his job in attempting to hold the executive to account.

It was Bill Bailhache – and his stooges Mick Gradwell, Mark Cane and Julia Jackson – who decided that – terribly PC of them – “health and safety at work requirements meant they had to subject me to covert surveillance – and come around and jail me – in order to protect senior civil servants from the ‘stress’ of being scrutinised by a politician.”

And – no.

I did not make up that “health and safety at work” angle.

Some things are simply beyond the reach of sarcasm.

It has been admitted in open court by Stephen Baker that Gradwell had Cane and Jackson – two full-time cops – doing nothing except “investigate” me - for a sustained period of time – on “health and safety” grounds.

Oh – that, and because I was supposedly writing “defamatory remarks” on my blog.

It, of course, being yet another example of the amazingly improved legislative performance of the States of Jersey – that a covert law was so speedily introduced to make defamation a criminal law offence, as opposed to a mere civil law matter.

6: The events I have catalogued on this blog during the last two years – let alone the evidence of the last two or three decades – show that the entire body of public administration in Jersey has failed – in virtually every conceivable manner.

Simply consider the long-predicted economic melt-down about to engulf the island; are my constituents best served by me being crushed in debate every two weeks by such intellectual titans as Terry Le Main and Phil Ozouf?

Or should we recognise that the time has past for such charades – and that the coming economic hardship can only be ameliorated by sweeping away the whole, useless apparatus?

To quote Bob Dylan:

‘Let us not talk falsely now, for the hour is getting late.’

7: What this community needs is to be rid of the collection of idiots, posturing ignoramuses, crooks, spivs, shills, gangsters and halfwits who have brought Jersey to the ruination that now - inescapably – confronts it.

Trying to achieve that from within the perverted paradigm that passes for ‘normal politics’ in Jersey doesn’t work - and I wouldn’t be doing my constituents any good if I pretended that it did.

8: To those who criticise me for being so determined to carry on fighting for justice – to get the ‘hateful crimes’ exposed and punished – I would point out that certain States members don’t do anything – let alone campaign strongly for a single cause. Well, when I say don’t do anything, I concede that they turn up as lobby-fodder, to vote and speak as they are told by the oligarchy whips.

Even if the campaign for child protection was the only thing I did – it is difficult imagine a more necessary and worthwhile cause. It is not enough, merely to have recognised that ‘hateful crimes’ took place.

Justice must be delivered.

And – it will be. Trust me.

No matter that it take another decade.

9: My political ‘manifesto’ – the policies and changes I believe are needed for the good of this community - is broader and deeper than most States members combined could articulate.

I mean – how many other States members could say they have achieved such innovative and forward-looking legislation – that has made it a criminal offence not to turn up to, events you didn’t have to turn up to?

And should you not be suitably impressed by that – consider; I was able to have sarcasm outlawed – in a matter of days – without even being there.

Let no one ever again dare criticise my legislative skills.

10: The political culture and habits of Jersey are toxic. Plainly – what passes for ‘normal’ politics has left the island’s future a heap of smoking wreckage.

We have sold the future of Jersey – to a collection of spivs and carpet-baggers – for a mess-of-pottage.

What do we have to show?

A community in which a basic starter home for a family costs over half-a-million pounds; a community in which around 15% of the population live in relative poverty by EU definitions; we have ruined much of our environment; we have no economic ‘Plan B’ for the imminent end of ‘the gold rush’ – and we have no sovereign wealth fund – instead a microscopic strategic reserve – that wouldn’t meet one year’s public sector expenditure.

Being a politician – requires doing politics. And politics – at least the functioning kind – are usually ‘troublesome’.

The traditional approach to politics in Jersey – that it is far better to be “polite” than speak the truth – is largely responsible for our ruination.

Addressing those ten arguments brings us back to why I am here in London.

I am here because we have a public administration - a legislature, a judiciary, a prosecution system and a senior civil service – that is so useless, dishonest, corrupt – and, frankly, dangerous – that it fell to me – after, let it be noted, several attempts to address the issue through the ‘normal’ and ‘official’ channels – to publicly expose an individual who plainly poses a clear and present danger to vulnerable people.

A man the Jersey prosecution system decided could be released from remand in custody for other, serious, offences – two days after they had decided to launch a major investigation on the grounds of compelling evidence he is a dangerous serial killer.

I knew publishing the information would have all kinds of serious consequences for me and, sure enough – the oligarchy had to crush me – precisely because it is so well-evidenced that they failed.

Failed catastrophically.

You see, if there is one thing the Jersey oligarchy suddenly gets efficient at – it is crushing those who expose their intrinsic failure.

But not always successfully.

Who knows – if I can carry on evading “justice” amongst London’s criminal underworld – and perhaps even recruiting new gang members – and having a few turf-wars, I’ll be able carve-out my own Manor – and from the hub of a crime-empire – take sarcasm into another whole realm – previously undreamt of in the world of organised crime.

I can see the States of Jersey now – meeting every other day to pass new legislation.

Not wearing a tie? Mandatory two years.

Reading The Guardian? Ten years hard labour and a ‘re-education’ programme.

Describing ‘Tel Boy’ Le Main as a halfwit? Five years under the Protection from Understatements (Jersey) Law October 2009.

Asking a difficult parliamentary question? £50,000 fine – under the Health and Safety at Work (Unemployable Civil Servants: Protection) (Jersey) Law November 2009.

Just imagine the criminal satisfaction in causing so much chaos?

What a pity that – no matter what wicked goading – the Jersey oligarchy will remain too thick to introduce the ‘Saving People from their Own Stupidity and Hubris (In Bottom of Hole, Stop Digging) (Jersey) Law 2009’ – and the associated ‘Don’t Try to Put Out a Fire With a Can of Petrol ( Prevention of Oligarchy Self-Immolation) Regulations 2009’.

Whilst it is difficult for us to imagine what our ‘OG’, Anatole France, would have written concerning the ‘law’ – as practiced by the Jersey oligarchy – no such difficulty faces us when looking to another of his famous quotes:

"We have never heard the devil's side of the story, God wrote all the book."

When considering the eutrophic pond that is power in Jersey – a body of pestilential fluid so thickly freighted with algal scum the Nazis were able to sail upon its surface without causing so much as a ripple – a rank midden emitting a miasma of propaganda so toxic that even in the year 2009 it has drugged most of the population into believing that organised politics is something wicked and dangerous – we know what our gang leader would have said:

“We have never heard God’s side of the story, the devil wrote all the book.”

Oh such wicked sarcasm.

I hear the States of Jersey are re-introducing the death-penalty next week.

Stuart.

LETTER FROM EXILE: #1

2009-10-24T14:29:00.003+01:00

LOOKING INTO THE MICROCOSM

FROM REALITY.

From a Secret Address

Somewhere in London.

“Beware of him that is slow to anger; for when it is long coming, it is the stronger when it comes, and the longer kept. Abused patience turns to fury.”

Francis Quarles

You know, I’ve often been told by Jersey oligarchy politicos - and their various users, aspirants, puppet-masters, frightfully misguided supporters, and assorted blackmailers - that I was no bloody use as a politician.

And you know what? I’m beginning to think they must be right.

I mean, I’ve been away from the island for only a few days – and in my absence there has been a truly miraculous transformation in the efficiency of the States assembly and its ability to formulate and produce new legislation.

Just consider – when I flew to London on Monday, Jersey had in place the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.

Yet the island’s legislature had it repealed by Wednesday lunchtime.

Impressive, no?

But this dramatic acceleration of legislative activity just amplified as the day went on.

By Wednesday afternoon – it had suddenly become a criminal offence – not to turn up to – a court hearing – one didn’t have to turn up to.

I wonder if this innovative new legislation has – on Thursday, perhaps – been extended beyond the “judicial” environment.

Perhaps your elected representatives will now be subject to arrest warrants – should they not turn-up to the latest time-wasting, brain-rotting PowerPoint presentation?

It can, surely, only be a matter of time – Monday afternoon, perhaps – before the newly efficient and lightning fast States has expanded this new law to encompass members of the public?

For example – imagine just how much easier it will be for the oligarchy if – next time they issue an “invitation” to members of the public to attend the latest propagandising, opinion-management exercise – err – sorry, “participative public consultation” – and you don’t turn up, they can simply order your arrest?

After all, these manufacturing-consent exercises are expensive – and those oligarchy policies aren’t going to gain spurious credibility on their own, you know!

But the States have not confined their new-found vigour to only repealing the human rights law, and making it a criminal offence to not turn up to events you didn’t have to turn up to.

Oh no.

Did you know - it’s now a serious criminal offence to write sarcastic e-mails to a lawyer?

I suppose, now one thinks about it, it’s hardly surprising that the States enacted this new legislation on Wednesday morning – just as soon as this hitherto horrifying lacuna in the island’s laws had been recognised.

On Wednesday afternoon, the court was held, rapt, as Advocate Baker bravely lifted the e-mail from the bench, and, calling upon all his fortitude acquired over years of legal practice, began to read the toxic document. He had had to be locked in cells when meeting with his killer and drug-gangster client Curtis Warren – but even that could not approach the sheer terror and emotional damage Advocate Baker had to confront in reading the e-mail I had sent him.

The court sat in horrified silence – members of the public, and even hardened hacks, scarcely able to comprehend that a human being could be capable of such evil.

Imagine the public outrage – protests on the streets, no doubt – had Advocate Baker had to have stood in court – having suffered this atrocity – and there had been no law to shelter him from such violation?

And he’s only earned £500,000 from this case, so far. Had the States not introduced this new legislation, I’m sure public sympathy would have enabled Advocate Baker to raise the next two million from donations alone, without having to wait until his bill is settled by grateful taxpayers.

Let no one say again that the States of Jersey are slow to produce laws when a pressing public need becomes apparent.

It was obviously me – who had been holding them back all these years.

I used to sit before the laptop screen – and try to marshal the salient events of the last two years and six months into some kind of narrative – but I would be halted by the thought, “nah – that can’t be real; that can’t have happened. I’ll wake up tomorrow – in a respectable, democratic society – and realise it was all a tortuous dream - brought about by the Roquefort and Gorgonzola crepe I ate the night before.”

But no - events that would challenge the combined imaginative skill of Samuel Becket and Franz Kafka didn’t dissolve with the dawn light.

Instead, I realised that, yes, I did have to prepare for another court hearing – with a judge who is entirely happy and unconcerned at the fact the prosecution has – in the name of the Crown – committed at least – at least – three straightforward acts of demonstrable perjury.

So if what has taken place isn’t a dream – what other explanation?

Well – I could be totally in the wrong.

Perhaps it is normal for opposition politicians to get arrested at their home by a squad of ten cops – for trying to hold the executive to account - and then get locked in a police cell for seven-and-a-half hours – whilst the “under new management” officers then ransack the home from top to bottom – searching everything – without a search warrant?

What if that is, indeed, a more appropriate use of police resources – than investigating, arresting and searching the home and bank-accounts of the bribe-taking States member – against whom they know of comprehensive evidence - and willing witnesses?

Maybe it is standard practice for multi-millionaire drug dealers to have legal aid funded by tax-payers – yet, on the other hand, to spend millions of pounds of tax-payers money on the oppression of a dissident politician – and deny him effective legal representation – just to be on the safe side?

It really could be so – that it is the job of judges simply to do whatever they’re told by the prosecution lawyer – and whoever it is that mysteriously awaits in the judge’s chamber - to “advise” them during the multitude of otherwise inexplicable and mystifying “adjournments”?

I see now that we can safely assume from the vastly improved performance of the States of Jersey, that I just didn’t understand things – and had become deluded by paranoia of such a degree it was preventing me from grasping reality.

But - on the other hand, if it were paranoia – it would only be happening to me, surely?

I would be living in my own little bubble of unreality – alone – whilst no other person experienced such things.

There would be no Simon Bellwood.

There would be no John Day.

There would be no Graham Power.

And dozens of others like them in Jersey – who have incurred the wrath of “The Firm”?

The case of Graham Power is quite topical, now I come to think of it.

Mr. Power is the Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force.

In what was plainly a pre-planned – and unlawful – manoeuvre, worked-up by the core Jersey oligarchs - Graham was – without warning – suspended; he was not afforded proper due process; no remotely credible reason was given; to this day no faintly plausible grounds have been established to justify such extreme action; and he, too, has been subjected to a negative campaign of spin by the oligarchy.

In fact, the action against Graham Power serves very well as an illustration of “The Firm” at work.

Graham is the head of a Police Force that was conducting an extensive investigation into long-term corporate and institutional criminality - committed against children - by a large organisation – the States of Jersey.

In scenes that could only happen in Jersey, he was suspended from his post - with zero warning - by the then Home Affairs Minister, and the States Chief Executive.

Just think about that:

You have a very powerful and established organisation, which has been engaging in very seriously criminal activities for decades. After all those decades, you finally – accidentally, perhaps - get leadership of the Police Force of sufficient integrity, professionalism and bravery to investigate and tackle that long catalogue of shameful lawlessness.

But, it just so happens – that the organisation in question employs the police leaders; the men who are causing all this immense difficulty for ‘The Firm’.

So, in one easy step - ‘The Firm” rids itself of this troublesome criminal investigation – by getting a member of the board of directors (read Home Affairs Minister) and the ‘company’s’ Chief Executive (read Chief Executive to the cabinet ) to just go - and sack the boss of the Police.

The Chief Executive then destroys the contemporaneous notes of the unscheduled suspension meeting – and there you go!

Sorted!

Problem solved!

Easy.

You see – if only the Mafia studied “The Jersey Way”, there’d be no need for all those assassinations. You got a problem with the Police? Just make sure you employ them. Then you’d be able to terminate their contract in the literal – as opposed to the metaphorical – sense, just like the Jersey Bosses.

And – if you’re the Jersey Bosses – it doesn’t even matter that you’ve grossly breached the Police Chief’s contract – because, why - you own the courts, too!

And it doesn’t even matter that your suspension of the Police Chief was – plainly – a criminal act – a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – why, because the chief prosecutor is a member of ‘the board’ – and advised you on the illegal suspension in the first place!

But - here things begin to get a little difficult - and show that “The Firm” may well have had an Enron-quality board. You see - it wouldn’t have even mattered – previously - that evidence in your possession shows the Police Chief’s suspension to have been a pre-planned, criminal act – because you wouldn’t have had to disclose that evidence.

However – terribly problematically – because of the suspended Police Chief’s tenacity and ability – you’ve been required to disclose to him the binary data from “The Firm’s” computers - which shows that the supposedly contemporaneous letters informing him of what was, allegedly, an emergency suspension – had, in fact, been worked on for weeks before - thus proving the exercise was pre-planned all along.

Which is why I hope – I really do – that the States of Jersey haven’t overreached themselves in embracing the new, amazingly fast approach to devising and introducing fresh legislation – like they must have done last week.

Because if they have – well – it could all end in tears, couldn’t it?

Just as what appeared to be a simple and easy solution to their problem of being an organisation under serious criminal investigation – suspending the Police Chief - has proven to be a potentially terminal exercise in hubristic overreach.

Our oligarchy thought – as they often do, bless – they’d be “clever” – and define the electronic evidence sought by the Police Chief as “not existing in the form of information” - because “no one has looked at it” – a bit like Schrödinger’s cat.

Information in the form of a fuzzy super-symmetry that would only have its wave-function collapsed into particle-like existence – if you looked at it! And who would be foolish enough to do that?

You see how advanced “The Jersey Firm” thought they were? They didn’t need tired old metaphors, like ‘sweeping dirt under the carpet’.

They thought they’d discovered the quantum cover-up.

Stuart.

ON THE ART OF FORGETTING.

2009-10-21T14:27:00.002+01:00

"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

Milan Kundera.

"By forgetting the past and by throwing myself into other interests, I forget to worry."

Jack Dempsey.

"Long for me as I for you, forgetting, what will be inevitable, the long black aftermath of pain."

Malcolm Lowry.

“Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.”

Malcolm Muggeridge.

An E-Mail to the Jersey Judicial Establishment.

From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 21 October 2009 14:00
To: David Le Heuze; 'Stephen Baker'; Jonathan Bertram; William Redgrave
Cc: William Bailhache
Subject: Forgetfulness.
Importance: High.

Dear Mr. Le Heuze, Advocate Baker, Mr. Bertram, Mr. Redgrave

I do apologise. You know, these exercises are so complex and demanding, the most obvious of things can escape one's mind!

I can't actually be in court at 2.00 pm this afternoon - as I'm in London - where I have come to seek and secure some heavyweight legal advice. Who knows - perhaps some expertise that might even approach Advocate Baker's mastery of the subject?

Naturally, the people I'm hoping to secure advice from are very learned and very busy, so it has taken longer than I expected. Oh - I nearly forgot - I am also discussing the case with a number of Members of Parliament.

But - as this afternoon's event is merely a directions hearing, there isn't actually a specific requirement for the accused to be present.

Not - frankly - that it would make one atom of difference if I were present; Advocate Baker and the Jersey judiciary are going to undertake the extraordinary and unprecedented step of having the extant - and previously un-resisted defence case - that of public interest disclosure, based upon the catastrophic failure of the 1999 investigation into "Nurse M" - suddenly ruled "inadmissible" - because Advocate Baker and his Jersey oligarchy paymasters simply have no answer to the defence case - whatsoever.

Oh - silly me! I nearly forgot another reason for my presence in London. I'm in the process of finalising my legal action for personal damages against UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw, which I will have served in the next few days. After all, Mr. Straw himself has accepted, on-the-record, that he does carry responsibility for good governance and the proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies.

As I'm sure you'll recognise - he has very badly failed to carry out those duties - in a number of cases - not merely mine. For example - there can't be many places in the world that won't prosecute a child battering maniac - preferring instead to leave him in charge of the Education Department.

But, I imagine, such decisions free-up resources to enable the very obviously necessary prosecution of an elected representative of the people of Jersey - for trying to stop their grandmothers getting murdered.

Once again - do please accept my apologies for forgetting to alert you to my absence earlier.

After all - we can all be very forgetful about the most obvious of things - can't we?

For example like a judge turning up to hear a case - and having to borrow the relevant law book from the accused.

Or - oh so easily - the prosecution lawyer, allowing it to escape his mind that - in fact - he was aware of very significant items of evidence relevant to the defence - so didn’t declare or disclose them.

Fortunately, I was able to prompt Advocate Baker and remind him of the existence of that evidence, which he was then able to remember - for example - the fact that Mick Gradwell spent over half his time in Jersey doing nothing except “investigate” me and Lenny Harper.

And that Gradwell had two full-time cops - Mark Cane and Julia Jackson - doing nothing except investigate me - at the behest of Bill Bailhache - in a desperate search for something - anything - that could be used to side-track and discredit me.

You see - even though such evidenced facts are plainly of the most central importance to my abuse of process application - the prosecution unfortunately forgot about them.

It's easily done, I'll concede.

Indeed - why - only this morning I was e-mailed two further items of evidence - which the prosecution had forgotten - hitherto - to make me aware of - let alone disclose.

But - we're all forgetful, once in a while - don't you agree?

So once again, please accept my apologies for forgetting to alert you earlier to my absence.

See you in court next time.

Regards.

Stuart.

THE JERSEY AUTHORITIES:

2009-10-05T02:48:00.003+01:00

TRUSTWORTHY AND ETHICAL?

A CASE-STUDY.

An Evidenced Examination of the Conduct of Bill Ogley,

Jersey’s Chief Civil Servant.

No matter where one looks across the top-tier of Jersey’s civil service, one comes across examples of incompetence, ignorance, ethical bankruptcy, dishonesty, and even examples of straight criminality.

So much material exists, it can be easy to lose sight of the details in specific cases.

I thought, then, that it would be useful to focus upon one, evidenced example, and make something of a case-study of it – given its topicality – and importance.

And what I find fascinating about this type of politically controversial case, is that it isn’t a Left-wing vs. Right-wing issue. The kind of evidenced conduct I’m going to explain below would be regarded as wholly unacceptable, and counter to the public good, amongst all respectable politicians – be they Labour, Conservative or Lib-Dem.

Where, we will have to wonder, does that leave the Jersey political oligarchy?

But, before I take readers through that evidence – let’s catch up on recent events.

My apologies for still not producing the next substantive posting in my ‘legal advice from the web’ series.

Every time I think I’ve managed to engage with the sheer incredibility of events – something else comes to light.

Sometimes things so extraordinary that I have to manoeuvre my perspective into another whole paradigm.

Eventually – after months of frankly absurd refusals to disclose on the part of the prosecution – I gained access to some of the core evidence upon which they rely in prosecuting me for allegedly breaking the data protection law.

There are limits to what I can report now – but trust me – the word “sensational” is not out-of-place in describing the evidence that will be examined in open court during the prosecution.

Frankly – my guilt or innocence is going to be an irrelevance.

So sensational - I’d be seriously tempted to deliberately “throw” the abuse-of-process hearing – if I thought for one instant there was any danger of me winning it.

In the previous posting, I predicted the professional demise of certain senior public sector employees. And amongst that number I have predicted the departure of the subject of this posting – the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey – Bill Ogley.

Incidentally, congratulations to my sources; they were on-the-money concerning the demise of Mike Pollard. I was going to say ‘professional’ demise – but one could hardly associate the word with him.

So – what, then, of the other predictions?

I’m given to understand that the Verita report into the corporate manslaughter of Elizabeth Rourke is – surprisingly – actually going to be a reasonably accurate and professional report – insofar as it can be, within the bounds of the terms of reference - and its genesis.

But believe me – if the report is going to be thorough, good and fearless – these things don’t happen by accident.

If it hadn’t been for the immense scrutiny brought to bear on the Verita exercise by, firstly me, and then Bob Hill, I doubt very much whether the goods would have been produced.

Which brings me to Richard Lane. As has been remarked in earlier comments, one might not be surprised that a man of his age would be retiring. But the real question is this – can the establishment keep him in place until April – if the Verita report says what it should say?

No vaguely credible or responsible public administration could. On the contrary – they’d be ushering him out the door ASAP – just as they’ve done with Pollard.

But knowing our oligarchy, they’re probably hoping that by setting Pollard adrift, they’ll have made all the sacrifices necessary. But this time, things are not going to be so easy for them.

My sources also inform me that Richard Joualt’s ambitions to become the permanent Chief Executive of Health & Social Services are now toast.

There are some things even being a mate of Phil Ozouf’s can’t save you from – and being part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in a manslaughter case is just such an eventuality.

The real question concerning Joualt is, ‘will the States be able to carry on employing him at all – if the Verita report accurately depicts events?’

Again – were we dealing with a competent and safe public administration, the answer would be “no”.

But – as regular readers of this blog will be all too painfully aware – this is Jersey of which we speak. For example – where else would the authorities have placed someone in Joualt’s circumstances, in temporary charge of H & SS - as opposed to immediately suspending the individual concerned?

If you want to understand why Joualt, along with Lane, Rose Naylor and Michala Clifford cannot remain employed by the States, just read my blog postings of the 27th, 30th & 31st (twice) of January 2009.

Just how bad do things have to have been – to have united me and the Jersey Evening Post?

Bad.

Which brings me to our case-study of the conduct of Bill Ogley.

In this posting I’m going to confront readers with some very clear, irrefutable evidence to support the case against Ogley and his senior colleagues.

This evidence will conclusively demonstrate the following facts:

That Jersey’s senior civil servants subvert democracy.

That the process of democratic accountability, all the way back to voters, can be utterly sabotaged by civil servants if they don’t like what the democratically elected politicians are doing.

That, in Jersey, senior civil servants will ruthlessly place their self-interest over and above the general public good, and even their specific duties.

That senior civil servants will lie.

That senior civil servants will conspire to protect each other.

That senior civil servants will engage in brazenly criminal actions, if that’s what it takes to protect themselves.

That they will casually engage in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice – even in a matter of such fundamental importance as child protection.

And that they will brazenly lie and deceive in anyway necessary to conceal those behaviours.

That’s quite some charge-sheet.

So let’s examine the evidence in our case-study.

As I wrote earlier, it’s easy to digress if one tries to take-in the entire cratered, smoking landscape of Jersey’s bureaucracy. So I’m going to try and be disciplined in this posting, and concentrate narrowly on our evidenced example.

A single example which illustrates clearly and powerfully the fact the leadership of the island’s civil service is utterly out-of-control, immoral, dangerous and dishonest.

Firstly, to understand the evidence we need to set the scene, and go back a couple of years – then follow events through.

In early 2007, I was the Minister for Health & Social Services.

It’s important to understand that a Minster for Health & Social Services is not merely responsible for the political oversight of the department. For in addition, the post brings with it a variety of legal duties and statutory powers. Amongst which is the legal responsibility for child protection.

For our purposes, let’s consider the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

This piece of legislation exists to promote, in a variety of ways, the welfare and safety of children.

And not only does it confer certain legal powers on the Minister of the day, it goes further, and places certain pro-active legal obligations upon the post-holder.

For example, to safeguard and promote children’s welfare – and to investigate dangers to children.

Paragraph (1) of Article 42 of that Law says this: -

“42: Minister’s duty to investigate

(1) Where the Minister –

(a) is informed that a child is the subject of an emergency protection order or is in police protection; or

(b) has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,

the Minister shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as the Minister considers necessary to enable the Minister to decide whether he or she should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.”

And, to take a further example, Paragraph 8 of Article 42 stipulates this: -

“8: Where the Minister is conducting enquiries under this Article, it shall be the duty of any administration of the States to assist the Minister with his or her enquiries (in particular by providing relevant information and advice) if called upon by the Minister to do so, unless it would be unreasonable to do so in all the circumstances of the case.”

That, then, is our first exhibit of evidence.

The Law – quite unambiguously – places a statutory obligation upon a Minister for Health & Social Services – who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer harm – to investigate the matter and take steps to safeguard the child’s welfare.

The Law also – again, unambiguously - places an unavoidable duty on any States department to assist the Minister in making such inquiries.

Certain facts and consequences flow from such Law.

For example – if a States department – or departments – fails to assist the Minister, then those departments are breaking the law.

And if a group of people colluded for the purpose of trying to conceal from the Minister, the fact that children were suffering harm, then those people would be engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It is a criminal offence to harm children – therefore knowingly attempting to conceal such crimes against children is a criminal act.

And if any person, or group of people who hold a public office – for example, politicians, civil servants, police officers, prosecutors, judges and so on – breaks the law in such ways – or seeks to hinder and obstruct a Minister from fulfilling their statutory obligations – then those people are committing the common-law criminal offence of ‘misconduct in a public office’.

Therefore, we have established the fact that a Minister for H & SS has legal powers and obligations to investigate child welfare issues if the Minister has reasonable cause to suspect risks to children.

And we have established that seeking to obstruct an H & SS Minster in carrying out those duties is a criminal act.

So, having laid out the theory – let’s look at events in practice.

In early 2007, I began to become aware of less than acceptable standards and practices in Jersey’s child protection apparatus. Whilst initially not appearing too serious, still I had cause for concern. So, carrying out my legal duties and obligations, I began to investigate these matters.

And, gradually, the more I investigated, the greater and greater my concerns became. I networked through increasing numbers of whistle-blowers, survivors and witnesses, until – by around May 2007, I was forced to conclude we had a major, decades-old, systemic child protection failure on our hands.

Around that time, I did two things which terrified the relevant senior civil servants. I wrote a stark and angry e-mail to a multi-disciplinary team about a specific child protection case which I had asked to be investigated. The report I received revealed mind-bogglingly catastrophic inadequacies which had led to the suffering of a child going undetected for many months.

And, in July of 2007, I was asked a question in the island’s parliament about the children’s’ homes. Knowing what I knew by that stage, I concluded my answer by saying words to the effect, ‘if I’m being asked do I have any faith in the island’s child protection apparatus, frankly I have to say no, and I’m going to commission an independent, external investigation.’

In a stark example of all that is dysfunctional and stagnant in Jersey’s public administration, the relevant civil servants knew they had a shared culpability for these systemic child protection failures – and they knew they had a shared interest in burying the problems - brushing it all under the carpet.

Therefore the senior civil servants and certain politicians – in an attempt to keep it all concealed – set about engineering my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister.

An action in which Ogley was instrumental.

Now – as we’ve already established – to obstruct the Minister in his statutory duties – and to collude in an attempt to conceal criminal acts against children - amounts to a breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

And this is what a cohort of Jersey’s senior civil servants, and certain politicians did.

Engaged in unambiguously criminal conduct.

If Jersey were an environment in which the rule of law and administration of justice actually functioned properly – and we didn’t have a situation in which oligarchy characters like Bill Bailhache can decide - according to his political whim – who will be charged and who won’t – those who engaged in this criminal activity would have been prosecuted.

But, of course – and notwithstanding a variety of formal, criminal complaints from me to the States of Jersey Police Force – none of these people have been charged.

Indeed – since an unlawful political coup was mounted against the Chief Constable, Graham Power by people like Ogley and David Warcup – I haven’t had so much as a single up-date on the “progress” of my criminal complaints.

Thus far, we’ve established that it is a criminal offence to obstruct the Minister, and to collude in doing so in order to conceal child abuse is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

And I have alleged that the senior civil servants, such as Ogley, Pollard, Marnie Baudains and others acted in just that way, and committed criminal offences.

So, what evidence do I have to ‘stand-up’ my charge against them?

I won’t digress into the detail of the events of the summer of 2007; instead I’ll just state a couple of key facts.

None of us at that time – politicians or senior civil servants – were aware of the covert police investigation. At that stage, it still appeared to the oligarchy that I was the only person trying to address the child protection failures, so if they discredited and sacked me, they could carry on with the culture of concealment.

So desperate were they to shut me up that the Council of Ministers committed a further criminal offence, in ignoring the requirement of the States of Jersey Law to provide an effective opportunity for a Minister to state his case to the rest of the Council before a dismissal debate is tabled. Instead, they fast-tacked the process with an unscheduled meeting – of which I had only five days notice, and even compounded that by giving me less than 24 hours notice of the actual “case” against me.

This criminal act was fully endorsed and supported by Michael Birt, in his capacity as Deputy Bailiff. In making this decision – he failed to declare his conflicts of interest – in that he was the Attorney General who let the child torturing McGuires escape prosecution – and who failed to prosecute those criminals responsible for concealing at least 15 years worth of child abuse at Victoria College.

He too, had every reason to want to see the child abuse scandals buried.

To resume our narrative – in November 2007 – after I had been removed from the post of H & SS Minister - I become aware of the covert police investigation, and that investigation goes public a couple of weeks later.

It had been very clear to me - and to survivors – that the Police had been a large part of the problem in years and decades gone by. But suddenly – we were faced with a police force that was actually doing its job properly. Having our faith established in the States of Jersey Police Force, under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper, I, and many others began to make our various formal statements of criminal complaint.

In that context, let us turn to our next exhibit of evidence.

I reproduce here an e-mail I wrote to Graham Power, Alison Fossey and Lenny Harper, on the 20th November, 2007.

This was the e-mail with which I notified the Police that I wished to make a formal criminal complaint against Pollard, Ogley and all the other involved senior civil servants and politicians.

“From: Stuart Syvret [mailto:St.Syvret@gov.je]
Sent: 20 November 2007 19:35
To: Power, Graham; Fossey, Alison; Harper, Lenny
Subject: FW: Letter from Mr. Pollard [Scanned]

Graham, Alison & Lenny

I am forwarding this e-mail to you. You may well have it already, but I thought I should send it directly to you.

I wrote this e-mail and sent it to all States members. Attached to it is a PDF of a letter from Mike Pollard, which he sent to all H & SS staff, dated 14th September.
I was on the brink of sending the detailed and very critical response to the Pollard letter, which I promised in the e-mail below. However, I have now held back from doing so because of your work.

To think at one time I trusted Mr Pollard and thought he was a conscientious civil servant. It didn’t take him long to "go native" that's for sure.

I would like you to take this e-mail as early notice of a formal complaint I intend to make to you concerning the actions of Mr Pollard, and, indeed, of other civil servants who calculatedly sought to obstruct and impede my lawful work as H & SS Minister in respect of the Children's Law. By seeking to cover-up clear service deficiencies and to engineer the dismissal of the only politician who was being critical of them is nothing less than an assault on the effectiveness of child protection.

I am happy to write a lengthy account of all my concerns and come to the station to give a formal statement. I understand the gravity of these issues and everything I have to say I will be more than happy to state under oath in court when the time comes.

I don't know how much Pollard is involved with you? But do note - he, like so many other civil servants - shares the culpability for the failings and deficiencies of the system. Therefore very many - perhaps virtually all - of the senior staff and civil-servants who you would normally expect to be on the side of child welfare, now have a shared, common interest in covering things up and minimising the problems and the bad news.

The letter from Pollard is a good example of this. It is nakedly dishonest, misleading and dissembling. It is - prima facie - a component in the cover-ups. When you see the language he uses, when he says just how perfect and super-perfect is every single aspect of child protection in Jersey – well, it just makes me want to vomit.

Thanks

Stuart”

I received a formal response to that e-mail.

A response to which we will return.

But before doing so, let me move forward in the chronology.

Being aware of a multitude of gross child protection failures – indeed, many examples of pro-active cover-ups, I continued to fight for the cause. One of the avenues of inquiry I pursued was trying to discover exactly what had, in fact, taken place behind the scenes during that 2007 summer of concealments.

It was my firm knowledge that in the days leading up to the 25th and 26th July 2007 –and on those two days in particular – senior civil servants, such as Ogley, Pollard, Marnie Baudains, Tom McKeon, Mario Lundy - and others – conspired and colluded to engineer my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister – for the express purpose of concealing their sustained, gross malfeasances in respect of child “protection”.

I have been helped in the task of investigating this issue by many people – but in this context I want to focus on the support given by the Connetable of St. Helier, Simon Crowcroft.

In an effort to obtain minutes – and other relevant information – Connetable Crowcroft sought answers to a number of questions he asked of the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur – and Chief Executive, Bill Ogley.

After much persistence, Simon eventually obtained a formal note written by Ogley, which purported to answer Simon’s questions.

I reproduce here the covering e-mail thread.

“From: Simon Crowcroft
Sent: 19 February 2009 09:37
To: Terry Le Sueur (T.LeSueur2@gov.je)
Cc: S.Syvret@gov.je
Subject: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

Hello Terry.

I refer to the above meeting and would appreciate your answers to the following qns pls:

1. Were any members of the CMB invited to stay behind after the closure of the meeting by Mr Ogley and if so which members?

2. What was the subject matter of this discussion?

3. Was any record kept by any member present of this section of the meeting?

4a. Did a meeting of the Children's Panel take place on the same day?

4b. Was an agenda provided for this meeting and were minutes taken? (if you are unable to answer this qn pls refer me to the appropriate person to ask.)

Thanks in anticipation
Rgds

Simon.

Original Message
From: aascrowcroft
Sent: 24 February 2009 18:35
To: aascrowcroft; Terry Le Sueur
Cc: Stuart Syvret
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

Evening Terry

I've had no acknowledgement of this email so far. Pls cd you confirm it's being looked into? Thanks.

Kind Regards

Simon Crowcroft.

Original Message
From: Terry Le Sueur
Sent: 24 February 2009 23:20
To: aascrowcroft
Cc: Bill Ogley
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

Dear Simon,

The questions are impossible for me to answer, as I did not attend the meeting in question. I will relay your enquiries to the Chief Executive for any comments he may have.

Terry.

Original Message
From: Bill Ogley
Sent: 26 February 2009 08:48
To: Terry Le Sueur; aascrowcroft
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

I will produce a note and send it to both of you.

Bill Ogley

From: Bill Ogley [mailto:B.Ogley@gov.je]
Sent: 26 February 2009 17:11
To: Terry Le Sueur; Simon Crowcroft
Subject: FW: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

As promised here is a note of my recollection of the events referred to. it is accompanied by the confirmed notes of the CMB meetings in June, July and August 2008.

I hope this answers all of your questions.

Bill Ogley

From: aascrowcroft
Sent: 28 February 2009 16:12
To: Stuart Syvret
Subject: FW: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

TLS has given me permission to release this info to you

Kind Regards
Simon Crowcroft.”

Which brings us to our next exhibit of evidence – the note written by Bill Ogley, as referred to in his e-mail above, of the 26th February 2009.

This is a formal note, written by a civil servant, in answer to questions put to him by a democratically accountable politician, the Connetable of St. Helier, Simon Crowcroft.

It is important to bear in mind that a politician is, effectively, the representative, the voice, or the delegate of the many thousands of people who voted for her or him. So when a politician is lied to by officials, obstructed and deceived – it is, in effect, the tax-paying public who are being lied to, manipulated and conned.

I reproduce here the relevant passage from Ogley’s note – the section where he actually addresses the substantive issue.

“CORPORATE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MEETING ON 25 JULY 2007

NOTE BY BILL OGLEY – CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND HEAD OF THE PAID SERVICE

“…..I made no notes of what was a very informal conversation, and I do not know if any other Chief Officers would have done so. Given the nature of the conversation I doubt they would have but, with one exception, I have not asked them. The exception is that on two separate occasions Senator Syvret has said in the States that he had seen, been shown, or told of notes of a meeting of Chief Officers prepared by a Senior Police Officer.

On each occasion when I was made aware of these statements I asked the Chief Police Officer if he had made such notes, if so, what meeting was referred to and whether he had shared them with the Senator. I was told that he had not and I was not surprised by his response.

Did a meeting of the Children’s Panel take place on the same day? I do not know what the Children’s Panel is. At that time there was the Corporate Parent, the meeting of the three responsible Ministers, the JCPC, or there may be a different grouping that is being referred to. I am not a member of any such panels or similar groupings. In any event I do not know if any of these meetings took place on 25 July 2007.

Bill Ogley

Chief Executive to Council of Minister and Head of Paid Service

26 February 2009”

So – there we have it.

My claims, suspicions and conclusions are wrong – because Bill Ogley says so.

In respect of the fundamental points - according to Ogley –

1: The Chief Officer of the Police, Graham Power, made no notes of a meeting at which he was alarmed by the nature of the discussion amongst civil servants concerning the engineering of my dismissal as Minister.

2: Graham Power was asked by Ogley if he had written such notes and shared them with me – and Mr. Power told Ogley he had written no such notes.

3: Ogley is wholly unaware of any meeting of the Jersey Child Protection Committee having taken place on the 25th July, 2007.

In essence, those are the three, core claims made by Ogley in response to Connetable Crowcroft’s questions.

Let’s just remind ourselves of the stage the narrative of our case-study has reached.

A Health & Social Services Minister is legally obliged to protect children.

All States of Jersey departments are obliged to support a Minister in such work.

To fail to give such support is a criminal offence.

To seek to conceal from the Minister acts of abuse against children is a conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice.

Additionally, for public officials to act in such ways amounts to the common-law criminal offence of misconduct in a public office.

I allege that people like Ogley, Baudains, Pollard, Lundy etc have committed such criminal acts in obstructing me.

I have made formal complaints to the Police to that effect.

Others, such as the Connetable of St. Helier, have tried to help to uncover the truth by asking important questions.

Bill Ogley has responded to him – and asserted that there is no basis for my allegations; that no child protection meeting occurred on the 25th July 2007, that the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, was not concerned by a meeting he had been party to, and that he had made no notes of such a meeting.

Now, let us remember my e-mail – quoted above – of the 20th November, 2007, to Graham Power, Alison Fossey and Lenny Harper.

I said that we’d return to the formal response I received to that e-mail.

The response was dynamite.

Below, I quote the relevant passage – in which a Chief Constable of a Police Force formally notifies a politician, that he, and a Detective Inspector Colleague, both felt compelled to make formal notes of meetings at which they were present, when the engineering of the dismissal of the politician was discussed.

It is to the immense credit of both Officers that they recognised what was taking place for the disgraceful anti-democratic obstruction of child protection that it was, and recorded formal notes of what they’d witnessed.

Response to 20th November 2007 e-mail of Stuart Syvret:

“From: Graham Power
Sent: 21 November 2007 09:47
To: Stuart Syvret; Fossey, Alison; Lennie Harper
Subject: RE: Letter from Mr. Pollard [Scanned]
Sensitivity: Confidential

“…….I now have something else to communicate.

After some discussion with the other parties copied into this e-mail we have agreed that it is in the interests of fairness in respect of your possible complaint, and in the wider public interest that we should disclose that both myself and Detective Inspector Fossey have evidence which may be relevant to the matters you complain of. The evidence is in the form of notes made following separate meetings which we both attended on the afternoon of Wednesday 25th July 2007 at which matters relating to your position were discussed. These notes have been preserved and can be made available to any competent enquiry or investigation.

…….”

Yours Faithfully.

G. Power.

Graham Power
Chief Officer”

In case the gravity and magnitude of that eludes readers, here we have a witness - of no less authority and stature than the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force - making a formal, written disclosure to a politician that the Chief Officer and a senior colleague have both witnessed, and recorded in formal notes, meetings at which the ‘removal’ of the politician was discussed by civil servants and others.

In what kind of societies do incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats engineer the dismissal of democratically elected and accountable politicians?

In order to stop those politicians carrying out their legal responsibilities?

Certainly not functioning democracies.

There is a stark and implacable truth bearing down upon Jersey, here.

We are a failed jurisdiction - in which democracy, the rule of law, the public good, the administration of justice and common decency have been buried beneath a landslide of conniving, foul, immoral, self-interest, decadence and hubris.

But – the email from Mr. Power is not the only exhibit of evidence in our particular case-study.

Let us remember, Ogley, in his notes to Simon Crowcroft, wrote that he was unaware of any kind of child protection meeting having taken place on the 25th July, 2007. He said this:

“In any event I do not know if any of these meetings took place on 25 July 2007.”

Well, such a meeting - of the then ‘Jersey Child “Protection” Committee’ - did take place; a body which should, at that time, have more appropriately been known as ‘the Jersey Child Abusers and Civil Servants Protection Committee’.

That ‘emergency meeting’ - which did take place on the 25th July, 2007 - was a key component in the engineering of my dismissal. A letter was “approved”, demanding my sacking, for “undermining staff moral”.

Though the letter was signed by the then Chair of the JCPC, Iris Le Feuvre, it was, in fact, written by the Directorate Manger of Social Services – Marnie Baudains.

Baudains being THE Jersey civil servant with prime, direct responsibility for child protection – and thus direct responsibility for the gross failures I was exposing at the time.

It was that JCPC meeting of the 25th July 2007, at which Detective Inspector Alison Fossey was present – as stated in Mr. Power’s e-mail to me. Like Graham, after witnessing, and understanding what was taking place, she left the meeting, not wishing to be a party to it, and filed her notes when back at the station.

But – according to Bill Ogley, the meeting did not take place – or, to allow him his sophistry, if it did – he “did not know” of it.

Well, that’s a dilemma, isn’t it?

Chief of the Police, Graham Power says that he and Detective Inspector Fossey were sufficiently concerned at what they witnessed at these meetings to record formal notes.

But Ogley says he is unaware of the child “protection” meeting – and, in any event, he asked Mr. Power if he had taken notes - and Mr. Power said ‘no’.

Let us ask ourselves a simple question:

Who do we believe?

Graham Power - a man of impeccable integrity, of spotless professional record, a recipient of the Queen’s Medal for Policing – and who has incurred the corrupt wrath of the Jersey establishment for doing his job too effectively – and was suspended by an oligarchy politician and Bill Ogley?

Or –

Bill Ogley – an evidenced liar, a man who will engage in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice to conceal child abuse and corporate manslaughter; who will engage in the criminal, Political suspension of Mr. Power – then shred the notes of the suspension meeting before they can be verified – and who will then persist in lying about these matters – to the extent of writing brazen falsehoods to the Connetable of St. Helier?

It is not a difficult decision – is it?

You’d have to possess the IQ of an artichoke to believe Ogley instead of Mr. Power.

Indeed – one doesn’t need to “believe” who is telling the truth – as though it were an act of faith.

Instead, let us consider our last exhibit of evidence for this posting – the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ministers – which took place on the morning of the 26th July, 2007.

I reproduce a couple of excerpts from those minutes:

“COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

(57th Meeting)

26th July 2007

PART B

Confidential: exemption
3.2 (a)(i),(xiii) and (xiv)
Child protection services: concerns expressed by Senator S. Syvret.
688/2(14)

B1. The Council considered a report, dated 24th July 2007 and produced by the Chief Executive, concerning child protection arrangements in Jersey.”

The report in question was a product of the conspiracy by Ogley, other civil servants, and certain Ministers, to obstruct me in my lawful duties.

Remarkably surprising that Ogley should have so little recall of the events of that period, given he is the head of the civil service, and thus the chief executive to the States Employment Board, who produced the report, upon the demand of the senior civil servants in question.

But – it gets worse.

Remember, Ogley is, according to himself – allegedly - unaware of any child protection meeting having taken place of the 25th July, 2007.

Which is rather surprising – given the CoM minutes go on to refer to the Le Feuvre signed, Baudains authored letter – arising from the JCPC meeting of the 25th.

A letter that was physically distributed at the CoM meeting of the 26th – by Ogley himself.

“The Chief Minister advised the Council that he had received a faxed letter from the Child Protection Committee (CPC), dated 25th July 2007, in which that Committee had contended that the recent actions of Senator Syvret had ‘very seriously damaged the good name of services and individuals’ concerned in the delivery of child protection in the Island. The CPC had also stated that it had lost political confidence in the Minister for Health and Social Services. Copies of the letter were circulated to Ministers for consideration.”

Remember – this is a letter which was handed out by Ogley himself on the morning of the 26th – arising from a child ‘protection’ meeting which had occurred on the 25th.

Yet - according to Ogley – in his note to Connetable Crowcroft - he is unaware of any such meeting having taken place on the 25th.

So what conclusion do we draw?

We can see from Ogley’s own note – in contrast with the facts as described in the minutes of the Council of Ministers’ meeting – that the man is a brazen liar.

Moreover – Ogley’s account of events in respect of the meetings at which the engineering of my dismissal was discussed, is flatly contradicted by Graham Power.

To summarise the evidence.

In our case-study, we have established the legal position, and have cited the relevant law.

We have described the legal duties of the Minister.

We have described the concomitant legal obligations upon all states departments.

We have considered the corrupt events of 2007 – and the efforts of some of us to expose those actions.

We have seen the written assertions of Bill Ogley.

And – by way of contrast – we have seen the facts, as described in Graham Power’s shocking e-mail to me – and as described in the CoM minutes of the 26th July, 2007.

So where does this evidence leave us in our considerations of Jersey’s public administration?

We have a senior civil service who have conducted an all-out assault on democracy by politically engineering the dismissal of an elected Minister, because the Minister in question was exposing their child protection failures.

In acting in that way, the senior civil servants involved have committed clear-cut criminal offences, such as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

So brazen were the actions of the civil servants involved that not one – but two, senior police officers felt compelled to write formal notes recording what they’d witnessed and heard.

Our oligarchy politicians were enthusiastic participants in all the criminal conspiracies.

And in Bill Ogley - we have a liar and a criminal – who conceals child abuse and who helps to conceal corporate manslaughter – in charge of Jersey’s civil service.

A man who will blithely lie to your politicians who ask for the facts.

A man who engages in the criminal suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force – and then destroys the evidential notes – before they can be verified.

Would any competent, credible, reasonable body-politic keep this man in employment?

No.

What, then, will the Jersey oligarchy politicians do?

The answer to that question, is another question:

Which force is greater – their stupidity – or their sense of self-preservation?

Stuart.

THE END BEGINS:

2009-09-25T01:33:00.005+01:00

MIKE POLLARD – GONE.

RICHARD LANE – GOING.

BILL OGLEY – GOING.

Can Warcup be far Behind?

The Effects of the Tipping-Point

Begin to Show.

Just a very brief posting – as regular readers will understand, I’m somewhat busy these days.

I really will do the long-promised next substantive posting tomorrow.

Perhaps.

But in the mean time – some exciting and heartening news from the front-line of our war for ethics, competency, honesty and lawfulness.

Jersey’s senior civil service are – finally – about four decades too late – colliding with the reality of such notions as accountability.

Many readers will be familiar with the horrifying defects of the management of Jersey’s health & Social Services department.

The Chief Executive – Mike Pollard – helping to conceal child abuse.

A demonstrable liar and charlatan.

A disastrous failure at strategic management.

And pro-actively attempting to conceal his management team’s responsibility for the manslaughter of a patient.

Richard Lane – Consultant anaesthetist – and Jersey H & SS Medical Director.

Involved in the last hours of the life of Elizabeth Rourke – the patient unlawfully killed by H & SS.

Yet – the same man was then – as a willing participant – placed in charge - by Pollard - of the organisation’s internal case management of the suspension of a colleague, who they were trying to set-up as a scapegoat for the tragic death.

Bill Ogley – the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey.

Concealer of child abuse.

Concealer of corporate manslaughter.

Brazen – and proven – liar; the evidence for which I e-mailed to all States members on Thursday morning.

All – are finished.

David Warcup – acting Chief of Police.

He, too, must be finished – surely?

A politicised cop – who pro-actively engaged with the Jersey oligarchy’s efforts to conceal, spin and bury the truth concerning the child abuse investigation.

A senior police officer – who – along with the departed Gradwell – peddled lies to the national media – in conjunction with Frank Walker’s spin doctors – and, in doing so, strove to smear the work and reputations of good, fellow, senior police officers – such as Graham Power and Lenny Harper.

For decades, generations – centuries, even – the Jersey oligarchy has got away with such conduct - such “standards”.

The utter invulnerability – and sense of omnipotence imbued in the local power-structures has, seemingly, always been rapidly contagious to virtually anyone who joined “The Firm”.

But such unaccountability and arrogance breads hubris.

It is that which has – finally – initiated the end of the oligarchy.

At long-last, the powers-that-be in London are taking their legal and moral obligations seriously – and are beginning the over-due process or restoring good governance and the proper rule of law in Crown Dependencies like Jersey.

And in a futile effort to fend-off the inevitable remodelling of power which will be demanded by London – the bosses of “The Firm” here in Jersey are beginning to sacrifice the previously invulnerable, armour-plated senior players in the local apparatus.

Events which can only be of huge benefit to the public good.

But – it will not save the oligarchy; for such actions are too little – too late.

Expect the departure of the characters named above to be spun – to be played-out gradually in some cases – for there to be no immediate or dramatic announcements; for even some initial denials - before cosmetic reasons such as ‘compassionate’ grounds, ‘early retirement’, ‘ill-health’ – etc are used in an attempt to disguise the true reasons for their departure.

In the case of others, their departure may be altogether more sudden.

Can characters such as Attorney General William Bailhache be far behind on the departure list?

Now that the stables are – finally – getting cleaned?

Stuart.

THE SURVIVORS SPEAK OUT:

2009-09-13T13:32:00.002+01:00

TOTAL SUPPORT FOR LENNY HARPER

AND HIS TEAM.

TOTAL CONDEMNATION OF GRADWELL

AND THE LAST 12 MONTHS OF POLICE INCOMPETENCE

UNDER HIS DIRECTION.

Carrie Modral’s Press Statement

On Behalf of Survivors.

I reproduce below a statement, written, and delivered by Carrie Modral on behalf of Jersey survivors.

As difficult as it was for her to do, Carrie and a number of the Jersey survivors felt compelled to respond publicly to what had been over two weeks of extraordinary spin, nonsense, propaganda and falsehoods from Mick Gradwell - a flood of garbage cheerfully, very extensively - and uncritically - reported by the Jersey media.

Following Lenny’s retirement, the Jersey oligarchy recruited Gradwell to, ostensibly, take forward the historic abuse investigation. However, Gradwell and the recently recruited Deputy Chief Constable, David Warcup - with the collusion of Jersey oligarchy politicians and civil servants - mounted a coup against the Chief Constable Graham Power.

At the same time as the unlawful suspension was enacted without warning against Mr. Power in November 2008 – Warcup and Gradwell held a press conference in which they delivered a five page press release – written in conjunction with Frank Walker’s spin-doctors – that contained errors, omissions – and a number of demonstrable, brazen lies. The object of their exercise was to undermine and destroy the credibility of the preceding two years of detailed, professional, police investigation.

At the time I did try to find any other examples of police officers coming into a major investigation which had been on-going for two years – and then, within a matter of weeks of their arrival, holding a press conference for the sole purpose of trashing the previous two years of hard work by colleagues.

I couldn’t find one.

The actions of Warcup and Gradwell - in giving a press-conference expressly designed to destroy the viability of the investigation – remains without precedent in British policing.

So obviously flawed were the things Gradwell and Warcup said that day, that I wrote a detailed e-mail to them, in which I asked some serious questions on behalf of my constituents. You can read that e-mail in my archive.

On the 13th November 2008, I posted the e-mail on this blog, under the heading, “37 Questions for Officers Warcup & Gradwell.”

I never did get answers to even one of those 37 questions.

The questions all seemed pretty obvious to me – yet the entire Jersey media failed to challenge the two officers – and instead simply passively regurgitated their nonsense.

Pretty much as the Jersey media recently did for two solid weeks when reproducing Gradwell’s departing propaganda.

We can now see – thanks to the detailed, evidenced response by Lenny Harper in the previous posting – that Gradwell, with the enthusiastic support of the local hacks, was feeding a pack of lies to the people of this community.

In years gone by, the Jersey oligarchy would have got away with this – but now we are in the era of citizen media. Thanks to the World Wide Web, we have been able to read the facts as described in Lenny’s posting.

And we are able to read what some of the Jersey survivors think of Gradwell – and the descent into incompetence and failure of the child abuse investigation over the last 12 months under his ‘leadership’.

David Warcup’s position is simply untenable. He has participated in the unlawful, politically motivated suspension of the Chief Constable, Graham Power. He has pro-actively worked to undermine and bury the child abuse investigation. He has trashed the work of police colleagues. He has, by his own admission, destroyed evidence. He is despised by at least two-thirds of his officers in the States of Jersey Police Force. And he has thrown his lot in with the entrenched local political establishment – at least half of whom would be in jail for a variety of offences in any normal, functioning democracy.

Mick Gradwell has retired – having accomplished his mission.

But I’ve recently discovered some very, very interesting facts concerning Gradwell’s ‘policing’ activities during his time in Jersey. Facts which I shall write about in the coming days.

In the meantime, read Carrie’s statement which I reproduce below. Notice how the survivors trusted and respected the police investigation when it was being led by Lenny Harper.

And notice just how much anger and mistrust they feel towards the police investigation since it became a shambles under Gradwell’s leadership during the last 12 months.

Once again, I’d like to thank Lenny for writing his guest-posting – and taking the time and trouble to answer readers’ questions. Later this week I will assemble all of Lenny’s answers and place them in a posting, for ease of access.

Stuart.

Statement by Carrie Modral on Behalf of Jersey Survivors

For the past 2 years or so the people of Jersey have lived with the horrors of the unfolding story of Haut de la Garenne and related matters. We, on the other hand, the so called “victims of historic child abuse” have lived with the horrors for decades.

We are a group of people only because we all share a similar dreadful experience. We were all innocent children but we are as different from one another as any other people in society. We all had our own individual characters, ambitions and abilities.

Some of us have survived our experience better than others. Some have found happiness with our own families but some have found personal relationships impossible to achieve. Others sadly have succumbed to despair. But, we were all damaged in some way as a result of the abuse that we suffered whilst in the care of the States of Jersey.

When the States of Jersey Police announced 2 years ago that investigations were being commenced into child abuse allegations at various care homes, we responded with some reluctance to the call to come forward with our testimonies.

Many of us have tried to make complaints to officials about our abuse in the past, but have not been believed or have been further humiliated or worse. To re-live the experiences of our childhood abuse, even amongst family and friends, is an extremely stressful experience and it is not something that we undertake with any enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, we were given every assurance by Lenny Harper and his Police team that our experiences would be treated seriously and would be properly investigated and so far as we are aware, the investigations by Lenny Harper and his team were carried out with care and sympathetically.

We had no reason at all to believe that the Jersey Police were not managing our cases in a professional manner. We were at all times kept informed of the progress of our individual cases and we were led to believe that those who had abused us would be prosecuted where ever possible. We had no complaints about our treatment by the States of Jersey Police whilst Lenny Harper was in charge of the investigations.

However, since Lenny Harper retired, we have found that the States of Jersey Police have consistently failed to communicate directly with us, or to keep us informed of progress on our individual cases or the investigation in general.

On the contrary, we have repeatedly discovered through the media that the standards of Police conduct are hotly disputed; that there are allegations of incompetence and malpractice and such information has not been the result of casual rumour, but the deliberate outpourings of the most Senior Police Officers themselves. And most of us have learned, by the same means that more and more cases have been abandoned and that now, only one or two prosecutions might yet be initiated, but we do not know which these might be, if any. There have only been three cases taken to Court to date, all of which came back with a guilty verdict and all as a result of the work carried out by Lenny Harper and his team.

During the past 2 years we have had the most private and painful details of our lives broadcast world-wide. These details have been discussed, analysed, argued and fought over, in public, by police officers, politicians, lawyers, journalists and every Tom, Dick or Harry. Our emotions have been mangled. Our dignity stripped bare and our reputations and motivations called into question.

We did not and do not deserve such treatment.

During the past two weeks the public of Jersey has been exposed to a barrage of information, via the Jersey media, from, and interviews with, retiring police officer Gradwell which has totally rubbished the credibility of the entire investigation carried out by Lenny Harper and his team. In addition, the public have been told that the enormous expenditure is not justified.

All this has taken place in an Island where the Chief of Police is suspended from duty for reasons which have not been made public and our Political and Judicial heads seem to take every opportunity to discredit us, our complaints or the manner in which these have been dealt with. Yet, nobody made any official attempt to warn us that these things were likely to happen or that our cases might have been handled with such incompetence. Nobody has offered us even the hint of an apology that such things have been allowed to happen. They should all hang their heads in shame.

Once again, we who were abused as children and at every turn when we sought help have been treated with contempt by the Jersey Police and other island authorities. We have been humiliated yet again and are now presented in the public mind as the cause of many problems whereas we are, in fact the totally innocent victims.

Now, the investigation is in disarray. But our lives are more damaged than they were 2 years ago because we have dared to trust in the Jersey Judicial system and to co-operate with the Jersey Police, we are being abused all over again.

We are reluctant to offer any public statement on these matters because every word that is uttered only adds to our grief and the discontent among our families and friends. We are also aware that enquiries still continue and we do not want to say anything that could harm these cases.

But we want the public of Jersey to understand that we did not wish for any of these things to happen. We have only sought to achieve justice for the wrongs committed against us when we were children whist in the care of the States of Jersey and we have been let down very, very badly, all over again.

May God forgive you.

Carrie Modral

8th September, 2009.

LENNY HARPER’S GUEST POSTING.

2009-09-05T17:35:00.006+01:00

A GOOD, STRAIGHT COP RESPONDS

TO THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT’S LIES.

Some “Inconvenient” Conclusions:

Attorney General William Bailhache
Tried to Stop Wateridge Being Charged.

Documentary Evidence Proves Dig at HDLG
Was Justified.

Evidence of Mr. Harper’s Professionalism and Integrity
Destroys Jersey Establishment Smear-Campaign.

Police Had Intelligence of Forced, Illegal Abortions
And a Still-born Baby at HDLG.

Anthropologist’s Records Showed Many
Suspected Human Bone Fragments.

Police Had Intelligence of Children
‘Not Being Seen Again’.

Expert’s Theory That Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing
Was Used to Dispose of Human Remains.

Possibility of Unexplained Child Deaths
Still Unresolved.

ACPO Reports Endorsed Investigation.

The Successful Prosecutions
All Work of Mr. Harper’s Team.

Many Serious Suspects Still at Large.

Gradwell and Warcup Fail
To Bring them to Justice.

Political Pressure and Interference
By Jersey Establishment.

Gradwell and Warcup Press-Conference
Discredited.

Spin, Lies and Smear-Campaign by Jersey Establishment
Proves Existence of Culture of Concealment.

To some readers – those, for example, who rely on Jersey’s traditional media for their information – the conclusions listed above will be shocking, and will be at variance with many of the assertions of, and all the ‘impressions’ conveyed by, the Jersey authorities during much of the last 12 months.

To those of us who have had to take a detailed interest in the awful subject of decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey, many of the conclusions written above will come as no surprise - on the basis of personal experiences, documentary information – and a weary understanding of the true nature of the Jersey oligarchy. One way or another - the truth has been known to us.

But regardless of whether you knew the truth – or whether the Jersey establishment’s propaganda had misled you – you should read this posting. Below is a detailed, evidenced response – written by Lenny Harper – in which the necessity, professionalism and integrity of the States of Jersey Police Force investigation into decades of concealed child abuse is robustly established and defended.

I would like to thank Lenny for taking the time to write this guest posting, and remaining committed to justice and integrity. As a retired man, with a family to care for, he could have washed his hands of these issues and simply walked away. Fortunately for the survivors and this community, he continues to be a fighter for justice; a man who’s instinct is to protect the weak from the powerful.

Stuart.

Lenny Harper’s Guest Posting:

I have been away from Scotland for the past two weeks and have therefore missed the intellectually challenged journalistic nonsense from Diane Simon of the JEP, including the interview with Supercop Mick Gradwell. My thanks to those who have updated me.

I began counting the inaccuracies and downright falsehoods but gave up there were so many of them. Mick Gradwell said in a letter a few months back to a Daily Mail journalist that “the best I can say about Mr. Harper is that he is a man who has difficulty in understanding basic facts”. But it seems to me that he and Diane Simon cannot recognise facts even when they are laid out in front of them several times. I will return to Mr. Gradwell later when I yet again make clear how ludicrous and dishonest some of the assertions made by various people are, including his rather nasty and juvenile attack on some senior staff of the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). First however, and I am sure all the readers of this blog will understand, I need to defend myself against some of the personal attacks made on me by Messrs Gradwell, Warcup, Simon - and a few others who have reasons to see the Abuse enquiry fold.

When the e-mail from Ms. Simon slithered under my virus defence my initial instinct was to delete it and ignore it. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, she had asked me all these questions on at least two previous occasions, one of them a sunny Saturday at Haut de la Garenne. On each occasion I had not only answered the questions, but I had also e-mailed the answers to her, such was my mistrust of the way the answers would be used. Presumably, she still had those e-mails. My mistrust was well founded as her questions, although not my answers, were to provide the basis of an article attacking me which was posted in a national paper by one of a group of journalists who mentioned her, and who had previously produced books and articles in support of perverts such as the North Wales Care Abusers and Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Child Rapist. Indeed, some of these journalists had even given evidence to Parliamentary Committees in which they said that the above abusers were victims of miscarriages of justice and the “False Recall Syndrome” of victims, or indeed, just made up allegations. Therefore, on this occasion I had no doubt as to what her motives were and this was confirmed when I was told the first story had appeared even before she received my reply. Her plea in the e-mail for me to answer the questions so that she could “tell all sides of the story” was as sincere and believable as the “Trusssst in me” uttered by Kaa the snake in Disney’s version of the Jungle Book. Ms. Simon must be the only person she knows who believes that this type of ingratiating fawning is not totally transparent.

Notwithstanding my absolute belief that the seeking of my views was a total sham, I realised that it would be better not to give her the opportunity to claim that she had sought my views and I had refused. I therefore answered all her questions which meant of course that she just had to ignore most of what I said. To ensure that I did get my point across to the majority on the island who actually wanted the truth, I copied my response to Stuart Syvret and he posted it on his blog.

Ms. Simon and officers Warcup and Gradwell seem to be saying that I became a really bad cop “overnight.” (I will explain why I say ‘overnight’ below.) Ms. Simon is a journalist of course and is at a disadvantage, but her view of me as a cop seems to be only slightly better than my view of her as a journalist. Each is entitled to their opinion, even if it is from a distance. However, the claims from Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell need closer examination and perhaps a more detailed dismantling.

I do not know a lot about Mr. Warcup or the now retired Mr. Gradwell. I do not know the extent of Mr. Warcup’s practical experience; whether he spent his career at the sharp end as I did, or whether all his years with Northumbria Police were spent in departments like Personnel. What I do know is that the only reference I can find on the internet to him relate to allegations (perhaps unfounded) that he hid the true extent of crime from the public through the use of spin, and some other comments of a personal nature criticising him for something which frankly is no one’s business but his own.

However, I do know that he has admitted destroying evidence in the abuse case - which perhaps does give some clue as to his motivation or professional judgement.

As for Mr. Gradwell, again I do not know a lot about him. He is fond of telling people, including one of the journalists I mentioned above, that he is known for investigating the tragic incident when foreign workers drowned on a beach. I believe that manslaughter convictions resulted for some of the people connected with the employment of these unfortunate victims. This must have been a very challenging enquiry for him. I am pretty sure also that he must have investigated some more conventional manslaughters and murders - where the suspects were not known. I cannot speak for him, only myself. I know that I have a number of commendations for “detective ability,” leadership, and other professional skills earned in the investigation of many murders including terrorist murders, gang murders, stabbing murders with multi victims, domestic murders, and huge experience gained in South London in the investigation of Rapes and Child Abuse.

I hope this does not seem like some sort of Lenny Harper ego trip, but when people like Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, and Ms. Simon, criticise my ability, I cannot help but refer to others who have expressed a contrary view. Over the past few years I have worked with and for some of the most respected senior police officers in the UK. Others who I have never worked for have come and independently examined what I have done in Jersey. What they say is in marked contrast to the three above, and what they say illustrates what I mean by saying that I must have become a disaster ‘overnight’. Forgive me for running through some of these professional assessments, but it will show the operational calibre of people with very different views to those which have appeared in the JEP of late and in the public utterings of Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup.

Her Majesty Inspector of Constabulary came to review the SOJP in 2002, two years after Graham Power had taken over and some months following John Pearson and I arriving. They noted huge improvements from the Inspection Report prior to Mr. Power’s arrival and spoke in complimentary terms about the Senior Management Team, its leadership style, and how the force supported the changes made.

A different Inspection team carried out another examination of the force in 2008. It made the following comments under the heading of ‘Strengths’.

“The current Senior Management Team has continued to make improvements in performance, resources, management and capability.”

“The force has an effective Professional Standards Department which is effectively led by the DCO (who) drives the need for integrity across the force.”

Under the category of ‘Leadership’, the HMI wrote; “The Chief Officer Group is forward thinking, proactive in terms of the development of the force, and accessible to staff. They seek and utilise good practice from UK forces in ways that are applicable to the operational context of Jersey.” The Report team went on to say that they were “impressed with the receptiveness, drive, and commitment of the Chief Officer Team to make Organisational changes in line with areas of improvement.” They also said “The Chief Officer Team promotes a culture of empowerment, innovation, and learning through various means.”

Finally HMI, in summing up said “there is strong evidence to indicate that the SOJP is perceived as modern, fast moving with high expectations of operational and cultural change amongst a motivated workforce.”

As I stated above, I have worked with, and for, some of the most respected and professional police officers in the UK. A number of them have carried out assessments on my performance and ability. Again, apologies for what seems almost self congratulation, but among them Sir William Rae (former Chief Constable of Strathclyde) said in 2002, just before my move to Jersey, that I was currently “serving with distinction.” He went on to say the following.

“Superintendent Harper is an intelligent and articulate officer who is performing his current duties to an extremely high level. Since transferring to Strathclyde Police he has shown himself to be a dedicated and highly responsible team player who maintains a consistently professional approach to his duties at all times. The excellence he has shown since joining Strathclyde Police was mirrored during his time with the Metropolitan Police. In April 1989 when stationed at Peckham his Divisional Commander stated that in his role as Detective Inspector he was ‘one of the most effective I have ever known.’ Praise such as this has followed Superintendent Harper throughout his career and for good reason. A modest individual, he has received five commendations, all relating to the investigation of serious crime including one relating to the arrest and conviction of two INLA terrorists.”

Sir William went on to say that my appraisals in Strathclyde had been of an extremely high standard with senior managers universally praising my diligence and abilities at both the operational and strategic levels. He attached copies of my last three staff appraisals which had been written by two senior officers who are now both Chief Constables in Scotland.

Against that backdrop of unimpeachable professional commendation, the trinity of Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell have made it their mission in life to tell as many people as possible how unprofessional and incapable (and even worse) I am. All this on very little knowledge of me, and bolstered by, to borrow Ms. Simon’s words, “lies and half truths.” She would certainly know about lies and half truths, wouldn’t she? With such a volume of informed and respected professional opinion to the contrary, no thinking person would prefer to believe the nonsense, of Simon, Gradwell & Warcup. So am I bothered?

No.

Now let me turn to the actual substance (an ill chosen word to describe what was in these pieces of journalistic rubbish) of Ms. Simon’s articles. I will start with the interview with Mr. Gradwell. I do feel rather weary at this point as I have made all these points before to Simon and others. At least this time however, I am making them to people who will have the ability and willingness to assimilate them.

The attention seeking headline in the Gradwell article was that the operation at Haut de la Garenne was “a waste of time and money.” According to Mr. Gradwell, as reported in the JEP, the decision to excavate was made without hard evidence or intelligence. Up until then, he said, the enquiry was being run “essentially along UK lines.” Okay – if I understand him then, we were doing OK until we decided to excavate HDLG. It follows then that he would not have done so. He would have ignored all that we found and walked away. Here again are the (much repeated) reasons why we excavated - in chronological sequence.

By the closing weeks of 2007, we had been carrying out the enquiry for some time. A recurring feature of the evidence and information gathering process as we moved into January 2008 was that a number of victims and witnesses had told us they had been assaulted and abused at the former home. There was evidence from one witness that a child had been chased by a member of staff through an upper floor corridor and in desperation had leapt out of a high window. The child had not been seen again. At that stage we had no name. (Mr. Gradwell was to say that over a year later he traced the child – perhaps he did. However at that time we had what we had.) We had non-specific information from a number of witnesses that they had witnessed children being dragged away at night and not being seen again. There was intelligence of illegal forced abortion and of a still born child.

I found all of this highly alarming and worrying but I did not consider at that stage that it warranted a full excavation of HDLG. (This is an important point, because after speaking to Gradwell and Warcup, the Met Police accused me of ordering the excavation on the evidence of a few “disturbed” people. I took issue with this description of the victims and made this clear in a number of e-mails to those concerned.) Mr. Gradwell confirms my suspicion about the origin of this slur on the survivors by his comments to Diane Simon. He and David Warcup at their infamous and discredited press conference last year also peddled this myth about the reasons for digging. The truth is simple to illustrate, because it is well documented.

I arranged to go to the UK to meet experts who would be well qualified to advise us on the way forward. On 5th February 2008, I went to Oxford with our Forensic Services Manager and other staff, and at the Headquarters of LGC Forensics met with Karl Harrison, their lead scientist, National Policing Improvement Agency Homicide Search Advisors, and forensic staff representing Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology, as well as a Cadaver Dog Advisor. We had already asked Mr. Harrison to prepare a desk based study brief of HDLG and he circulated this at the meeting.

The decision made at this meeting was that we should carry out an initial reconnaissance of the site over a short period to seek to clarify a number of objectives. It was decided that we would deploy several different assets, to be deployed in a “systematic fashion using best value and best practice guidelines.” In simple terms, we wanted to establish if there was anything there which would need further investigation - or if we could “walk away” from it -without further investigation.

Two weeks later we moved in to the grounds of HDLG. We deployed Geophysical assets and Ground Penetrating Radar in order to identify anomalous areas for further investigation. We also used Gridded probing techniques to assist the dogs, and of course we had the anecdotal evidence of witnesses and victims. We decided we would not at any time carry out speculative searching but would deploy the forensic and archaeology assets in areas where there was corroboration that something needed further investigation. Before we excavated, we would give full consideration to possible explanations given by earlier work or utilities. We also studied in depth building plans and maps. It was during this process that builders who had worked on the site told us that a few years before they had found bones they were convinced were human but had been told to ‘forget them’ and “let bygones be bygones.” (This phrase became a catchword among my team whenever the subject of attempts at cover up would arise.) One worker was so convinced they were human he took them home to examine them against computer images which only strengthened his fears. (Eventually these bones were examined by a Jersey Pathologist after police had called her to the home. She told the officer “I don’t like the look of this,” but was later to say she could not remember making that comment. She was “not saying it wasn’t made, but just couldn’t remember it.” She took the bones to her boss whose extremely short (five lines) report said the bones were too large to be human but also stated that one of the bones “could not identified.” He gave the measurements of the bones and our anthropologist took issue with his findings saying that the size of the bone concerned was within the size range of a child. Unfortunately the bones were destroyed by the pathologist without being examined by an anthropologist. Our advice was that they should have been so examined as the pathologist was not qualified to rule on whether or not they were human. The builders told us that they had found two child’s shoes with the bones. The pathologist told us that he had sent them for examination and had been told they were Victorian. The person he said he sent them to remembered no such incident. Unfortunately the shoes too had been destroyed and were unavailable to us.

At the same time as we were digesting this deeply puzzling sequence of events, we received a positive reaction from the dog trained to find traces of human remains. This reaction came at the same spot as the builders had found the bones mentioned above. At this point, I took the decision to authorise the archaeologists to dig at that location. I would do the same again. It beggars belief, and I am at a loss to imagine why, Mr. Gradwell and David Warcup should say they would have taken a different decision. To me that would be gross negligence. My decision was fully endorsed by the ACPO team who were mentoring us and this team included the former head of the Met Homicide Department and a vastly experienced Senior Investigating Officer. It was also unanimously supported by all of my senior team including the UK Homicide Search Advisors. The dig was necessary because there were matters which needed further investigation. Indeed, the advice of the ACPO Homicide Team was that we had no choice but to treat the scene as one of a potential homicide. This advice was expressed frequently, and I know it was given to Frank Walker.

I will deal in more detail later with the charred bones found in the cellar areas, but for now will concentrate on the reasons for excavating that area. We had evidence from victims who said they were confined and/or abused in what they described as cellar areas. We could not find them until a local builder who had worked at the area came forward and said he knew where the entrance to these ‘cellars’ were. He showed us and we were eventually able to uncover them. Before excavating further we put the dogs into the area. As we did so, the Chief of Police arrived with the Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard. They were actually present when the dogs reacted strongly in the cellar and where we were then to find the charred bones and teeth. So, the question is obvious when one thinks that Mr. Gradwell is still claiming that we should not have searched HDLG. At what point should we have walked away? Should we have not started at all - and therefore not found anything – and left the remains (because that is what they are) where they were? Should we have stopped at the wing where the dog initially reacted and, instead, ignored all we knew about the bones found by the builders? Or should we have ignored the dog’s possible corroboration of the victims in the cellar area?

Messrs Gradwell and Warcup said there was no evidence of murder and that my team was wrong to say there was. They are not telling the truth, deliberately or otherwise - because I had never said there was evidence of murder - only evidence that there was something that needed investigation. A subtle, but crucial, distinction which people could be forgiven for not understanding, given the utter nonsense that’s been peddled recently. There are many, many examples of what I did, actually, say, to be found still. Check the BBC News website on 31st July 2008. Read David James Smith’s excellent article in the Sunday Times. (Reproduced in Stuart Syvret’s blog on Sunday, 10th May, 2009). They all state - clearly and unequivocally - that I was saying ‘we did not have evidence of murder’. Why would Ms. Simon and the two senior cops say otherwise? I and many others know why. However, we still do not know how, where, or when those children died and probably never will. We think we know how the bones ended up where we found them, and that was expertly laid out by Karl Harrison in his Archaeological Theory of the Burnt Debris including Human Bone Fragments and teeth found in the East wing. His view was that the Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing was used to dispose of human remains and they were then transferred to the East Wing around 1960-1970. We included his report in the document we posted on our website. Strangely enough when the Sunday Times journalist David James Smith attempted to access this document it had been removed under Warcup’s leadership. David James Smith was told by the Press Officer that there had been a problem with the computer. Of course there was! In any event, I reproduce a quote from the report by Karl Harrison below. You might ask the question that if an independent expert such as Karl Harrison is giving us this information, what kind of police officers would we have been to walk away and ignore it? As I say, it beggars belief. Unless your name is Diane Simon, David Warcup, or Gradwell that is.

Here is a quote from the report by Karl Harrison:

“With regard to the human remains recovered from cellars 3,4 & five. Karl Harrison, LGC Forensics lead archaeologist explains :

Detailed archaeological analysis of the building and its structure, in conjunction with archive plans, has provided time lines for historical renovations within the building. Phase I – area above the cellars is a School Room - Victorian styli and slates are dumped in large quantities on the cellar floor. These are in such quantities that it would suggest the floors were being taken up when they were deposited. Although they are mixed throughout the cellar deposits, many slates are lying on the base of the earthen floor, suggesting an early fall. A number of dateable Phase I items (Victorian coinage, Napoleon III coin, Victorian Jubilee medal) have been found in close association with this material.

Phase II/III - At the extension of the building following the major works over the bathhouse directly south of the School Room, educational activities move southwards to our Press Room (as was). The School Room becomes a Play Room in the early 20th C. This would explain the lack of pen nibs such as those in the cisterns entering the record here.

With the exception of a few coins of the period, native Phase II/III material seems to be in short supply. Instead we seem to have imported material - masses of shoe leather and heel irons relate to the shoemakers that functioned through the 20s and 30s, along with buttons and thimbles from the neighbouring dressmakers room. This is closely associated with concentrations of kitchen waste (bottle glass, jar glass, plain domestic ware, patterned ware and charnel), which seems contemporaneous based on design and scraps of printed labels remaining.

All of this is mixed with two distinct non-native soils - a virgin 'potato' soil which provides much of the compressed material, and a concentration of charred material - coke, clinker and some charcoal (in very small fragments) - whilst the charred material is associated with smoke stained masonry, none of the goods in the cellar have been burned (as opposed to cooked in the case of animal bone) - other than some of the bone fragments.

Phase IV - Phase IV is characterised by sweeping, evidenced by changes in texture of the cellar fills and the presence of large numbers of plastic bristles and brush head fragments stuck through lower elements of the contexts. In terms of depositions in phase IV, these are (with the exception of a single coin) native in character - the room above the cellars remains a Play Room, and we have a profusion of glass marbles, toy soldiers, play money, farmyard animal figures)

Phase V - Access is gained through the floor by hatch cutting for the 2003 refurbishment - some of the outlying bone and teeth fragments perhaps owe their position to cable laying. What I now think has happened is that a mass of material has been imported from the west wing at a time when the floor of the Play Room was up. This would explain the mix of material from north to south along the wing (glass and ceramic from kitchen larders, leather goods from the shoemakers, buttons from the tailors and high-temperature char from the bake house foundations) These renovations to the west wing have been carried out since 1960 (the brush bristles relate to sweeping of floor surface elsewhere and have been incorporated into the fill elsewhere, rather than someone bothering to sweep a cellar's earthen floor) - they have involved cleaning, but also significant digging into underlying soil (we have small concentrations of Phase II/III pot sewer pipe, as well as the mass of potato soil). Whilst some of the material might have been taken off site, some has been ditched in barrow and bucket loads on the cellar floor, hence the complex lensing of charred and virgin soils, especially along the footing trenches.”

Fairly significant is it not? Yet, we should not have been in there according to Gradwell, Warcup and Simon. We should have walked away and left the remains there. It was, supposedly, all a waste of time and money, not to mention professionally inept. We may not have found the answers but I am in no doubt that we had to ask the questions. That is what we were police officers for.

Let me now move on to other criticisms levelled by Warcup in his “interview” with Ms. Simon. Firstly, his strange allegation that I was offered the services of a top Senior Investigating Officer and his “matrix” but refused and ordered him to leave the island. Well, I must have had powers I didn’t know about. I was not aware I could order or ask anyone to leave Jersey. The truth here is that I was asked if an officer from the UK could come and talk to some of my staff as he had experience of child abuse investigations and in particular in a number of administrative areas we were utilising. Whatever his experience as a senior investigating officer it was nowhere near that of the ACPO Homicide Detective who was mentoring me and reviewing my work. There was never any suggestion that he should usurp what the ACPO man was doing. Apart from anything else, it would have been duplication. The officer did speak to my staff and I recall they did get some useful stuff from him. However, he came up with this “points system” or matrix in the new, intellectual, politically correct police world of jargon. It was explained to me that it helped prioritise crimes by giving, for example, ten points to a rape, seven for an assault, and one for a towel flick. Now, that might be helpful in a case where you are looking at many dozens of different types of offences, but here although we were dealing with a large number of offences, the types of crime were few and similar. Mr. Gradwell might need a points scoring system to help him tell the difference between a rape and a cuff around the ear. I do not. That is why we said no thank you. It is just another example of how the abundance of talent in today’s police force is hamstrung and prevented from doing their jobs properly by bureaucracy introduced by people frightened of their own shadows and the effect that mistakes may have on their progress up the ladder.

Mr. Gradwell makes the comment that some journalists saw through me and others did not. Well, that depends on whether you are in the camp that wanted the enquiry to fail or not. At least one BBC journalist was in the camp Gradwell felt had not got it right - judging from the abusive text message he sent the journalist.

Mr. Gradwell says he inherited an ill managed mess, that there were no proper papers left behind. Here, he is in conflict with the ACPO Review team, who said, in their report, the policy books were properly kept and maintained. Gradwell’s assertion about the team’s “embarrassed looks” and comments that “we told them so” are bizarre, but sadly predictable, given the propaganda campaign that has been waged to falsely depict a divided team.

I wouldn’t choose to provide the following evidence of the team’s cohesion, and appreciation of my leadership, but as it’s important to combat the lies being fed to the people of Jersey, I do so. All of the team wrote messages to me on my leaving the island. They did not have to. They could not have been forced to as I no longer worked there. Below I reproduce an e-mail sent out by one of my team to all those working for me. I had already said I did not wish to have a retirement function, and knew nothing of these plans until asked to be available for an evening. Would the team have done this if Gradwell was correct in what he has said? I have removed the name of the sender for obvious reasons.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 June 2008 16:06
To: All HAT Officers
Cc: Coupland, Vicky; Nibbs, Louise; Bentley, Fraser
Subject: SIO Lenny Harper's Retirement

Greetings to you all,

As you are aware Lenny Harper is fast approaching his last few weeks as the Deputy Chief Officer here in the States of Jersey Police and will be putting his hat and coat on for the final time in August 2008. Most of us have only come into close contact with him as the SIO on 'Operation Rectangle' where we have found him to be extremely professional, affable and a thoroughly good 'Governor' to work for.

We don't have a 'Social Club' for our group of investigators but having chatted amongst a few of us we have taken the decision to book a restaurant for an evening meal where we as a group can see Lenny off in style. Lenny has agreed to be available on the evening chosen and we will ask him if he would like to bring his wife too. This is not going to be a leaving function linked with the States of Jersey Police who may well organise their own function to mark his departure, as too, may the Politicians and Government ministers on the island.

The arrangements are to meet at The Tenby Public House at St Aubin Bay at 19.00hrs on Wednesday 6th August 2008.

Then to move on a few steps to the Bon Viveur Restaurant , Le Boulevard, St Aubin to sit down at 20.00hrs.

Travel to and from the venue can be organised by getting private hire Taxi vans in different groups.

I am assured that the food at the venue is excellent and for a 3 course meal with wine you will be paying £30 to £40 dependant upon how much you want to eat and drink. Bills can be organised separately.

I have a selection of menus and a wine list to view should you so desire.

Should you wish to participate in this function I would like you to reply to me by 'email' ASAP in order that we can confirm numbers with the restaurant owner who has booked us in as a group of 30 to 35. Do bear in mind that we have chosen to go out mid week so that the maximum number of us are available. Additionally it will be in the middle of the Tourist season so we have had to book early.

If you do wish to attend please give me a deposit of £20 ASAP. We would also like to present Lenny with a gift to remind him of his work with the 'Operational Rectangle' team so if anyone has any ideas please see me too.

Kind Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxx

As further evidence of just how ‘reliable’ super-cop Gradwell is, I reproduce below the comments written by the team on my retirement card, after I had finished working. These are not the kind of comments which get written by the members of a team of the kind depicted by Gradwell; a fact which indicates just how little weight should be attached to his words.

"Sir, you have brought Jersey integrity + transparency, have a long happy retirement. thank you."

"Enjoy your retirement - it has been a pleasure taking on the system. Enjoy your season ticket."

"Hope to see you at Old Trafford when Sunderland thrash the red devils. All the best for the future. Enjoy it."

"And don't forget the Hull City Tigers thrashing the red devils - well all right, even I am not putting any money on it. Boss, it's been a pleasure working with you, all the best."

"Mr. Harper, as a fellow dinosaur it has been a great pleasure to have put our heads together to sort out this plot. Many thanks for your time, efforts and sincerity. Enjoy your retirement."

"Wishing you the very best for your retirement boss. Take care for the future."

"Best wishes from the Dorset contingent."

"You have been a top boss. Enjoy your retirement."

"Mr. H., it has been an absolute pleasure working for you. This island won't seem the same without your face on the news every week or so. All the best, have a fab retirement."

"Boss, it’s been great working for you but I hope to see you in Cumbria soon. All the best for your retirement."

" I will not even mention Southend, November 2006!! Enjoy your retirement boss - enjoy the rest." xx

"Mr. Harper, it has been a pleasure working for you and being involved on the enquiry. All the best for the future."

"All the best, enjoy your retirement like I am."

"All the best. Happy retirement."

"Best wishes for the future. Enjoy your retirement go and watch West Ham. You will be missed."

Sir, Boss, Lenny, (first two scored out) What a trip - ups and downs. Many more ups than downs. I've had a ball. Enjoy the trip - you have not seen the last of me."

"Good luck, best wishes."

"Have a happy and long retirement and all the best. xx"

"If nothing else you will have contacts throughout the country. All the best."

"Wish you were staying longer. Enjoy your retirement. -x-"

Mr. Harper, cheers for having us here. You have certainly left your mark. Have a great retirement and enjoy your family."

"Sorry to see you go. Hope you enjoy your retirement. All the best."

"Does this mean I can now wear my green and gold T shirt?"

"To a fellow scouser - enjoy your retirement."

"Mr. H - thanks for the opportunity to come to Jersey. Have a long and happy retirement. All the best."

"Having made a great commitment to Jersey and certainly placed the island on the map it’s now time to have an enjoyable and fantastic retirement."

"All the best."

"Have a fantastic time and a well deserved rest."

"It's been great working with you. Have a great retirement."

"Have a wonderful retirement."

"Good luck."

All the very best - enjoy your time."

"Have a wonderful retirement."

"Wonderbar!! Kielen donf fur die gelagenheit."

"Have a long and happy retirement. Best regards."

"Lenny, thank you for being a great boss and a wonderful friend. I will miss you." x

As I said, I would prefer not to publish these personal messages, but as so much effort has been expended by certain people in trying to portray me as some deeply unpopular and isolated figure, I feel the people of Jersey deserve to see the true picture. (Some may recall that the above messages were part of what the Attorney General insisted I hand over as he felt they constituted “unused material” critical to the case and warned me I might put the victims at risk of not getting justice if I refused.)

Which brings me to another very inconvenient fact for Mr.Gradwell, which is this:

All three convictions so far have resulted from the work done by my team’s enquiry.

He looked very proud and self-important as he stood on the steps of the court after the Wateridge conviction. It must have crossed his mind, surely, that all three convicted had already been charged and made their first court appearances before he’d even arrived in the island?

And, as the lawyers had made it clear they would not take a job to court unless there was a good chance of conviction, the evidence must have been pretty good from the outset. However, the papers, evidence, and files I left him on the priority suspects – including the Maguires - were obviously not much help to him as he has not been able to charge any of them. Though perhaps Mr. Gradwell’s inabilities were not the sole cause of this?

One has to wonder why the Attorney General, William Bailhache, sent instructions to me not to charge Wateridge? It is fortunate indeed that I was a rather thick cop and “misunderstood” the instructions conveyed to me by a lawyer. Otherwise it is possible the now convicted Wateridge may never have even been charged.

A few other things about that Gradwell JEP interview: He said in it, when referring to the disgraceful case where the lawyer changed ‘his mind’ after telling us to arrest the ‘lovely’ pair - who delighted in hitting children in the back of the head with cricket bats - that it was one of my own team who told the lawyers there was not enough evidence. I find this rather unlikely for a number of reasons. Firstly, my team were very angry at the late changing of the decision. They had been told by the lawyer that subject to interview this pair should be charged with serious assaults. We of course had an agreement that we would arrest no one unless we got the go ahead from the lawyers appointed by the AG. We adhered to this. It was forced on us after the Establishment became worried we were arresting people they would rather we didn’t - and after they’d lost control of the Wateridge process. The team arrested this pair - only to have the rug snatched from under their feet. After a rather strained conversation with the AG’s lawyer, who was sitting on a platform in a railway station in the North of England with trains running in the background, I ignored his instructions and called the Centenier into the police station to charge these two. Mr. Gradwell of course would not have done this he says. In any event, the Centenier stated that although he agreed that there was ample evidence to charge, he did not want to go against the lawyer’s ‘revised’ instruction. Never mind justice or the victims!

This left me with a dilemma. I knew word would get out in minutes that we had released these two without charge and that it would confirm the worst fears of the victims of a cover up. I therefore put out a press release making it clear that it was not our wish and that it had been imposed on us. The Attorney General was not happy and demanded a report from me explaining why I had issued the press release. I did the report - but put in it a little more than the Attorney General wanted - by going through a whole catalogue of events where I felt we had been let down by his office. Someone gave that report to the media, and it can now be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog of the 27th August, 2008. Mr. Warcup has instigated a very expensive investigation into who leaked it, he and Mr. Gradwell telling journalists ‘off the record’ that Stuart Syvret and I were being investigated. Compare that with my failure to get the Attorney General to prosecute corrupt cops for leaking intelligence off police systems!

Mr. Gradwell says that the problem was I promised the victims £1m too much and he only had £1 to give them. In some respects he hasn’t even given them that. I promised them that I would believe them and that I would do my best to get them justice. It seems to me no one else had ever done that before. I never promised huge numbers of convictions and the victims never demanded that. I promised them I would do my best, and the officers who went and saw them achieved that. The numbers of letters, e-mails and phone calls from victims who said that they felt as though a weight had been lifted from them by the officers who spoke to them was incredible and a great testimony to those officers. If promising to believe them, making my belief obvious, and doing my best to get them justice is the equivalent of £1m then so be it. The world now believes in what happened to them. And the evidence is there against other abusers. It is those in power in Jersey that are refusing to use that evidence. They are indeed offering the victims £1 or even less.

Although not directly linked to the Abuse case, we must deal with Mr. Gradwell’s little snide remark about the senior team above the rank of Inspector. Mr. Gradwell is obviously (perhaps) basing his remarks on his experience in the Lancashire force, although as politicians in Jersey kept pointing out to me, policing in the UK is totally different from Jersey. And, whilst I know that Stuart has some differing views on some of those we are talking about, I think I can claim to know those individuals better than either Stuart or Mr. Gradwell in both the professional and personal contexts. I have worked in all the jurisdictions in the UK and I found almost all of the senior officers in SOJP at least the equal of their counterparts in the UK. They had as much skill, professionalism, commitment and integrity as anywhere. In respect of integrity and courage they probably had more than most. I watched two of them, despite having to live on the island, stand up to and continue with a course of action which they felt to be correct and which brought them into conflict with senior figures in the political and legal establishments. This would of course be something Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup would not be comfortable with. One of these officers who had a hugely successful period tackling corruption and misconduct later filled my post more than capably when I was involved in the enquiry. For some reason Mr. Warcup curtailed this and brought someone in from the UK. It would seem that Jersey politicians are now backing away from their previously stated aim that we should be training and preparing local officers for most of the senior posts in the force. Mr. Gradwell was in Jersey for a specific purpose. He played no part in the everyday policing of the island. Just what qualifies him to make critical comments about people he knows little about? It seems to come easily to him.

Of course, Mr. Gradwell didn’t just sound off to the JEP. On the BBC he asked the question why, if I had evidence or intelligence about rapes 20 or 30 years ago did I then dig for human remains? I think that question is answered clearly above. He said there were no human remains found. I beg to differ. For a start, there were approximately 70 children’s teeth. Of course, Mr.Gradwell thinks they are down to the Tooth Fairy. Forget what two experts said. But let us look at his claim that “only one human bone was found and that was from the ‘Plantagenet’ era.”

It is useful to look at what I was being told by the Anthropologists we had on scene. There are two documents which detail this. Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup quoted selectively from them at the Press Conference and since. One of these documents is the Workbook of the Anthropologists and the other is the Bone and Teeth Summary.

There are numerous entries in the Bone and Teeth Summary which relate to bones found and identified as human by the Anthropologists working at HDLG with my team. It is worth bearing in mind that Anthropologists go through many years training to be considered as experts in the identification of human bones. Those that we used were highly experienced, committed, and ethical. Here are some of the entries they made during the course of their work at HDLG. They are reproduced exactly as written. They are not my interpretation. These are the words of the experts. The entries made by the Anthropologists are a record used by them, and formed the basis for the advice I was given. The reference number which each entry begins with is unique to each fragment, and the accompanying information for each exhibit describes archaeological phase and date, as well as possible origin. I have not mentioned all the teeth in the list as there were just too many. The comment below, in brackets, is mine.

KSH/137: Archaeological phase and Date: 3-4: 1940s to 1980s.
Sixteen fragments of bone submitted to University of Sheffield and positively id’d as human bone. (These were the fragments examined by the UK Anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain who issued a report saying the bone examined was human juvenile, had been burnt soon after death, and buried soon after burning. He also said that the bones were no more than a few decades old. His report, strangely enough, has never been mentioned by Mr. Warcup or Mr. Gradwell. When the bones were sent for carbon dating we got two results back for the batch. The first, as I recall said the bones examined dated between the 14th and 17th century. The next day we were told the rest of the bones were of a person or persons who died between the 1650s and 1950s. This led to me giving all those press briefings, even reported in the JEP, in which I said the evidence was contradictory and made it unlikely there would be a homicide enquiry. Again, all this seems to have escaped the radar of Messrs Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell. Furthermore, when David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist spoke to Andrew Chamberlain he said he had never heard me say anything which contradicted his findings and revealed to David he had even waived his fee so impressed was he with the way we were going about our business. In an e-mail to me I was told that Mr. Chamberlain “stressed over and over again that everyone he dealt with, especially you, showed great care and professionalism.” This has obviously not reached the ears of our trio either.)

KSH/158: Archaeological Phase and Date. 3-4. 1940s to 1980s.
Single fragment of bone resembling KSH/137. Submitted to Sheffield University.

JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.

JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.

JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.

JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.

JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.

JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.

JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human

JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.

Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)

JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process

JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.

JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs.

The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.

One thing is a certain fact: the document quoted above proves – unambiguously – that there was sufficient evidence to justify digging – and that the digging did find concerning artefacts, thus further justifying the process.

We might not have found all the answers - but as police officers we had to ask the questions. At least that is my view.

Mr. Gradwell puzzled me somewhat with his rant about “noble cause corruption.” I know what it is – one example of it was when the Guildford Four were arrested in Heysham, Lancashire, and were then wrongly convicted. But what on earth has that to do with HDLG? Mr. Gradwell said this was like an example of it – we had decided on guilt and then went on a ‘fishing expedition’. He went on to ask if this was what people wanted – a return to the days when police decided guilt and the era of miscarriages of justice? Now this takes me back to Mr. Gradwell’s comments about me that I “could not understand basic facts.” This is maybe why I can’t figure out whose guilt we had, supposedly, made our minds up about when we went into HDLG. We did not even know what crimes may have been committed in relation to the human remains there, never mind who the guilty party may have been. Bizarre!

There was also, of course, his comments about the Media Strategy. ‘When’, he asked, ‘did you ever see routine daily briefings on a police enquiry?’ Plenty of times would be my answer. However, I did not give daily routine briefings. As I am sure the Press Officer would confirm I faced the Press when I did because they were there in numbers and besieging her office with interview requests. On one occasion they even knocked the system out.

So there we have my perspective on what Mr. Gradwell said together with Mr. Warcup. Lies and half truths was the phrase that Diane Simon used. Make your own mind up. Which brings me to Ms. Simon.

“Harper lied about the fragment” seemed to be the gist of her recent story. I have already gone through this with her two or three times, personally, face to face, and a couple of times on e-mail. It seems I am not the only one with difficulty in grasping what I am told. She continues to peddle the myth that this fragment was identified as coconut very early on and that I lied about it. I will come to that. Let me once more relate the facts about this fragment known in the media as JAR/6.

The fragment was found on the morning of 23 February 2008. I was telephoned and went to the scene. When I arrived I was briefed as the entry on the Anthropologist’s worksheet reproduced below dated 23 February 2008. I was also told that a News of the World journalist had been caught with a camera in the bushes outside. I knew therefore that someone had leaked our work to the media and I also knew that it would only be a matter of time before the JEP found out about the fragment. Over the previous couple of years we had mounted several enquiries to find the source within the force who kept leaking details to various journalists of the JEP. My view was that if the media reported it before we did we would lose credibility with our vulnerable victims and witnesses. The entry below is quite clear. Note that it was found in Trench 3.

“23 February 2008
09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”

Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”. This would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.

“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”

Note also what Julie Roberts says about the fragment. Gradwell and Warcup told the media she had changed her mind and now thought it was something else. That is not what she is saying, even after examining it again and reporting changes to it. She clearly says that she cannot be sure without conducting further chemical analysis.

Furthermore, Miss Roberts says that she discussed it with myself and the Forensic Manager and that we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed. She then says that “our” conclusion was that as we had already ruled it out of the enquiry, no further work would be conducted on it. “Our” obviously includes her in the decision. According to Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup, I rode roughshod over her opinion. More misinformation.

It is the same also with the myth that this was identified as a coconut during my time in the island. I detail below the sequence of events relating to the examination of the fragment. This is fully corroborated by copy e-mails from the lab which examined the fragment. I am not aware that it has ever been identified as a coconut. Anthropologists are trained to identify human remains. The only anthropologist to examine it thought it part of a child’s skull. On seeing it later when it had changed its appearance she was not so sure. People carrying out Carbon Dating are trained for that process, not identifying the matter. Even then, they gave contradictory and confused information to us. When reading below, bear in mind that collagen is found only in mammals, not wood, not coconut.

We sent the fragment off for dating around the 3rd or 4th March. If Gradwell and Warcup are to be believed I already knew it was hundreds of years old. Why would we send it off for dating if we already knew? However, my remarks above and the Anthropologist’s worksheet make it clear this was not true. The accompanying form completed by the Forensic Services Manager which went with the fragment also makes it clear that we did not know its age when we sent it off in March. Why would Mr. Gradwell claim that we did? There are also e-mails which must still be within the SOJP system which make it clear that we did not know the age of the fragment when sending it off, particularly those sent by the Forensic Services Manager.

On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

It is clear from those e-mails that the lab did not know what the fragment was. Why, then, have Messrs Simon, Gradwell, and Warcup insisted that the fragment was identified as a coconut by a person qualified to do so? By the time I retired, the only person to suggest the item might be a fragment of coconut was a technician who was trying to date it. No Anthropologist has ever identified it as such. One way to clear this would be to have it further examined, and I am not aware if that has ever been done. I am told, rightly or wrongly, however, that it has been lost. If true, how convenient.

At the time, I e-mailed the laboratory and asked them two questions. The first was “Are you saying definitively that this is not bone?” The second was “If you do not think it is bone how can you explain the presence of more collagen than is usually needed to date bearing in mind that collagen is found only in mammals?”

In answer to the first question they told me they did not think it was bone but the only way we could be sure was to have it re-examined by someone qualified to do so. I am still waiting on an answer to the question about the collagen.

I am therefore at a loss, given the above, which is all documented and evidenced, how either Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, or Diane Simon can say that I knew at a very early stage that the fragment was definitely old and that it was definitely a piece of coconut. The truth is that, as I left the island, we did not know what it was. The Anthropologist who declared it a piece of a child’s skull could not be as certain after seeing it six weeks later when it had changed pretty substantially. Even then she said it would need further examination, which in effect is what the lab said. Why would anyone try to make out this was not the case?

I have had to explain those details in response to so much nonsense which has been peddled by the Jersey Establishment – but we shouldn’t be diverted by the issue of this, one fragment.

The crucial fact – that the powers-that-be in Jersey don’t want people to understand – is that the single fragment in question had been discounted from the investigation.

The important thing of course is not what it is. That stopped being important when we found out how old it was. Gradwell, Warcup, and Ms. Simon have totally ignored that fact. They have tried to tell the public that I knew it was coconut and/or too old to be of interest very early on, but nevertheless pursued the investigation solely on the basis of that, one, fragment. Their story is a total fabrication.

I am aware that this is a long and pretty dry document so I will try and be brief with the rest. Ms. Simon casts scorn, along with Mr. Gradwell, on the shackles we found. No matter what he may have found someone to later say about what they could be, the facts remain as follows.

I did not introduce the term shackles to the media. When builders heard that we were searching the area they had been working in, they went and told reporters that the police would find the ‘shackles’ they had found several years before when they were working there. Without knowing this, and with the evidence of victims in our minds, when we recovered these artefacts we all felt that the items were shackles. This means that the builders and ourselves, several years apart, came to the same conclusion; these items were shackles. I do not know what Mr. Gradwell showed to the media when he described them as something to do with roofing. I do know that never have I seen anything on any roof or gutter with a length of chain and a bracelet type affair at each end. When I emerged after being told of the find I was careful not to mention shackles. However when the media asked me what I had found and I replied that I had found some items which corroborated the victims evidence, one of them said, “Ah, so you found the shackles then?” It was to be several weeks before I admitted that we thought they were shackles as by that time it seemed rather daft to keep denying it.

Something else which caused me some angst, and consternation among a large number of journalists, was the pronounciation by Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell at their press conference that they had to now contradict me and say there was no evidence of murder and no murder suspects. They must have somehow missed all the press conferences and media interviews that I gave in which I said exactly the same thing. Why they should try and give the impression that I was saying something different I do not know. They only have to look at the BBC News website for the 31st July 2008, to see that I was saying that in view of the contradictory evidence from the experts in respect of the evidence of the age of the bones, unless things changed there would be no homicide enquiry. Even clearer, the Sunday Times on 10th May 2009 made it plain that I was actively discouraging their journalist from believing the more lurid headlines. A large number of journalists from television, radio, and print contacted me on the day of the Gradwell/Warcup press conference, to ask what on earth they were talking about. They all said they had checked their records and I had never said that there was evidence of murder. Why did Gradwell and Warcup get it so wrong? Why did they sit there and smugly tell the public something that was simply just not true?

Let me deal with some of the other allegations and mud that has been thrown. Diane Simon, Mr. Warcup, and Mr. Gradwell have criticised the use of Mr. Martin Grimes and his dogs, pointing to the case in Portugal as evidence of their lack of usefulness and criticising the cost, including the cost of the accommodation at the hotel we used for him. Firstly, they fundamentally misunderstand the role of the dogs. They do not, and cannot tell us that has happened at a location nor indeed, if there has been a murder or even a dead body there. What they tell us is that there is something which needs investigating. They are trained either to detect the presence of the scent of dead human flesh or blood. This they did, as in the cellar where they reacted and led us to all the bones and teeth. There were thousands of animal bones in that area and we recovered many hundreds. The dogs ignored them all. David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist summed it up by saying that the difference between my team and the police in Portugal was that we knew the limitations of what the dog was telling us. That said, I am a great admirer of the dogs and their handler. They worked long and hard hours. We carried out frequent tests on them and they succeeded every time. One such test was when one of the Anthropologists brought some sand which had been in contact with a mummy in another country. It was put on the beach and the dog went to it. Again, it was telling us there was something there to ask questions about. Nothing else. Ms. Simon asks why we had to use Martin Grimes for so long. The answer is simple. At the outset we had Homicide Search Experts from the National Policing Improvement Agency with us. (Incidentally, they recommended our operation at HDLG as an example of good practice), but they could not stay indefinitely. The expert who was there was called to Australia to assist with a high profile murder of a British subject in which the body was never found. With his agreement and advice, Martin Grimes acted as Search Advisor in his absence, a role that he filled with skill and dedication.

As for the hotel costs which Ms. Simon criticised, what were we to do? Put him in a tent? We received excellent rates for bed and breakfast way below what the hotels would normally charge. Not only that but Steven Austin Vautier at the Home Affairs Department, and the Treasury, were well aware of the rates, and at frequent meetings agreed that they were good value. Mr. Grimes himself reduced his rates and did not charge for many expenses. All costs were known to the Treasury as they were incurred, and of course the Chief Minister continually assured us that we should use whatever resources were necessary, even to the extent of criticising me for daring to suggest to the media that cost was an issue. “Cost is irrelevant” said civil service chief, Bill Ogley in an e-mail, “the investigation is the important thing.” How then can they now criticise Graham Power or myself for the cost of the enquiry?

I keep seeing criticism of our actions which mention that there were no bodies and no reports of children missing. I have dealt with the findings of the human remains above. In respect of no reports of children missing there are a number of things to be considered. Firstly, children were brought casually to HDLG and sometimes no one even knew they were there. Records of missing persons were only held until comparatively recently by the parishes. Unlike in the UK, the professional police had no involvement. Also, children arrived from the UK without proper records being kept anywhere. One example was the Local Authority in the West Midlands area of the UK who contacted us to say they had sent six children to the island’s care system and had lost touch with them, never hearing of them again.

There is also, of course, the alleged book deal which the Jersey Evening Post and Ms. Simon seem to be fixated with. I wonder if some clue can be gleaned from the fact that Elaine Byrne of that paper telephoned at least one member of the literary world in London and told him that they had been told he had signed me to a book deal. She told him that they were interested in serialising the book and asked how much he had paid me and what the arrangement was? The person quite correctly said there was no such agreement. He had contacted me, he said, (as have many others) but I had refused, saying I could not consider it until I finished working. She then asked how much he would offer in such a case. She was given short shrift and the man contacted me. I have to say I was grateful for the call. However, it shows that either the JEP are hypocritical in the extreme in wanting to serialise such a book by me, or Elaine Byrne was lying. Which would you bet your money on? Now, of course, Diane Simon is talking about a £200,000 book deal. I wish! No, it’s simply more literally incredible nonsense from the JEP.

In any event, there is no book deal, and as yet, no book. But, who knows? One sure thing, money will not be the motivation if I do. Besides, with the circulation this will get on Stuart’s blog who needs to write a book?

Another thing which Gradwell has criticised me for in the media, was the fact that relations with the lawyers and the Attorney General’s office were abysmal.

Yes.

And his point is?

They were abysmal because I refused to accept a shoddy service and constant moving of the goal posts. Anyone in any doubt as to what I mean should read the report I produced to him, on his instructions, as to why I issued a press release disclaiming responsibility for the release of two sadists who liked to hit children with cricket bats, and which someone leaked to the media. As already mentioned above, it can still be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog. That report illustrates exactly why relations were bad. What would he or Mr. Warcup have done if they had been in charge of the investigation when we arrested the now convicted Wateridge - and the AG told me not to charge - shortly before we were going to do so? I think I know. Relations were not helped either by him trying to control my dealings with the media, as shown in a number of e-mails.

Which reminds me of another criticism by Gradwell and Ms. Simon – that of the media policy and the high profile of it. I thought the Daily Telegraph summed it up well, way back in February when one of their columnists said that she saw three reasons for the media policy. Firstly, it was to reassure the victims that this time someone believed them. Secondly, to attract witnesses - and thirdly to protect myself and my enquiry from the same forces that had covered up everything before.

Exactly.

Make no mistake about it. If it had not been for the National media I would have been shunted off the island long before I found anything. I have a number of e-mails which detail how Frank Walker was continually saying that he was under pressure to sack or suspend me. I know for a fact that Graham Power told him, “Just you dare!”

A couple of years back a valued and trusted senior colleague caused a furore by describing the JEP as “a comic” in an e-mail to one of its journalists. The journalist ran to the Editor Chris Bright who wept, wailed, kicked up a tantrum, and then made a complaint against the officer. He did not like being called the editor of a comic. The matter was resolved without my colleague apologising. It is clear to me now that he was doing Biffo the Bear, Corky the Cat, and all those other endearing characters a gross injustice.

Oh yes, one more thing which I need to defend myself against. Several journalists have told me that Mr. Gradwell and indeed his boss in Jersey, have alleged that I was a bully, and that I aroused fear among officers. I certainly hope I did arouse fear among a small minority of officers. Let me explain.

Within a week or two of arriving in the island I had been approached by a number of officers who were obviously sounding me out. I was asked by both male and female officers how I would deal with bullying. My answer was always the same. Ruthlessly. And so, officers started coming to John Pearson, I, and other members of the Senior Management Team with complaints of bullying. There was a confidential reporting line run by a company in the UK but it was rarely used. Our staff preferred to come to us. We investigated all allegations and did so with the overwhelming support of the majority of the force. There were some unbelievable instances and I reproduce below part of the affidavit which I gave to the High Court in London for a recent court case. I have left the first paragraph in to show the type of tensions there were with some of the politicians.

"In those early days I also had a number of differences of opinion with the then Deputy Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee who was the Connétable of one of the country parishes. He objected to States of Jersey Police Vehicles driving through his parish on training duties and complained several times that they had answered emergency calls without asking his prior authority to enter his parish. This was an early foretaste of many battles to come where politicians would seek to control our day to day operational activities.

During my time as a senior officer in the United Kingdom I had become known as someone who, whilst critical of the damage that over- zealous political correctness could do, would not tolerate bullying which caused people to feel uncomfortable at work and in some cases made them ill. I became aware that a small number of officers in the SOJP were making life difficult for others through bullying. A number of the victims came to me personally and I took firm action against the bullies. I will describe a few such examples in order to put into context the response our actions brought from the Jersey establishment.

Shortly after I arrived I held a ‘forum’ for the Constables of the force. I did this in response to complaints from officers that they had never been listened to. Towards the end of the meeting I asked if anyone had anything else to ask. A female officer asked how I would deal with bullying. “Ruthlessly,” I replied.

The woman officer left it at that and I forgot about the exchange until about six weeks later when I was about to fly out from Jersey Airport to the UK. The officer approached me and asked if I remembered her asking the question. We spoke for some time and she relayed a horrific tale of abuse, assault and bullying by a Sergeant in the force against her, which was witnessed on a number of occasions by other senior officers who did nothing. When she complained to one Inspector he told her he understood her situation but if he did anything the Sergeant would “turn on him.” The female officer had eventually gone to a very senior officer who had told her to forget it or her job would be at risk.

I started enquiries and found that her story was corroborated by over a dozen officers. One male officer told how one night shift he was sitting in the Station Office with the Sergeant when the latter produced a 9mm semi automatic pistol. The Sergeant dismantled the firearm and cleaned it. When finished, he assembled it, put the magazine in and cocked the weapon. He then pointed it directly at the male officer’s head for several seconds before lowering it and saying “No, not tonight.” That male officer is still suffering the effects of the bullying by the Sergeant. The female officer concerned has a civil action pending against the force which I do not believe is being contested.

On another occasion, I was approached on behalf of a vulnerable member of staff who had reported a domestic assault on herself. The investigating officer, a long serving detective, had asked her for her mobile phone number and had given her his “in case they needed to contact each other.” A couple of evenings later she received a lengthy series of text messages spread over several hours which started with comments about her physical appearance and what she looked like bending over the photo-copier to extremely explicit texts about what the sender would like to do to her. These messages all came from the phone of the investigating officer. After I obtained the transcripts of these messages I challenged the officer. He at first denied it but changed his story. I returned him to uniform but did not discipline him as the victims vulnerable state would have meant that she would have suffered even more from a prolonged drawn out saga.

In another incident, a young Detective Sergeant reported a member of staff for carrying out particularly nasty racial bullying of a Portuguese woman officer. A short time later property belonging to him was vandalised in the CID office. We were told the suspect’s name in confidence by several detectives but had nothing we could use in evidence and no one was forthcoming. The Head of CID, who had also just come from the UK, and myself gathered every detective in the force together and warned them that if there was any repeat of this all of them would be returned to Uniform and we would re build the CID from scratch. We never did have a repeat despite only using local officers in a number of high profile anti corruption investigations which started off as covert operations.

It was clear however, that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one occasion were referred to as the “politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters.” At the same time however, it was clear that we had the support of the vast majority of the force as was illustrated by what Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary found when they carried out their first inspection during my time there. They found that Graham Power, myself, and John Pearson, had already made many changes which had transformed the force and the morale of its officers. The fact that the leadership style was supported by the rank and file was one of the findings. A second Inspection a few years later was to single out the work that had been done on Professional Standards and the strong leadership which had played a part in turning the force into a professional and innovative organisation."

The arrogance of the small minority who were carrying out this type of unprofessional behaviour was illustrated by the example of one senior member of staff who was the subject of several complaints to me from female colleagues. They complained about sexual innuendo and worse. Eventually I had him in my office one afternoon and warned him that another similar incident would result in disciplinary action. That night he took a visiting police staff member from the UK out to dinner and continually ran his hand along places he should not have. She complained and he left our employ soon after.

There was no doubt we did deal firmly with the bullies and the few corrupt members of staff. All of the allegations of bullying made against me seem to have come from those who were dealt with in this fashion. Bullies do not take kindly to being stood up to. Several of the corrupt cops that we removed from the force complained about their treatment. Without exception their complaints were found to be malicious or unsubstantiated. Several of them even tried to damage the historical abuse enquiry. The sister of one local businessman, who twenty police officers admitted taking favours or services from, even wrote to most of the news desks in London accusing me of abuse myself. Stuart Syvret was contacted and told not to trust me or my deputy in the investigation. Of course, being Stuart, the first thing he did was pick-up the phone and tell me about the approach. Again, I should emphasise, the bad and the corrupt were a small minority in a force brimming with talent and commitment.

I have been asked to explain what the ACPO reports were. Gladly. The evening we found the first fragment I contacted ACPO in the UK and asked them to appoint a team to oversee the enquiry and quality control it. This was something I readily agreed with Graham Power. I did so because I already knew the hostility that existed among many politicians and other areas of the establishment. I had my first taste of this back in 2007 the day I went public with the enquiry. I was ordered to attend at the office of Frank Walker, the Chief Minister. I went there with Graham Power and found that also present with Walker, were Bill Ogley and Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard. Let me make quite clear now, that Wendy Kinnard was a staunch supporter of this enquiry and had to endure some difficult times because of it. An early example came at this meeting.

Walker started off by telling me I was looking at a very angry Chief Minister. I asked why. The conversation then went as follows:

FW. “You have been talking to Stuart Syvret.”
LH. “Yes I have. It was necessary for me to talk to him as not only does he have evidence that I may need, but the victims trust him and he may be able to persuade them to come to us.”
FW. “But you told him that you were going public.” (Stuart had released a press statement that morning to coincide with mine – a move which I have to admit, I did not anticipate!!)
LH. “Yes, but I also told you I was going public.”
FW. “But you showed him your press statement.”
LH. “Chief Minister, I showed it to you.”
FW. “But we’re the Government.”

Bill Ogley then intervened to ask me, “You do realise this could bring down the Government?” I told him that was not my concern. My concern was getting to the truth.

There then followed an argument about my use of the word “victims” in the media release. Walker ordered me not to use it. He explained that there were no victims until someone was convicted. I told him that was not the case. When someone alleged that they were a victim of crime, they were a victim. In a similar manner those who alleged that they were the victims of a racially motivated attack had to be treated as such even where there was not a shred of evidence of a racial motive. Walker argued, Wendy Kinnard spoke strongly in agreement with me and I continued to use the word “victims” for the rest of my time in Jersey.

Anyway, back to ACPO. Three members of the ACPO Homicide Review Group were appointed to oversee the enquiry. The team was led by the former head of the Mets Homicide Teams who now works for the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. He was probably the United Kingdom’s most experienced Murder investigator. He was assisted by an expert in the HOLMES computer system on which we were running the enquiry. A female member of the Review Group made up the trio. Their terms of reference were drawn up by them and signed by their leader and Graham Power. Included in the signed terms of reference was the commitment to quality control of the investigation and personal mentoring for myself, my deputy, and the office manager who was responsible for the computer systems used. For some reason, Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup have sought to make people think that it was no part of the ACPO team’s remit to quality control the investigation. This is untrue and can clearly be seen to be untrue by simple examination of their terms of reference and their reports. David James Smith, of the Sunday Times, made this point in his article.

The ACPO team duly arrived and over several visits set about examining all aspects of our work. After each set of visits which lasted several days, they would issue a report and hand that report to Graham Power, the Home Affairs Minister, and onwards to the Chief Minister. Indeed, two members of the team even had an hour long meeting with the Chief Minister, Bill Ogley, and, I think, the HA Minister during which time they briefed them on the way the investigation was proceeding and their thoughts on it. This was in the absence of Graham Power and myself. If there was anything wrong with the enquiry, given Walkers hostility to it, it would surely have been made known after that meeting.

During their visits to the island the team would speak to myself and many other members of my team. They spent many hours examining the computer system and the entries on it. I had to hand over all my policy books to them for examination. They were to comment in one of their reports that the Policy Books were being properly maintained. These are the documents that Gradwell said were a ‘mess’, and led to his comments about taking over “a poorly managed mess.”

Who is likely to be correct? The ACPO Homicide Review Team or Mr Gradwell?

Each report by the ACPO team would give their comments on the way the enquiry was progressing and would make recommendations. In the second report they stated that we were to be congratulated on the speed with which we had implemented these recommendations. The Team leader told me that it was the quickest he had ever seen recommendations being implemented. Gradwell told journalists that one of the team had told him that we had said we implemented things which, in fact, we had not. I asked the leader of the ACPO team about this. “Nonsense, it was never said,” was his response.

Of the two or three ACPO reports made whilst I was there, none contained any serious criticism. As with all such reviews there were things they felt we could do, or do differently, and we always had discussions around those. If I felt that it was not applicable to the Jersey context, I said so.

For example, one of their early recommendations was that I should have a ‘Gold Group’ which would include senior figures from the “caring agencies” in Jersey. I said some of those were among our priority suspects. The ACPO team accepted that it was not a good idea.

Gradwell bitterly criticised my media strategy and one press conference in particular came in for strong criticism where they accused me of brandishing a tooth in front of the media. The truth is simple. It was an excellent idea but it was not mine. I was at HDLG and it was just after we started finding the teeth and were being told that some of them could not have come out from children who were still alive. I was going out to answer questions at the demand of the media. The head of the ACPO team suggested that as a means of showing just how small the teeth were, and of illustrating what a good job the Archaeological and Anthropology teams were doing, I should show the media a tooth. He suggested displaying it alongside a five pence piece. I did so. I was criticised by someone in the States that afternoon for using a Jersey five pence piece and making the island look bad when I could have used a UK coin.

The ACPO reports are of course there to be seen but they seem to have been ignored by Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup. The Sunday Times has seen them of course and they posed the question as to why Warcup and Gradwell are so intent on rubbishing my work when the man who “made a little boy’s head bob up and down in the water” (whilst sexually assaulting the boy), is still free? A good question indeed.

I think that probably covers most of the allegations made against me, the enquiry, the team and indeed the victims over the past few months. A well known journalist told me he could not understand Mr. Gradwell’s obsession with me and that in other circumstances we would probably have got along very well. I do not think so. Our fundamental beliefs in the purpose of good policing are too different. I believe that police officers are there to protect the vulnerable and to put the bad guys away where they will do no harm. Simplistic I know. Mr. Gradwell tells Diane Simon that a person’s guilt is not a concern of the police. That is one reason I am glad to be out of it.

I am sorry this is such a long and dry document. Of necessity it had to be that way to deal with all the nonsense that has been written and spoken about myself, my team, the enquiry, and most of all, the victims. I hope it has not seemed too much like Lenny Harper congratulating himself, but in circumstances where people who do not know me are labelling me as all sorts of monster, I needed to redress the balance. For those who have persevered this far, my thanks. My thanks also to everyone who has written to me, e-mailed me, or expressed support in other ways. It all meant, and continues to mean, a lot.

Lenny Harper

5th September, 2009.

A GUEST POSTING!

2009-09-04T01:32:00.001+01:00

LENNY HARPER TO STRIKE BACK!

ON THIS – A TOP-TEN POLITICS BLOG!

WATCH THIS SPACE!

We’ve Had Two Weeks of Jersey Oligarchy

Lies and Spin.

This Weekend, Straight Cop

Lenny Harper Will Respond

With the Truth.

A brief posting – to give you notice of a forthcoming attraction.

During the last two weeks or so, Channel Island residents have been subjected to an utterly unprecedented campaign of spin, propaganda and lies – the objective of which has been to rubbish the historic child abuse investigation.

Predictably, perhaps – such is the stupidity and ineptitude of the Jersey oligarchy - so extreme, incredible, excessive and obviously dishonest has been the propaganda – that it’s actually had the opposite affect to that which it was intended to achieve.

Far from the average islander now believing that there was little, if any, truth to the accounts of abuse by over a hundred survivors, instead, people are having their suspicions raised.

All of what passes for the traditional news media in Jersey – and the supposed journalist who work within it – have passively parroted the Jersey oligarchy spin.

True, some of them sought comment in response from Lenny – but why on Earth should he want to bother responding to the Jersey media – when we all know full-well he wouldn’t be given a fair reply.

And – more significantly - why should Lenny bother responding in such pipsqueak non-entities as the traditional Jersey news outlets – when he can respond with a guest posting on this blog instead!

And achieve vastly more readers!

Just ranked ninth! – Ninth! - in UK Councillor local government member blogs!

Just think! The “Quite Vile Blog” – in the Top Ten blogs of local politicians in the country – from amongst hundreds – hell, maybe thousands!

Here’s the link to the rankings on Ian Dale’s Diary, a great site, incidentally:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/08/top-30-councillor-blogs.html

And here’s the link to Ian’s front page:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/

Sorry, I’m still no good at hyperlinks – but hopefully Computer Nerd or Web Meister can sort the links for us.

This blog is the Channel Island’s main source of pithy, challenging, independent thought and opinion.

And it’s read by an awful lot more people than the Jersey Evening Post!

(Not that that’s actually saying a lot – R.I.P The Rag - but allow me my little moment of schadenfreude.)

Read this blog – to be ‘in’ on the inside-track; the leading source in the Channel Islands, nationally – and around the world – of Jersey intrigues.

So – it is here – exclusively - sometime this Saturday – you will be able to read the detailed, in-depth response of Lenny Harper to the Jersey establishment’s spin.

Lenny will be explaining some facts – and a few home truths – which our stenching oligarchy are not going to like.

Not one little bit.

And he’ll be addressing us on this - the ninth ranked local politician’s blog in the country.

With 198,556 unique site users.

I’m going to drink some more wine!

Before the power goes to my head!

Stuart.

LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE WEB: # 2

2009-08-31T18:30:00.006+01:00

COMMUNALLY PROVIDED

LEGAL REPRESENTATION:

AN EXPERIMENT.

A Pleb’s Eye View of the Administration of “Justice”;

And – News of a Forthcoming Attraction!

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice!”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, American Judge.

It’s been such a long time since I posted the first in this web-based legal advice experiment, having imagined I might write at least once a week – and engaging readers with debate and analysis of this or that basic principle, or fine point, of law.

But after one or two encounters with the courts, I realised such writings would be about as interesting – and as useful – as a 200,000 word disquisition upon “the meaning” of some glued, tied and nailed structure formed from the random contents of a skip, placed in the Tate Modern and bestowed with the Turner Prize.

What does it all mean? Whatever you want it to.

Instead – continuing with the surrealist theme – I thought I’d give a description of my experiences so far of what passes for the administration of justice in Jersey – as approved by Jack Straw and the Labour government – and intersperse and illuminate events with some apposite quotes concerning lawyers, judges and the law.

I will also, towards the end of the posting, describe just what the prime motive is behind the action against me. This having become very obvious in recent weeks.

But – before I embark upon another impressive display of my diplomatic skills – some news of a forthcoming attraction!

At some point later this week I will be posting an essay that the Jersey oligarchy are not going to like.

Not one little bit.

Oh yes.

But most readers of this blog will find fascinating.

Now – that’s that teaser out of the way – back to my legal travails.

I thought I’d search for some more novel quotes than the obvious wisecrack uttered by ‘Dick the Butcher’ in Shakespeare’s Henry VI - “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers!” – not least because so much more foul are lawyers than even politicians, many a lawyer has attempted, with heroic sophistry, to argue the quote is favourable to lawyers because it is uttered by a villain.

Of course, the quote has remained widely known and popular, from Shakespeare’s day until this, because it so accurately sums the experience of the ordinary person when encountering the profession.

Let us be frank – people do not hear that famous line, and smile beatifically at the thought of “m’learned friends” being, in some way, defended because the line is spoken by a villain.

No. That line is as fixed in popular consciousness as ‘to be or not to be’, or ‘shall I compare thee to a summer’s day’ because – well – lawyers? Everybody bloody hates them.

OK – as with politics, there are one or two honourable exceptions – but, buy-and-large, the public have got it right in identifying the four most vile professions on Earth – when placing lawyers and politicians right down there in the gutter – along with journalists – and estate agents. I mean, how much lower can you get?

And should you still not be convinced that our greatest minds had the true mark of lawyers, just consider these oh so wise words by John Keats:

“I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters.”

So – what’s happened since I last wrote on my encounters with “justice”?

Just in case you’ve been relying on the Jersey Evening Post for your information, a brief recap; I am, in fact, facing four charges. These are the alleged offences of forgetting to renew my driving licence, and, likewise, not updating the registered address of my car in time; and disclosing controlled data, and having unlawfully obtained the data in question.

To read that esteemed journal, ‘The Rag’, one could be forgiven for thinking the charges were merely the two comparatively minor alleged infractions of the motor traffic law – the vastly more serious data protection law charges being reluctantly nailed onto the end of the JEP’s reports in a manner designed to elude most people – along with the profoundly serious issues that arise from the necessity of public interest disclosure of data by elected representatives.

Though it is only a matter of time until have ‘contempt of court’ charges laid against me, for the moment, I won’t go into too much detail concerning my resistance to all of the charges.

You’ll just have to take my word for it - for the moment – but there is more to these things than yet meets the eye.

But – here I am – on trial – in a mode foreseen by Kafka – and made real by Stalin – whilst certain senior civil servants continue to earn £250,000 of tax-payers’ money a year – without incurring so much as a suspension from their job – even though they spent the 1980s routinely savagely beating to a pulp vulnerable children in their “care”.

“The vices of the rich and great are mistaken for error; and those of the poor and lowly, for crimes.”

Lady Marguerite Blessington.

Although both British case-law, and European Court of Human Rights case-law seemed pretty clear to me – in my naivety – concerning a “fair trial” and “equality of arms” – apparently I was foolish and ignorant to imagine those dictums meant anything in practice.

I had already been refused legal aid, so had to be representing myself – but as though this didn’t put me at a great enough disadvantage, Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache – de facto politician and exculpator of child abusers -decided he just had to set his leading prosecutor on me, one Advocate Baker.

God only knows how much Baker costs the public; but it isn’t only him. I couldn’t help but notice during the last court hearing that he had not one - but two - ‘helpers’ with him – scrawling notes and stuffing them into his hand during the proceedings.

So much fire-power?

Against a self-representing carpenter?

One could be forgiven for thinking they’re very worried about this case.

One of the intriguing features of this experience are the predictable occasions on which the judges have said, “You will not make political speeches. This is a court of law – not a political occasion!”

Setting aside the brick-skulled notion that judicial processes aren’t ‘political’ (read The Politics of the Judiciary, by J.A.G Griffith) – and going along with their little game, I’ve striven to work within the expected paradigm. For example, I had, promptly, delivered to the prosecution – on the 26th June - a 16 page letter describing my skeleton argument, and listing the disclosures the defence required.

Now, naturally one didn’t expect them to co-operate – or disclose all the evidence necessary to the defence pleadings.

But I’ve found it a bit rich to listen to Baker - on more than one occasion – taking the opportunity of addressing the court with various political and personal insults against me – the very kind of thing one expects to encounter in politics – but that I have been expressly told I can’t engage in, in court.

According to Baker – it is – apparently – outrageous that the defence cites public interest disclosure concerning the data in question.

That any information I’m alleged to have disclosed was pure politics – and nothing whatsoever to do with seeking to prevent the murder of frail elderly patients.

That my motive – my “mens rea” – was simply to attack that wonderful Mr. Birt – former Attorney General – and now, recently appointed, Bailiff.

And that I had used a poor unfortunate data subject as a ‘victim’ to pursue this foul political aim.

And that by resisting their charges – and availing myself of exactly the same rights as any other person to a defence - and a fair hearing - I was “making a mockery of the island’s judicial processes!”

‘Therefore’ – bellowed Baker – ‘no public interest disclosure defence could stand!’

‘OK’, thought I, ‘there’s the prosecution argument, in a nutshell, so what do I need to do to undermine and disprove that argument – as I know I rightly can?’

So in correspondence with the prosecution I made it clear that in order to support the defence case, and undermine that of the prosecution, I required some additional, specific disclosures of evidence.

For example – all of the police, prosecution and Health & Social Services records – and identity of potential witnesses – relevant to the episode in question.

Now – trying to view things from the purely ‘legal’ perspective – and setting aside all political considerations – that seemed to me to be the entirely correct way forward – given the prosecution had nailed their colours to the mast of there being ‘no public interest defence in this case’.

After all – all the case-law on disclosing evidence that supports the defence and undermines the prosecution was – I thought – pretty clear.

Though, the thought did occur to me, from that forbidden political perspective – ‘My God – just how stupid are these people?’

‘They’ve stated their case, which I can now attack with all available evidence – which they must disclose to me – and, frankly, if it meant being taken out and shot – still, from a public interest perspective, it would be a good arrangement – given how much truth would be disclosed in open court.’

So – I wrote, demanding all the relevant evidence.

But – funnily enough - and who on Earth would have predicted this - the prosecution suddenly decided that the grounds of their case were now completely different. That their argument didn’t any longer hinge around the actual facts behind the data I’m alleged to have improperly disclosed.

A dramatic change in prosecution position which was enthusiastically supported by the Magistrate last week.

Now, the prosecution case is - ?

Well – I’m not entirely sure. The charges were hopeless before.

Now, they’re even more hopeless – and an abuse of the court’s processes - and a misuse of public money – than they were at the outset.

But, I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Between those initial appearances before the Magistrates’ court – and that of last week – we had a trip to Jersey’s Royal Court – where I was making an appeal against the refusal of the Magistrate to deem herself conflicted, given the politicisation of the island’s judiciary – and the fact that that - in-no-way-partisan-or-biased figure, Phil Bailhache – presided over her swearing-in to Office – and used the opportunity to mount a direct personal and political attack on me.

This is the relevant part of what Philip Bailhache said, referring to me, during the swearing-in of Ms. Shaw –

“But wholesale attacks upon the judiciary and suggestions that they are collectively incapable of dealing with any outcomes of the current child abuse inquiry are ignorant and unwelcome, and I deplore them. Senior politicians, should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda.”

No doubt, in my ignorance, I’m missing some other subtle legal distinction here – but it rather seemed to me that the various political speeches – like that one, and others – delivered by Phil Bailhache and his brother, Attorney General Bill Bailhache did – of themselves – prove that the Jersey judiciary was politicised and partisan – and thus incapable of being competent in the abuse inquiry.

What is it – if not overt politicisation – when the man who is chief judge - and Speaker of the island’s legislature – makes a speech in which he falsely ascribes a ‘personal agenda’ to a politician who is simply working on behalf of dozens of his constituents who are abuse survivors.

So, Ms. Shaw being politically contaminated from that moment on – I pursued my right to a fair hearing, as can any other person, with an appeal to a higher court.

The case was heard by one Sir Richard Tucker, a UK-based, long-standing Commissioner of Jersey’s Royal Court.

“A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.”

H. L. Mencken.

You might imagine that a UK-based judge would be free of all the baggage that so contaminates the local crew – that they would satisfy the objectivity test?

Sorry. This is Jersey we’re speaking of – where the “administration of justice” is an artefact of make-believe – only kept in hallucinated existence by ‘the Tinkerbelle Effect.’

For Sir Richard Tucker – as with all judges who sit in Jersey’s various courts – was sworn-in to Office by the Bailiff. In his particular case – the Bailiff in question being one Sir Philip Bailhache.

These various UK judges who serve in Jersey’s courts invariably become acquainted with – often very closely - the Jersey characters. Indeed – often becoming friends with them.

The judge may come from the UK, but will usually know people like the Bailhache brothers, many other members of the Jersey judiciary – such as Michael Birt or Frankie Hamon – and the ‘Jurats’, for example, Jurat John Le Breton.

With those individuals, and others like them, being inextricably embroiled in the whole saga – and thus the political efforts to crush me – naturally, I had to make a recusal application to the Royal court – given the very strong likelihood that any judge sitting would know – or even be friends with – these political opponents of mine.

Having a right to a fair trial, like any other person, I informed the prosecution and the court administration that I would need to question any judge as to the extent and nature of any potential conflict of interest; question them to discover if they were known to, and associated with, any of the other parties to the action, and if so, to what extent?

Because – and no doubt our legal friends will correct me if I’ve got this wrong too – in making a recusal application – the burden of proof rests with the applicant; me, in this case.

It was the task of the defence to show – on the balance of probabilities – that the judge in question was conflicted – to an extent that an ordinary, dispassionate observer would look at the situation – and feel a suspicion that the judge may not be impartial and objective.

OK. So my prime evidence for such a conflict of interests would be the nature and extent of any personal acquaintance or friendship the judge had with the other ‘interested’ parties.

And – in order to obtain and test that evidence – I would have to question the judge.

A fair hearing does – does it not – require access to the relevant evidence and testimony?

Apparently not – in this case.

My opening requests to ask the judge questions were largely trampled into the dirt with the predictable pomposity and hubris which I’m rapidly discovering to be some kind of prerequisite for membership of the British judiciary.

Though he did, with reluctance, concede that, yes, he knew Phil Bailhache – and maybe one or two others – but, no – I couldn’t question him on the extent or depth of his acquaintance with them.

It was, though, rather a pity he seemed to be unaware of the UK Judicial Conduct Guidance, which has this to say on a judge’s responsibilities in the event of a possible conflict of interests:

Section 3.12 of that guidance says this:

“If circumstances which may give rise to a suggestion of bias, or appearance of bias, are present so that they are to be disclosed to the parties, that should be done well before the hearing, if possible. Case management procedures will often enable this to be achieved.”

And section 7.2.2 says this:

“Personal friendship with, or personal animosity towards, a party is also a compelling reason for disqualification. Friendship may be distinguished from acquaintanceship which may or may not be a sufficient reason for disqualification, depending on the nature and extent of such acquaintanceship.”

Both stipulations which were not – even faintly – met in this case.

Sir Richard, likewise, seemed wholly disinterested in the rock-solid and unambiguous case-law of Pinochet –v- R in which the vague and indirect conflict of interests of Lord Hoffman was sufficient to have the Law Lords’ judgement against Pinochet set aside as unsafe.

So – not being able to access my principal evidence – again, I was unable to obtain a fair hearing.

Which was rather a pity – as I had done my homework on the subject – and already knew, for a stone fact – that Sir Richard Tucker was very well acquainted with Sir Philip Bailhache; had been for some years, and that they socialised together.

And that Sir Richard was a key guest at Phil Bailhache’s retirement dinner – which took place on the 30th June.

Obviously, I wasn’t present – but nevertheless, interesting reports reached my ears.

In fact – so enthusiastic a guest was Sir Richard at Phil’s retirement dinner, that he spent a good 15 to 20 minutes – in the presence of several people – seriously embarrassing himself – in ways I’m sure he’d rather I didn’t elaborate upon.

Naturally, my recusal application was thrown out.

And – not content with that - for good measure, he agreed with the application made by Phil Bailhache’s brother, Bill – to have Crown costs awarded against me.

“In England, justice is open to all - like the Ritz Hotel.”

Sir James Mathew

See? Doesn’t this just get better and better?

So – following the failed attempt to secure a “fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” – the case was back on the road to the Magistrates’ court – for a “directions hearing” – which took place last week.

I was labouring under the delusion that the directions hearing was actually quite important. Very important, in fact – because the likely outcome of this case may depend entirely on the directions given by the court.

The defence argument is that the charges are manifestly hopeless – given both the statute and case-law on public interest disclosure, politically motivated, maliciously brought, simply the latest episode in a long-running and very well-evidenced criminal conspiracy by the Jersey establishment to keep politically embarrassing crimes hidden and unpunished – in order to protect the oligarchy’s “image” - after all, we wouldn’t want anything to “Shaft Jersey Internationally”, now, would we?

Thus the charges are a plain abuse of the court’s processes, counter to the public good and should be thrown out.

Again – correct me if I’m wrong – but my reading had given me the impression that when making a case for dismissal of charges – a stay pf proceedings application on the grounds of abuse of process – the burden of proof was upon the applicant.

The burden of proof is reversed, and the defence has to prove – on the balance of probabilities – that an abuse of process has occurred.

So the defence – me – has been seeking disclosure of the evidence required to prove the contention of the defence; in fact, seeking disclosure of that vital evidence for at least two months now.

How surprising do readers find it that the prosecution has exhibited a rabid refusal to disclose that evidence necessary to support the defence’s case and undermine that of the prosecution’s?

Which is why the directions hearing was so fundamentally crucial to the defence. Prove to the judge that disclosure was necessary to the defence case – and the defence obtains the evidence which would prove its contentions.

Fail to persuade the judge that disclosure was necessary – and 90% of the evidence necessary to support the defence is not admitted to the proceedings.

Therefore – before a trial-proper has even begun – the prosecution will have succeeded at the outset in destroying the defence case through using some legal ‘technicality’ to deprive the accused of 90% of the evidence they need.

“Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.”

Charles Lamb

Knowing the directions hearing to, in all likelihood, be pivotal to the entire case, I set about the task of informing the prosecution and court of what evidence I would be citing – and, in particular – what witnesses I would be calling.

However, Baker wrote back to me, urgently asserting that “the directions hearing was not an evidential occasion” – and therefore I couldn’t cite evidence or call witness.

I later came to realise it was during this episode that the prosecution had engineered a “guilty” verdict – long before the actual trial has even begun.

“The lay litigant enters a temple of mysteries whose ceremonies are dark, complex and unfathomable. Pre-trial procedures are the cabalistic rituals of the lawyers and judges who serve as priests and high priests. The layman knows nothing of their tactical significance. He knows only that his case remains in limbo while the priests and high priests chant their length and arcane pre-trial rites.”

Stephen Elias

The prosecution – knowing full-well that the evidence required for disclosure by the defence would nullify their charges – and be immensely politically damaging for the oligarchy – have rabidly fought against virtually all the disclosures sought by the defence.

Knowing I’d have to evidence my case extremely well in order to stand any chance of getting the judge to require disclosure – I followed the correct procedure for subpoenaing certain witnesses – Attorney General William Bailhache amongst them.

My Letter of Instructions was found to be in order, and was accepted by the relevant authority who – I was assured – would proceed to serve the summonses.

The summonses to my witness did not get issued.

Now – you might want to sit down before you read any further – or perhaps have a stiff drink at hand.

It was - days later - that Bill Bailhache sent around an e-mail – to the court, the prosecution, the Viscount’s department, who issues summonses, and me – in which he informed everyone that “he had heard that I may be subpoenaing witnesses some days earlier – and had, therefore, contacted the Viscount’s department, – and “advised” them not to issue my summonses – as he “didn’t consider them appropriate”.

This, even though he was one of the witnesses to be summoned himself – and is a party to the case – in more ways than one.

Neat, no?

When I get summonsed for not paying Bailhache’s costs order against me – why, I’m just going to get in touch with the Viscount’s department and tell him not to issue the summons -“as I don’t consider it appropriate”.

No – wait – this gets even better.

In an attempt to protect themselves, Bailhache and the Viscount’s department knew they couldn’t undertake this action unilaterally – they knew they needed the court – the judge’s endorsement; some kind of ruling from her that she agreed with them that the directions hearing need not be an evidential occasion.

Bill Bailhache’s “approach” to the Viscount – and the resultant agreement not to issue the defence summonses – was effected via a letter to the judge from the Viscount’s department seeking “guidance” – and the judge’s agreement with Bailhache’s intervention.

The defence side was – finally - notified of all this unilateral and covert intervention with the judge - some days after Bill Bailhache’s interferences began.

Once again, I’m sure I must simply be terribly ignorant of these things – but I had thought that when procedural points are raised with a judge by a party – which both parties have a right to do – the other party had to be simultaneously copied-in on all the relevant correspondence – and given an equal opportunity to argue their position.

Such practice being essential to the concept of a “level laying field”, “equality of arms”, and a “fair hearing”.

I had thought – silly me – that covert approaches by a party to the justice apparatus – in a plain effort to massively disadvantage the defence case – was simply – and straightforwardly – an attempted perversion of the course of justice.

Especially when the judge agrees to go along with it.

“Laws are the spider's webs which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape.”

Solon

So – last Thursday, I appeared in court – for the pivotal directions hearing – the legal oligarchy, amongst themselves, having stitched-up whatever chance I may have had of securing the disclosure of the evidence that is required for my defence.

And Baker then stood there – and without batting an eyelid – proceeded to denounce me for “Making a mockery of justice in Jersey!”

I had to strive mightily not to laugh out loud at this Orwellian gem.

I doubt if I’ll bother next time.

The proceedings were predictably Kafkaesque. Baker, supported by his two colleagues was given pretty much free-reign to say what he wanted, when he wanted.

I was allowed a little more opportunity to speak on this occasion – but only a little bit – and even then, only because I complained about it.

I attempted to make a case for the disclosures I require – but it was a futile effort – as I couldn’t prove the relevance of the evidence I sought – because I didn’t have it – because I couldn’t prove its relevance – because I didn’t have it – because I couldn’t prove its relevance – because I didn’t have it – be…. – I’m sure you get the picture.

Even setting aside the defence’s detailed disclosure requirements, as laid down in my letter of the 26th June – the few, key items of evidence I asked for last Thursday were dismissed by the judge.

The defence case rests – fundamentally – on abuse of process, of public interest disclosure, of the evidenced need for that public interest disclosure, an extremely well-evidenced consistent, dangerous and corrupt pattern of the concealment of serious malfeasances by the Jersey establishment, abuse of powers – and a criminal conspiracy to keep such malfeasances, and their concealments, hidden.

My ability to run that defence – and associated applications – was, effectively, terminated last Thursday by the Jersey judicial oligarchy.

The judge called several, frankly mystifying, adjournments in the course of the afternoon – which gave every impression she was taking guidance or advice from some other person or persons in her chambers.

In addition to agreeing with the prosecution that the defence evidence should not be disclosed – she also agreed with them that they needn’t call any witnesses to the trial except those they want to. Which has the effect of leaving the defence to summon any witnesses it considers to be relevant – but – get this – because the defence has been left to call them – the defence cannot then cross-examine them.

Oh well – I try to look on the positive side – when my action for personal damages is mounted against Jack Straw – or whoever may succeed him – it's all further grist to the mill.

In fact, there were a couple of mysterious gentlemen in black suits sat at the back of the court. I didn’t know who they were, but my sources have suggested to me they were UK Ministry of Justice spooks.

No doubt trying to figure out if this farrago will be remotely defensible once it gets to Strasbourg.

Or trying to assess just for how much longer the British Judiciary can continue to get away with assigning judges to cases involving me – who are friends with the Bailhache Brothers and Co?

“Judges are but men, and are swayed like other men by vehement prejudices. This is corruption in reality, give it whatever other name you please.”

David Dudley Field

Why – given the actions they’re taking involve dicing with disaster – are the Jersey oligarchy – and the “Friends at Court at Whitehall” – proceeding in this way?

As I’ll explain on another occasion – there have been, and continue to be, several obvious and different motivations behind these oppressions.

There is, however, one – which is both fundamental – and very obvious from the nature of the prosecution arguments so far.

Convicting me is not their prime objective; they know that as soon as the charges reach a civilised court – even if that does have to be Strasbourg – they’ll be thrown out.

Their prime motivation is the exculpation of Michael Birt.

They want to try and get Birt off the hook for his failures to prosecute a number of very serious crimes.

Pure and simple.

In the alleged breach of the data protection law, Michael Birt – now Bailiff – and thus figure-head of the Jersey oligarchy – is condemned for not seeing through the prosecution of the immensely dangerous data subject in question, back in the day when Birt was Attorney General.

The authorities know Birt’s position is precarious – hopeless, in fact – but they want to try and salvage him anyway.

The prosecution of me – therefore – is nothing more than an opportunity for the police to stand up in the dock and take to themselves responsibility for not prosecuting the man concerned.

The cops will claim, “well, we just didn’t think we could make it stick, so we gave up”.

“It was not because of any input or decision of that wonderful Mr. Birt.”

That being the political objective of the prosecution – they can hardly then actually disclose to the defence lots and lots of evidence which may well disprove their attempted spin on Birt’s position.

I mean, just imagine if evidence which showed a Culture of Concealment, and of the failure to prosecute serious crimes, was made available to the defence – as it should be, given that that argument is central to the defence case?

Not only would the court be having to consider the full evidence concerning this data subject and associated episode.

The defence would be citing Birt’s failure to prosecute those responsible for concealing child abuse for at least 15 years at Victoria College.

And - the defence would also be examining in great detail Birt’s corrupt decision to let the child-torturing McGuires off the hook.

By this stage - I’m sure you are a smart enough bunch of readers to have made the obvious extrapolation.

If a former Attorney General – who went on to become Deputy Bailiff – and now Bailiff – can have his reputation deservedly annihilated because of a repeated failure to prosecute serious crimes – such as child abuse – then what is to stop a similar public interest disclosure happening again in the future?

Perhaps when another former Attorney General – who went onto become Deputy Bailiff – and will go onto become Bailiff – finds his despicable failure to prosecute child abusers exposed – and his “reputation” likewise destroyed?

A certain Mr. W. Bailhache wouldn’t care for that prospect.

Not one little bit.

Which is why they’ve got to crush me and rescue Birt.

Who said politics was boring!

“Make crime pay. Become a Lawyer.”

Will Rogers.

Stuart.

THE JERSEY EVENING POST:

2009-08-24T20:57:00.001+01:00

CONCEALING THE ABUSE OF YOUR CHILDREN.

Jersey’s Only “Newspaper” Reaches New Depths;

The Rag and Its Lies.

As regular readers will know, I’m rather busy with other matters at present – such as trying to stop Jersey’s toxic oligarchy having me jailed for exposing mass-murdering psychopaths – after they’d already been let off by Michael Birt – the new ‘Bailiff’. (He seems to have gotten into a bit of a habit there.)

Incidentally – my next court appearance is 2.00 pm – in the Magistrates’ Court - this Thursday, 27th August. I’m moving that the case be stayed – abandoned, basically – as an abuse of process.

And in making that application, I’ll have to explain a lot of evidence concerning the Jersey establishment’s various corruptions.

If you’re able – come along.

It could be quite entertaining – in the, perhaps forlorn, assumption I’ll be given a fair hearing.

So I don’t have time to undertake a detailed analysis of the contents of the Jersey Evening Post right now; later in the week, hopefully.

But – oh dear – I’ve seen some roiling rancid scum in the form of “news” stories in The Rag over the years – but during the last few days – they seem to have re-discovered their old, disgusting, selves.

It’s as though we were back in the 1950’s and 1960’s - and the Jersey Evening Post was waging its unremitting, fascistic war against Norman Le Brocq – in case he embarrassed them by gaining political influence – and asking questions about just how much money they took off the Nazis during the Occupation – in exchange for peddling Hitler’s garbage – rather like ‘Lord Haw Haw’.

Unfortunately, the bosses of The Rag didn’t join him on the gibbet – just too terribly embarrassing for the British establishment, you see?

But for those who are curious about the contents of The Rag – a few observations.

Two disgusting, foul, multiple child abusers have been convicted.

One has been sentenced.

The other awaits sentencing.

They were able to get away with it for decades – just as, indeed, were dozens of others; others who have not been brought to justice.

Doesn’t that gross structural, decades-old failure in Jersey’s child protection system make you worried?

Don’t you ask, “Could that still be going on?”

“Could it happen to my children?”

“How did the authorities fail so badly for so many decades?”

Yes – those questions – and many others like them – are what any thinking, decent person would be contemplating now.

But – as I remarked in my last posting – those are precisely the very questions The Rag and its bosses are desperate for the people of this island NOT to be thinking about.

Which is why we’ve had four days of desperate, panicking, lies and propaganda from The Rag.

Do you want to know just how the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster was able to happen; was able to be covered-up all those decades?

Read the last four editions of the Jersey Evening Post.

You’ll find your answer there.

There is no other newspaper in the respectable democratic world that would – at the successful conclusion of two major child abuse trials – produce four days of fulminating garbage – such rubbish as to be an insult to the intelligence – that focused on attempting to attack and smear THE cop who led the successful investigations.

As I said – later in the week we can undertake some detailed de-construction of the contents of The Rag’s recent output.

But should you wish for one or two quick illustrations of just how defective their ‘reporting’ is – just consider these points.

The Rag asserts – again and again – that “there were no child killings” – as though that were a proven, demonstrated fact.

It is not.

A misidentification of a single fragment of evidence – which is what the JEP clings to – like a drowning man – doesn’t make the rest of the questions go away.

Should you have the misfortune to read tonight’s Rag – look carefully for where it reports the other bone fragments?

Or, where it reports the 70 plus, children’s’ teeth?

Or – what about the mysterious lime-pits?

You see – contrary to the empty assertions of the Jersey Evening Post, and its efforts to brainwash you as though you were an idiot, the plain fact is that – we just don’t know if there were – or were not – child killings at HDLG.

As I wrote in response to a comment:

“As you know - a judge can only comment on what has been put before him.

And in these cases - as it will be in any others - it suited very well indeed the purposes of BOTH the prosecution AND the defence to heap doubt upon the possibility of child killings.

So one cannot expect the judge to comment on information, evidence, testimony or pleas that were NOT placed before him.

The reality is somewhat different concerning the possibility of killings.

Though The Rag repeatedly asserts - as though it were an established, proven bald fact - "there were no killings" - actually, in truth - we just don't know.

Remember several human bone fragments were found - and about 75 children's' teeth - which had come from a number of different individuals.

And the lime-pits?

And the frequent lighting of massive bonfires at HDLG during the 1960s and 70s?

All remain utterly unexplained.

Certainly, the 5 page Political press-release issued by Gradwell and Weirdcop last year didn't explain away these findings.

And in response to that press conference I wrote a blog posting, "37 Questions to Officers Warcup and Gradwell", on Thursday 13th November, 2008.

I suggest anyone interested read that blog posting, which is in the archive.

Not one of the questions were answered.

Of particular importance in the posting were questions 22 to 37 - which deal with radionuclide testing of the teeth.

Whilst not an expert in that subject, I do know a little bit about it.

Gradwell and Warcup have simply refused to have those radionuclide tests carried out - quite falsely claiming it would cost too much.

I know of serious laboratories across Europe that would undertake the tests for a few thousand pounds - at most.

Why the mystifying refusal to undertake what are rudimentary tests which would give us some crucial information?

So - what it is true to say is that we do not know for sure there were child murders at HDLG post-1945 - and equally - we do not know for sure there weren't - no matter how much the JEP may assert otherwise.

We just don't know.

And The Rag knows perfectly well that both prosecution and defence had a shared interest in rubbishing the possibilities of child murders - an interest shared with The Rag.

When I think of that subject - my mind always goes back to those '37 Questions' - and why Weirdcop and Gradwell's immense reluctance to answer any of them?

Especially, the reluctance to have that radionuclide testing undertaken?

So - child killings at HDLG?

I very much hope not.

But - contrary to the lies of The Rag - it, sadly, remains an open question.”

And in another comment I wrote today on a blog in the USA – where people are deeply sceptical about the “official” claims of the Jersey and British establishments:

“There were around 75 teeth recovered. The police said they came from a number of different individuals.

Many did not show the signs of wear you would expect, given the likely age of the children when the teeth “came out”.

Many of them had long roots still attached.

The forensic scientist they had looking at them at the time said of many of the teeth, “they could not have come out naturally.”

A point that has always deeply disturbed me is this. Following Lenny’s retirement – and the unlawful suspension of the Chief of Police, Graham Power – the “new management” of the Jersey police force have flatly refused to subject the teeth to radionuclide dating.

It is my understanding that a little, specific, radiocarbon dating was undertaken on some of the burnt bone fragments, but this proved inconclusive.

However, a more relevant set of tests would be to analyse the internal matrix of some of the teeth for the presence of novel radionuclides – or anthropogenic quantities of naturally occurring radionuclides – of the kind that were widely spread around the world – contaminating everyone – during the era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.

The Jersey oligarchy have tried to argue that these children’s’ teeth are old – from the Victorian era at the latest – but maybe hundreds, or even thousands of years older than that.

The concern many of us have is that the teeth may, in fact, originate from children who were living post-1945, and more easily testable, post-the early 1950’s due to the huge increase in nuclear bomb testing which began around then.

The analysis – and the issue it would resolve – is simple and clear.

You test those teeth; if there is no internal contamination - that is, within the tooth matrix - with radionuclides such as Plutonium, Strontium 90, or anthropogenic quantities of Carbon 14 – then the children were not living post 1945.

If such contaminations are discovered during the analysis – then the children those teeth came from were living post-1945 – or later. Not arguable. Period.

What – do we imagine – is the reason behind the profound reluctance of the Jersey and British authorities to have these tests undertaken?

I’ve written in detail about the bizarre conduct of the Jersey police in respect of these matters in a blog posting I did on the 13th November, 2008. Sorry, I’m no good at hyperlinks, but here’s the address:

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2008/11/37-questions-for-officers-warcup.html”

I’m sorry to have to write about these possibilities – and the shocking failures of the authorities to undertake every possible test – concerning the question of child killings.

But when confronted with The Rag’s repeated and desperate efforts to lie to the population of Jersey – and try and brainwash people into thinking that the possibility of any unexplained child deaths at HDLG had been disposed of – one has to keep on coming back to the truth.

Which is – we just don’t know for sure – one way or the other.

But we do know for sure – what we can see evidenced in the pages of the Jersey Evening Post – is that the authorities don’t want to undertake the necessary tests – and that the powers-that-be in Jersey are simply desperate to keep us distracted with their lunatic attacks on Lenny Harper.

In the hope that we forget about the real issues.

Such as – very, very serious child abusers convicted – decades too late – in what can only be seen as the grotesque, total, dishonest, unprofessional and disgusting decades-old failure of Jersey’s so-called child “protection” apparatus.

And the fact that a few, brave souls had said the system was rotten and broken.

And Jersey’s oligarchy - and its ‘house journal’, the JEP - dismissed them and sided with the abusers and concealers of abuse.

That the few were right.

And the powerful were wrong.

And how can we expect to begin protecting children properly here onwards – if there is still this crazed and fearful denial?

A refusal to come to terms with the truth?

Stuart.

JERSEY AND LIES.

2009-08-21T21:16:00.001+01:00

ANATOMY OF A SPIN: #8

An Occasional Column Devoted to a Study of the Opinion Management Industry.

HOW TO SPOT RUDIMENTARY PROPAGANDA:

LESSON ONE.

Child Abuse in Jersey

And the Response of the Island’s Only “Newspaper”.

This evening it had been my plan to share with you various mind-boggling revelations concerning my battle to stop the Jersey oligarchy neutralising me by sticking me in their jail; this for the unpardonable sin of allegedly breaking the data protection law - by making public interest disclosures concerning dangerous criminals.

Tonight I was going to post part 2 of our experiment in legal advice from a web-based community.

However, I’ve decided to make you wait for that particular report back from the front line of Jack-Straw-Labour-Party approved insanity – otherwise known as the “administration of justice in Jersey”.

Instead – I thought I’d do a brief post in response to the almost unbelievable propaganda and spin from Jersey’s only newspaper – the Jersey Evening Post – or The Rag as it is more usually known on this rock.

Look – most readers of this blog will be very familiar with the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – so I needn’t rehearse all those issue now; instead – let’s cut to the chase.

After over two years of very serious and dedicated work by the police, survivors, witnesses, and campaigners like me – we now have three of the child abusers convicted.

Much to the undisguised rage and fear of the local spivs.

Today, one Claude Donnelly – 69 years old – was sentenced for 13 counts of indecent assault – and 5 counts of child-rape – all against young girls.

He has received a well-deserved 15 years.

Yesterday, another Jersey child abuser – one Gordon Wateridge, was convicted of 8 counts of indecent assault, and one of assault.

He awaits sentencing.

These abusers being just two – of a very, very limited number the Jersey establishment has had to prosecute – because they had no choice.

At least 15 others have escaped justice – not even being charged – even though in the case of some of that number, I know for a stone fact they’re guilty.

But – for the moment, let’s just focus upon these two – Donnelly and Wateridge.

It has been obvious for a very long time that the Jersey oligarchy were getting down on their knees every night – and praying, praying, praying – for “not guilty” to be the verdict against Wateridge for every charge he faced.

The Jersey Evening Post almost certainly had its pages ready to roll – something like this:

“Wateridge is Innocent! Lenny Harper is THE Anti-Christ! See! We told you so all Along!”

However – much to the undoubted devastation of the Jersey oligarchy and The Rag - the jury returned “guilty” verdicts on many of the charges; this notwithstanding determined and desperate last minute attempts by the Jersey oligarchy and its Rag to prejudice the Jury’s deliberations.

However – The Rag has not allowed such trifling details as the fact that Lenny Harper was right – and that he was the cop who initiated and led the investigation which has brought these disgusting old perverts to conviction – to deflect them from their objective – which is – attempting a quite despicable smear-campaign against Lenny Harper – in a text-book propaganda attempt to divert attention away from the real issues.

The real questions.

What The Rag is doing is a text-book propaganda and spin device.

There is a big, nasty, story happening – which is very inconvenient to you or your bosses – so what do you do?

Why, of course, you manufacture a fake, diversionary story – or over-inflate a tired, old re-tread of obsolete ‘news’.

Yesterday and today – with more to come - the Jersey Evening Post has striven mightily to turn the story on its head.

The Rag is trying to diminish public focus upon the conviction and sentencing of these two child abusers – by trying to draw public attention on to a load of dishonest, obsolete, smear-campaign garbage – against THE police officer who led the investigation which nailed these two bastards.

Why do you think that might be?

Why should Jersey’s only “newspaper” be almost certainly the only newspaper in the entire Western, democratic world – which would focus more effort, vitriol – and lies – against the police officer who brought these two disgusting criminals to conviction – than it does upon the foul abusers themselves?

There are several, equally valid, answers to those questions - answers we’ll explore in the coming days.

But just as a brief post – I thought I’d pose a few questions for you to think about – and raise some issue that all decent people should be focusing upon – rather than falling into the JEP trap of being diverted by irrelevancy.

These are just a very few of the questions that any self-respecting journalist - and any decent human being - should be asking.

And – of course – these are the very, very questions that The Rag doesn’t want you to be thinking about.

How come it has taken so long for these abusers to be exposed, charged and punished?

How many others like them are there out there in this community?

How were Wateridge and Donnelly - 78 and 69 years old, respectively – able to have spent decades unpunished?

Why – for decades – has the entire edifice of public administration in Jersey failed to discover, expose, stop and punish these abusers – and dozens of others like them?

What the bloody hell – for all those decades – in days gone by – were the police force of the day doing?

Why were so many complaints of abuse – made to many different agencies in Jersey over the decades – simply ignored – or, more accurately – pro-actively concealed - by the very people who tax-payers employ to, in theory, stop these dreadful crimes happening?

If Jersey – and its ruling establishment - are so perfect and respectable – how come all of these monstrous abuses were able to be concealed for at least seven decades – and only – finally - be exposed and punished by a straight, tough, belligerent Ulsterman?

Why should the Jersey oligarchy now be expending more effort upon attacking Lenny Harper – than they are in addressing these type of obvious questions?

What – in truth – does that say about our ‘traditional’ notion of what our community represents?

Instead of being diverted by the lies and garbage of The Rag – think about the real questions - and later next week we’ll engage in a close analysis of the local reportage – and the motives that lay behind it.

Stuart.

CHILD ABUSE IN JERSEY:

2009-08-19T21:42:00.003+01:00

HOW THE LOCAL MEDIA SPIN IT.

Distortions, Lies, Manipulations, Smears

From the Jersey Oligarchy’s Media.

More regurgitated Attacks on Lenny Harper

Designed to Deny the Survivors Justice.

To readers outside Jersey it is almost impossible to accurately describe just how riddled with venality, lies, idiocies, ethical bankruptcy, out-and-out corruption and quite staggering abuses of power this place is.

After all – we’re a British Channel Island – a Crown Dependency, no less. And situated right on the doorstep of France and the UK – as opposed to being some far-flung ex-colony – so, we must be “respectable” – right?

Wrong.

Every component of the Jersey power-apparatus is rotten to the core. Billions of dollars flood through here each year – with Christ knows what malign influences - and in the process, increasing the tax-burden on people in large nation-states.

And every kind of internal rot imaginable infests the local political scene. Certain members of the legislature having their votes and influence bought? No problem.

No construction development permission - unless the politician of the day with the relevant power gets “a suitcase stuffed with cash” – and sex with you wife? “The Jersey Way”.

Predatory serial rapists of young women – occupying positions of great power and influence – and remaining untouched by the police – to this day? Well, that’s just the way it goes.

Rapidly approaching total destruction of the island’s environment – due to more planning authority corruption than every English county combined? Well, it’s not what you know – it’s who you know – and what you know about who you know.

Complete stagnation in the administration of justice – to the extent that I – a defendant in a case of malicious prosecution – can properly issue summonses to require witnesses to attend the court-case as a part of my defence – only for Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache, to secretly contact the department responsible for issuing those summonses – and tell them not to – because he “doesn’t consider the summonses appropriate”?

Even though he is a party to the action - and one of the people to be summoned?

And one-hundred-and-one other, similar corruptions that are routine in Jersey.

And all tolerated - nay – actually pro-actively protected, by this Labour Government – and Mr. Straw in particular.

As you might imagine, I’ve been following with very great interest the situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands. A British Overseas Territory, a designation that brings with it certain subtle differences to Jersey’s designation as a British Crown Dependency.

But nevertheless – ultimately – the British government carries final responsibility for good governance, the proper rule of law and the good administration of justice in all these places.

The British authorities identified compelling evidence for corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands – and a ‘climate of fear that prevented ordinary, decent local people from speaking out against those in power’.

Remarkably similar to Jersey.

Except that things in Jersey are worse.

Far worse.

And one of the things that make it far worse is the sheer, entrenched invulnerability of the ruling oligarchy here.

So concerned with the situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands – the British government has intervened and taken direct governance for a period of two years – until the proper rule of law and good governance is restored.

So – why doesn’t the British Government do that with Jersey – at least to the extent of taking direct control over all aspect of law enforcement and the good administration of justice?

I can tell you why.

Firstly – a great number of highly placed British establishment figures have made highly lucrative use of Jersey’s off-shore finance industry for many decades; often perhaps in ways which were not entirely legal and tax-compliant.

But, there is a more obvious reason why people like the Labour Party, its Government and Jack Straw won’t do the correct thing and intervene here to restore the proper rule of law. I made this point to Mr. Straw in an e-mail sent a few days ago. This is a quote from that e-mail:

“Your colleague, Foreign Office Minister Chris Bryant, recently took the necessary and proper step of suspending the government of the Turks & Caicos Islands due to – ‘rampant corruption, a break-down in the rule of law and a climate of fear amongst many ordinary people who dared not speak out for fear of being targeted.’

“That description could have been written about Jersey.

“Except that the situation in Jersey is worse.

“I realise the task of restoring Jersey to good governance, the proper rule of law and the good administration of justice will be a more difficult task than in the Turks and Caicos Islands – given that in the Jersey case, you would not be dealing with ‘inconsequential’ – black – descendents of slaves – but instead an entrenched grouping of Oxbridge educated, multi-millionaires who are terribly, terribly well-connected throughout the upper-reaches of the British establishment, including the judiciary, who belong to all ‘the right clubs’, who have “Friends at Court at Whitehall” – and who are all - exclusively – white.

“Nevertheless, I put it to you as a Labour Party Cabinet member, that rectifying the Jersey issues are challenges you must accept.”

Just imagine – how more influence and power do dozens and dozens of Oxbridge-educated, multi-millionaire, “clubbable chaps” – who are exclusively white – have than a small grouping of black people – with limited “influence” – and who live a long way away?

And given that rampant abuses of power, derelictions of duty – and levels of banana-republic type-propaganda openly flourish here – one can only remark upon the profound irony that it’s all being protected and propped-up - by a Labour Government.

Which brings me to a key-stone in the Jersey oligarchy’s power – its media.

Our mob could have taught Peter Mandelson a thing or two seven decades ago.

We are just nearing the conclusion of one of the few, token, child abuse prosecutions; one of the bear, de minimous, number the Jersey oligarchy thought they could get away with. The Jury has been sent out and are deliberating upon their verdict.

Obviously, the trial has been followed as it unfolds by what passes for the media in Jersey. And my old friends at the Jersey Evening Post – lapsing back into The Rag mode – have - oh so tastefully – used the defence lawyer’s summing up to mount yet another barking mad, simply dishonest and manipulative all-out assault upon Lenny Harper – producing a vast headline and lead story. The huge headline reading, “Harper Made Up ‘Remains’ Story”!

Those people in this community who are capable of thinking for themselves know full well – simply on the basis of a moment’s calm reflection – what utter cobblers such an assertion must be. Not that one can blame the defence lawyer for trying his luck in running such an argument – it is, after all, his duty to do his best for his client.

Though surely even a lawyer - and even a JEP journalist must know they're pushing their luck in focusing upon an aspect of the whole saga that simply has no relevance to the actual case being tried - "remains" not being relevant to these charges?

But don’t we get into deeply circular territory when a key assertion in the defence case is, essentially, recycled lies from the Jersey Evening Post – used in court – then recycled in turn – again – by The Rag itself?

But so desperate – and frightened – are the festering Jersey oligarchy that they seized upon this defence assertion – without waiting for a response from Lenny Harper to a load of obsolete questions – of the kind he’s answered dozens of times already.

Perhaps there are some people in Jersey who actually enjoy being lied to by the island’s only “newspaper”; perhaps some islanders enjoy being taken for fools?

I know that most do not – and are increasingly sick of the corrupted power we, sadly, see in Jersey all too often.

So – as there is zero chance of The Rag doing it – here, the Quite Vile Blog brings you Lenny Harper’s response to the questions The Rag put to him – simply as an insurance policy – so they could say they’d asked him for a response – whilst then rushing ahead without his answers – instead printing the regurgitation of their own lies – rather like a dog returning to its vomit.

Stuart.

Lenny Harper’s Response
To the Jersey Evening Post;
A response they didn’t wait for.

From: Lenny Harper
To: Diane Simon dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 August, 2009 15:46:31
Subject: Re: claims

Diane

Firstly, I was never served a witness order to go to court in Jersey. The Jersey court can order until they are blue in the face but if they do not communicate a request to those concerned it is rather farcical, or more likely, a deliberate ploy to try and suggest that the witness is avoiding something. The nearest I got to a witness order was finding a piece of Strathclyde police message paper through my door on return from holiday asking me to contact them about a court hearing in Jersey. I did. They could only tell me that there was a court case in Jersey the next day. They could not say why I was required and what evidence I was being asked for. As I had made no witness statement I found this rather odd. I contacted the Crown Office in Edinburgh. They told me it had something to do with producing day books. They also told me they had no enforceable witness order. As I had no day books and the Jersey authorities knew this, I reasoned, and still do, that this was not the real reason they wanted me there. It probably had more to do with the false stories they had given the media. I did not trust them and offered to the Crown Office to give evidence in front of any UK court. This was confirmed as an option but Jersey never took it up. One reason is that they knew I had no day books and that was on the advice of Scotland Yard. Jersey sent two officers to the Yard and obtained a statement confirming this. I have no doubt that officers over my time in Jersey have observed me using A4 books. I have described in great detail several times what the one I carried during the enquiry was. As for the book I was photographed holding - who knows? People carry all sorts of books.

As for defence claims that the abusers would not get a fair trial. Rubbish. None of the trials features any evidence about teeth or bones. Try and find a statement where these are mentioned.

You are right. I do not trust the Jersey authorities. There are many reasons why. Try the lies they told the media about what I had said - try blaming me for unlawful spending when I have an e mail - highlighted by the Sunday Times only a few weeks ago, where I am firmly admonished by Bill Ogley on behalf of the Chief Minister for daring to consider the costs of the enquiry - "Cost is irrelevant" he said. The Sunday Times highlighted this and other untrue assertions made by them. I would trust a fox in a chicken house more than I trust the Jersey authorities.

The book business is rubbish. The conversation you mention never took place. The sum of £200,000 is fantasy and ridiculous. Yes - I did say many times that I could not consider a book until I retired. Is that a wrong thing to say? Would I not have been more wrong to consider it whilst working? You can't win can you? Who in their right mind would offer £200,000 for a book about Jersey? Like all Jersey public officials I was in the company of journalists many times, and yes I was at a dinner where a NOTW journalist was present. Scotland Yard officers who were also there made a statement to Jersey police in which they categorically stated that nothing untoward was said by me and that I spent most of the time outside on the phone. I think that may have been the night I received the call about the teeth, but as Scotland Yard officers said in a sworn statement that was not mentioned publicly by me. Of course I would have mentioned it to officers in private later but do you not think that this would have been headlines immediately in the papers if we had told the journalist? Ask about the statement by the Scotland Yard officers - unless of course this is another piece of inconvenient evidence which has now been lost.

Read the Sunday Times article about the timing of the Julie Robert's fragment. Also read her journal. She makes it clear that she never changed her mind but that she could not now be so sure. She did not get it back until, I think, April, and on that date she writes "now that the work on the context is finished." They did not finish work on the context until well after we sent the fragment off. This is another untruth by those seeking to twist the facts. As I have said, read the Sunday Times article and ask to see the relevant parts of Julie's journal. Funny how they have kept this bit under wraps. However, the Sunday Times had it and revealed it. Furthermore, see the quotes from the Anthropologist in the UK who told the Sunday Times that he had never heard me say anything contrary to his findings and that he even waived his fee so impressed was he with the professionalism we showed. Where has this all gone?

We are going over old ground here that I have explained to you many times. I am sorry to say I doubt the motivation for this. I told you previously that the fragment was identified at the scene. I also told you that not only did we find a newspaper journalist hiding in the bushes at the same time, but that we knew nothing would stay secret for long. Your paper well knows that with your frequent use of sources to reveal news from within the force. How many times do you have this on record? The infill/rubbish was nonsense. See the report from the Archaeologist which disappeared from the police web site due to "a fault."

Again, the judgement of the legal establishment seems strangely at odds with how journalists remember it. In the words of the Sunday Times journalists he did not believe the more lurid stories because "Lenny Harper warned me against them." This is corroborated by a number of BBC and other journalists. However, the Judge can, I suppose, only comment on what is laid (selectively) before him. No wonder the British Government think there is something wrong with Jersey.

Until we entered the building I did not have the evidence to mount a dig. What changed my mind is well documented in the report which was on our web site and which we circulated to the media. I attach a copy of it here.

The overtime at HDLG was for security and was nothing different from the norm at a scene which was a potential major crime scene. The levels of security were endorsed as necessary by the ACPO team present who said we had no choice but to treat the area as a potential major crime scene. Uniform Operations Management supplied the officers who had to be on overtime to avoid removing police officers from protecting the public in Jersey. Martin Grime was not only a dog handler, he was the NPIA search advisor when the major crime search experts were away doing other things. Have you bothered to enquire of the rates we were receiving at the hotels we used? They were rates way below the norm. The Treasury were well aware. Where should we have put him up? In a tent? As for the last nasty little smear about restaurant bills, I was often in London and managed to accumulate many, many, services, reviews, and advice from officers and others there free of charge. Has anyone told you how much that lot was worth? I bet not. Operating as we do on an island, networking and hospitality is an essential part of that. I do not know what is being enquired into - the authorities are so desperate to deprive the victims of justice once again that they will stoop to any level. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Lenny

COME AND SEE JERSEY JUSTICE IN ACTION.

2009-08-17T19:32:00.001+01:00

10.00 AM TOMORROW MORNING

A JERSEY’S ROYAL COURT BUILDING.

My Appeal for an Objective and Impartial Court.

Just a very brief post, as I’m busy ploughing through various law-books and things of that nature.

I’m in court again tomorrow morning, at 10.00 at Jersey’s Royal Court – where I shall be mounting two arguments.

Readers will recollect that when appearing before the Jersey Magistrate’s court, the first step I took was to argue that the court could not meet the well-established tests of impartiality and objectivity.

Naturally, the judge rejected that argument – so tomorrow, I am going to the Royal Court to appeal against her decision.

But – of course – all the arguments concerning structural biases and conflicts of interest that I mounted in the Magistrate’s court - also apply to the Royal Court.

Indeed – if anything – dramatically more so.

Therefore – before we get onto my actual appeal against the Magistrate’s court decision – I’m mounting what is known as a recusal application before the Royal Court – just as I did the lower court.

Now – this exercise is going to be quite fascinating.

You see, I have a variety of legal sources to refer to – and a variety of evidence, which I have submitted – and – for tomorrow’s purposes – a particular witness I shall need to cross-examine to stand any chance whatsoever of making my case.

Will the witness submit to cross-examination?!?!

How exciting!

If he does – we get a very interesting legal case.

If he doesn’t – I don’t get a fair trial.

Again.

Come and watch Jersey justice in action.

10.00 am, tomorrow morning.

Stuart.

YOU’LL “LOVE” THIS.

2009-08-12T22:23:00.003+01:00

JERSEY’S COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

DEFENDS CHILD BATTERERS,

CHILD RAPISTS,

LIARS,

WASTERS OF TAX-PAYERS’ MONEY,

CROOKS,

UNEMPLOYABLE BUFFOONS

AND SHYSTERS.

Yes – it’s another ‘you-couldn’t-make-it-up’ moment.

Time for some more Beckettian black farce.

Did you know that – apparently - some of those poor, sweet, dears in the ranks of Jersey’s senior civil service are being “bullied”?

That someone is being so utterly dreadfully unreasonable as to expect social services senior mangers – who are only paid £150,000 per year – plus big fat final salary pension - to, you know, do stuff like stop children being raped and battered?

Isn’t it just monstrous – that a Chief Executive of Health & Social Services should be expected to not be a lying, lazy, incompetent ethically bankrupt shyster who conceals child abuse – given he only earns £250,000 of tax-payers’ money per year?

Dear oh dear – someone even took a proposition to the island’s parliament recently to seek a Committee of Inquiry into why Mike Pollard – and most of his senior management team – had caused the unlawful death of a patient, rigged the subsequent investigation - then lied to the media about it.

I mean – as though having suffered the penalty of having to pay for his own guitar lessons weren’t punishment enough?

And what about that poor, dear man, the Treasurer of the States – who has just blown many millions of pounds of Jersey tax-payers’ money through sheer, brazen incompetence in failing to hedge the exchange costs in funding the new incinerator? Did you know that some people are so unreasonable as to expect accountability if you’re being paid £250,000 a year to run the island’s finances?

I mean – isn’t it just so unreasonable to have expected him to learn a little bit about handling money – given that he’d already run-up several hundred million pounds of debt in the Teachers Superannuation Fund, when he was Treasurer of that department – and nobody complained about that at the time?

And who could be quite so beastly as to place criticism on those poor innocents who very nearly caused the States of Jersey to get hooked into a deal with Harcourt to develop St. Heller’s waterfront – without bothering to undertake a due diligence test – you know? Like to check the company wasn’t embroiled in various legal battles and may have no viable bond?

Did you know there are still some people who get all worked up about half-a-million tonnes of ultra toxic incinerator ash just being dumped into the sea-porous land reclamations sites around St. Helier? I mean, for Heaven’s sake – what’s the matter with these people? What’s a cocktail dose of dioxins, furans, mercury, PCBs, lead, arsenic, zinc and cadmium – in comparison to the “burdens” on the shoulders of those poor departmental Chief Officers?

And – believe it or not – there are still some States members – and a goodly number of members of the public – who still get very angry when thinking of that £49 million in tax-payers’ money wasted on capital overspends during the 1990’s.

And there is – supposedly – a States member who gets very angry and very unpleasant to over-paid, under-worked, lying crooks who, after all, were just following “The Jersey Way” when they went along with the concealment of foul crimes against children for decades. But surely people like Marnie Baudains, Anton Skinner, Geoff Spencer - etc. – should just be left in peace to enjoy the millions they’ve “earned” from Jersey tax-payers.

Who could this mystery, foul person be – who would prefer to see a couple of dozen over-paid idlers who collectively cost the public maybe £10 million a year – sacked – rather than close down day-care centres for the elderly?

Just who is this despicable monster – who would rather see youth facilities kept open and nurses paid properly – instead of “employing” senior managers who cover-up the torture and battery of children – and conceal the unlawful killing of patients?

Yes – it’s confession time.

This hideous and appalling enemy of “The Jersey Way” – is me.

And I know for sure it’s me – because Jersey’s Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur has written to me and told me so.

In fact – so certain is he and his Council of Ministers of this fact – and just how dreadful it is – he has decided to take the immensely brave step – under the present public financial circumstances – of employing – at public cost - yet another expensive outside consultant – for all these poor, maligned, benighted moronic slackers – err – sorry - senior civil servants to cry on the shoulder of.

And then to produce yet another very expensive report stating just what a dreadful bastard and thug that Stuart Syvret is. (And, you know, he’s such a swine, he won’t even take any notice of it.)

A very funny thing happened to me on my way from the Co-Op this evening; a person stopped me and said, have you seen the JEP? ‘No’, said I. “Why? What have I done this time? Burnt down the States building?”

“Oh no, nothing like that today. It’s just that there are three letters in the paper you’ll agree with very much. And – get this – they’re all from countryside addresses. How weird is that?”

So purchasing a copy of the said journal, I turned to the letters on page 15 and, sure enough, there were indeed, three letters – under the heading, ‘Incinerator Costs’; from a Mr. Connor, a Mr. Wheeler and a Mr. McGregor.

And, sure enough – I agreed with every word, every syllable of those letters.

The people of Jersey are getting angry – getting very angry – and this anger – traditional oligarchy dopes, note – is across the political spectrum – and across the class spectrum.

In truth – we should have wrestled to the ground and driven a stake through the heart of the culture of utter invulnerability – of immunity from accountability that infests the higher reaches of the civil service decades ago.

If people are paid an awful lot of tax-payer’s money – for their supposed “professionalism” and “expertise” – then with that remuneration should come an appropriate degree of ‘moral hazard’.

You fail – you clear your desk – and walk.

End of.

Yet, instead – and quite extraordinarily given the very hard – and getting harder – financial times we all face – instead of finally grasping that nettle – and imposing some form or professionalism, discipline and accountability on the bloated upper-reaches of our massively unsustainable senior civil service – Terry Le Sueur, Philip Ozouf and the rest of the Clowncil of Ministers – are going in exactly the opposite direction!

Which brings me to Senator Le Sueur’s letter – which I reproduce below.

There’s a funny thing about his letter – which is – unintentionally, very revealing.

For good or ill – I am one of your chosen elected representatives. You may hate me – you may disagree with me – but if you’re a democrat – and if you believe your elected representatives should be free from harassment, and not be pressured to act against your interests as tax-payers’ – then you will expect your politicians to be willing – and able – to hold the executive to account.

And that’s what I try to do as States member.

But – according to Senator Terry Le Sueur in his letter – my efforts to do what he and his Clowncil are incapable of – and combat the collection of buffoons otherwise known as the Corporate Management Board – is the work of an “external party”.

According to Terry Le Sueur and his Clowncil of Ministers – I’m not a States member.

They’ve decided that, ‘well, Syvret might be an elected member – placed in the States by the voting public – but as far as we’re concerned, he’s merely an “external party”’.

I suggest you read Senator Le Sueur’s deeply alarming and profoundly dangerous letter – and think very carefully about just what it means.

Some readers will be familiar with the TV comedy series, “Yes Minister” – which depicted elected politicians as the puppets of an utterly out of control, unaccountable, unelected senior civil service that was running rings around them.

I’ve often remarked that the situation in Jersey is worse – far worse – than that parody.

And now we have proof – in the form of Terry Le Sueur’s letter.

I’ve always viewed my role as a politician to be that of protecting the public interest from the edifice of public administration. For reasons which have always eluded me – 95% of Jersey States members seem to have the opposite view – that it is, somehow, their job to protect public administration from the public.

If what is revealed in Senator Le Sueur’s letter is not a frankly horrifying attempt to crush democratic public control - to intimidate, harass and silence your elected representatives – whoever they may be – and instead fix another layer of armour-plating over the bloated collection of expensive, unethical and incompetent shysters that cost you millions each year – then I don’t know how to write obnoxious e-mails.

Read Terry Le Sueur’s letter – and be afraid for you bank-balance – be very afraid.

And to give you an even more detailed and alarming impression of the sub-text to a great deal of this saga – read my reply, which appears below his letter.

I am going to sue the Council of Ministers – and sue the States – because the actions they took against me were criminal. Calculated and determined efforts to silence me – carried out at the express demands of these very senior civil servants – who wanted to try and stop me exposing decades of their gross professional – and criminal – failures.

Such action is – sadly – the only way the truth will be dragged out – and the only way the broken shambles of Jersey’s public administration will be fixed.

But in the interim – please – will somebody save us from people like Terry Le Sueur, Philip Ozouf and the rest of them.

We’re already running out of time.

Stuart.

LETTER TO STUART SYVRET
FROM TERRY LE SUEUR.

Terry Le Sueur
Chief Minister
Cyril Le Marquand House
St Helier
Jersey,
JE4 8QT

Tel: +44 (0)1534 440400
Fax: +44 (0)1534 440408

11 August 2009

Dear Senator Syvret

I am writing to advise you that the States Employment Board has received a letter from the Health and Safety Inspectorate advising that they have received a complaint that States employees are allegedly being bullied by an external party during the course of their duties. I enclose a copy of the letter.

Although the letter talks in general terms, I regret to say that a visit to the Human Resources Department by the author of the letter has confirmed that the external party is you.

The Inspectorate has more recently followed up this letter with a second letter asking for details of what the Board is doing about the complaint (copy attached).

The Board has decided to commission an independent investigation into this complaint. The investigation will be carried out by Mr Christopher Chapman who lives in the UK and who, amongst other things, is an Employment Tribunal Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Central Arbitration Committee. Mr Chapman is particularly keen that you should be included in his investigation and will most certainly want to meet with you. A copy of his CV is attached.

The terms of reference for the investigation are as follows:

• to consider the extent of alleged staff harassment by an external party and the effect this is having on the personal health and welfare of the staff affected and their ability to perform their jobs competently;

• to consider the means through which the alleged harassment is perpetrated;

• to determine the effect this is having on the general culture, work environment and the self-confidence of staff other than the alleged Victims;

• to make recommendations to the States Employment Board on how best to arrange for the alleged harassment to be addressed.

I do hope that you will see this as a positive way of addressing the concerns raised and agree to participate in the investigation.

Yours sincerely

Senator Terry Le Sueur
Chairman, States Employment Board
direct dial: +44 (0)1534 440439
E-mail: t.lesueur@gov.je

REPLY TO TERRY LE SUEUR
FROM SENATOR STUART SYVRET.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 12 August 2009 13:27
To: Terry Le Sueur
Cc: Council of Ministers; William Bailhache
Subject: RE: E-mailing: Syvret bundle

Senator Le Sueur

I do thank you for providing me with a little light relief.

Well - at least, it would be - were it not for the fact that your letter is another brazen - and, frankly, idiotic - example of the "Culture of Concealment" still being used by the Jersey oligarchy - here in 2009.

I'm sure the media are going to love it.

You and Mr. Chapman can undertake the proverbial hike.

I will not be meeting with him. I will not be speaking with him. I will be not altering one jot of what is written on my blog. I shall continue to write about the significant grouping of demonstrable criminals within the senior civil service. Largely a grouping of self-protecting incompetents who are barely employable, and who, in many cases, have behaved utterly disgracefully.

You - Senator Le Sueur - are simply too weak, unprincipled and spineless to exhibit the necessary leadership required to safeguard the public good, and deal with these people.

Instead, you are their poodle. As your letter shows.

As you and your establishment allies always appear to regard me as a moron - let me explain to you exactly what my various legal researches have shown to me.

I have a right to free speech as guaranteed under Article 10 of the ECHR. It is not an absolute right, rather, it is a qualified right. But nevertheless, the European Court of Human Rights has attached great significance to protecting the right to free expression.

The lawful methods of testing whether my free speech is, in any hypothetical case, sufficiently 'unlawful' to merit interference with are very well documented and established.

Hate speech - such as racism, or incitement to violence - would be unlawful. As I oppose both racism and violence, and have advocated neither (on the contrary) no such method of restraining my free speech could be invoked.

The other, principle test as to whether the exercising of free speech is unlawful, is a defamation action. Those who feel baseless things have been spoken or written about them, may sue the party who made those expressions for defamation.

As what I write on my blog is not protected by parliamentary privilege - the supposed aggrieved parties are at perfect liberty to sue me for defamation.

None of them have - a fact I feel we can draw certain conclusions from.

Let me put it to you why none of them have sued me.

It is because they know - full-well - that the process of discovery, of examining all the evidence, of testing the matters in court - the prospect of me calling 18 men who would, for example, testify about the savage batterings they received as children from a certain Chief Officer and his predecessor - would destroy them.

They know that I would win any such action (assuming a competent court) - and consequently, their reputations would be annihilated.

Just as would yours - for your spineless, anti-public interest determination to protect these clowns.

And just as the reputation of the Attorney General would be destroyed - as so much evidence would emerge in court as to demonstrate many of his various refusals and failures to prosecute to be literally incredible.

Your letter represents merely the latest in a chain of increasingly desperate acts of oppression and abuses of powers that have been deployed against me by you and the rest of the Jersey Establishment Party during the last two years.

Firstly - the very civil servants you now seek to protect engaged in unlawful and unethical acts in an effort to engineer my dismissal; this in attempt to conceal their incompetence and, frankly, criminal conduct.

You - and all the then Council of Ministers willingly joined in with that oppression - and in customary Jersey Oligarchy fashion, cast aside the public interest in order to engage in another exercise of concealment.

The Council of Ministers unlawfully fast-tracked the dismissal meeting against me.

The then Deputy Bailiff - now Bailiff - improperly advised that due process could be cast aside.

The supposed "case" against me was e-mailed to me less than 24 hours before your fast-tacked, unlawful meeting.

The Data Protection Commissioner - with the full support, encouragement and connivance of the Attorney General - began a process of the abusive and oppressive application of the data protection law against me.

These even leading to the quite laughable spectacle of her writing to me - and attempting to argue that, somehow, the data protection law empowered her to make me stop writing things on my blog which were simply things told to me by my constituents, and involved no controlled data.

We have more recently had the banana-republic police raid and "fishing expedition" type search, that saw the house being turned over from top to bottom, me being locked into police cells for seven hours - all through the utterly unlawful and abusive application of Article 29 of PPCE.

All that having failed to deflect me - the police now, from time to time - issue me with "warning notices", citing the harassment law; another comically incompetent attempt to silence me as though Article 10 of the ECHR just didn't exist.

All in a futile effort to stop me doing my public duty and protecting the public interest from a manifestly incompetent, out of control, invulnerable, bloated, expensive - and frequently criminal senior civil service.

You - Senator Le Sueur - prefer instead to protect this shower of buffoons, idlers, liars, shysters and criminals.

It is plain to me where my public duty lays.

I should inform you that I will be including your letter and associated documents, and this e-mail, in the evidence bundle for the abuse of process application I am making.

Let me also take this occasion to briefly inform you of another, related matter, though I will write in more detail concerning this on a later occasion.

The actions of the Council of Ministers, certain civil servants, the then Deputy Bailiff, and certain others - as conducted against me during the summer of 2007 were unlawful.

That is, unlawful in both the criminal and the civil sense.

Plainly - things being as they are in Jersey - there is not the remotest possibility of the criminal aspects being pursued by today's police force - nor the Attorney General - given he is a participant in the criminal activity complained of. Nevertheless - I have given extensive formal statements to the police.

The actions of you, the rest of the Council of Ministers and certain civil servants being a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

The letter you have sent to me - in which you are seeking to engineer my silence, so that criminal acts continue to be concealed, is another example of that criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

As I said - I don't expect these matters to be pursued - given the complete break-down in the rule of law we witness in Jersey.

Nevertheless - for a variety of reasons - reasons further evidenced by your letter - I hereby give notice that I am going to initiate civil legal proceedings against the Council of Ministers, certain senior civil servants, and others - for a variety of wrongs committed against me - and will be seeking substantial personal damages.

I will write, in due course, with the detail of the wrongs you and others have committed against me. Naturally, you will not wish to accept culpability, so the matter will go to a full civil trial. And so broad will be the issues at contention - that a great deal of 'discovery' will be necessary. Incidentally, the parameters of discovery are far wider in civil actions than in criminal actions.

The civil trial will also present a huge, over-arching public advantage - in that very many of the survivors will have their day in court - and a great deal of the truth will emerge. Indeed, perhaps even one or two witnesses who recall very clearly being savagely beaten with a rod by a certain former teacher at De La Salle.

The events complained of largely began to take place in the summer of 2007 - and have continued to the present day. I have, therefore, until the summer of 2010 to initiate the legal action.

I look forward to seeing you and all your colleagues in court.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey

LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS:

2009-08-05T17:10:00.002+01:00

DO YOU HAVE A SOUL?

DO YOU SUPPORT JUSTICE?

DO YOU DESPISE CHILD ABUSE?

If so – Now is the Time to Mobilise

And Make YOUR Government Act.

Read my Report to Jack Straw

Below this Posting –

Then Demand That he Act.

In my last posting, I wrote about the naïve sense of optimism I felt at learning of the covert police investigation into the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, back in November, 2007.

The cynicism tutored into me by 18 years in Jersey politics was suddenly lifted – for a time – with the news that, at last, we had a straight, decent police force who were investigating the many decades of concealed child abuse.

But a part of me still suspected – perhaps subconsciously knew – that if the Jersey oligarchy were left to their own devices – by hook or by crook – they’d find a way of burying it all again – and denying justice to the survivors.

Again.

So whilst the Jersey police – at least when under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper – were doing their policing job – I knew I would have to be doing my political job.

Different tasks – needing to be pursued in different ways – but working to the same objective.

The proper rule of law and the good administration of justice.

So amongst the mountainous volumes of work I’ve done during these last two years – one of the key things was writing the report I re-produce below.

I sent it – on the 27th March, 2008, to the Justice Secretary of the British Government – Jack Straw MP. Cabinet member, former student radical – and now someone who – apparently – fancies his chances of becoming leader of the Labour Party, should Gordon Brown not survive in that job.

Along with my report, I sent certain appendices which evidenced much of what I had written. I had kindly been supplied, by Westminster contacts, with Straw’s direct Office e-mail address, to which I sent it.

And – to make doubly sure he couldn’t claim to have never seen the report – two MPs – John Hemming, Lib-Dem, and Austin Mitchell, Labour, - saw that copies were actually thrust into his hand.

I’m sometimes asked if I plan to write my memoirs. A few years ago, I fully planned to do just that, and had said so publicly – to the mocking amusement of my “esteemed colleagues” – before any of this controversy began. Now? I’m just really not sure I have the energy or inclination any more.

But if I did – a very strong contender for the title would – tragically – have to be - “I Told You So.”

Re-reading the report below for the first time in around six months made me again ask myself the question – “what on Earth ever possessed me to be – for a time – optimistic that truth and justice would prevail?”

I knew it wouldn’t.

It’s all there in the report.

Every burningly obvious defect, malfeasance, conflict and danger exhibited by the Jersey oligarchy in respect of the Child Abuse Disaster – I knew.

Which is why I wrote it all down in the report below.

In fact – when thinking about it now – I realise I was terrified – that isn’t too strong a word – for my constituents.

Terrified that they’d be betrayed by The System – yet again.

Jesus – I can’t even write about them – their feelings – their needs, now. I was going to – but I just can’t.

My sense of personal failure is just too overwhelming.

The report is long – I felt I had to cover all bases – to give it my best shot.

But it just wasn’t good enough – when faced with the entrenched might of the British establishment – the Jersey oligarchy’s powerful connections – their infamous “Friends at Court at Whitehall.”

I was going to say Straw simply ignored it; but, actually, that would be conferring too high a credibility on his response. I don’t believe he actually bothered to read it; and – to actually make matters worse – he simply placed it in the hands of those Whitehall mandarins who appear to be little better than performing monkeys – at the command of the Jersey oligarchy and their high connections in the British military.

Inevitably – the only response from London was intransigence. So five months later, John Hemming and I set about the task of attempting to get Jack Straw’s acts and omissions judicially reviewed in London. The case, eventually, came to court in March, 2009.

What happened?

I was self-representing – not being able to afford a lawyer – and turned up in the Royal Courts of “Justice” – to discover – guess what?

That two judges had been chosen to hear the ‘permissions application’ – one of them, a man who had been suspected of being a flasher – and the other, a friend of Phil Bailhache.

Because, like, that’s what you expect, yeah?

You’re going to court arguing that the Jersey judiciary has been pro-actively involved in covering-up sexual perversions – and the two judges you get to hear your case are a man with an unfortunate history of being prosecuted for sexual perversions – and a man who was appointed to Jersey’s Court of Appeal – by Phil Bailhache?

I was given only one hour to make the application, I was constantly interrupted, diverted, shouted-over, distracted and hampered in the making of our case by the judge who had been acquitted of flashing women on a train. The Government side were not even required to state their case. The two judges retired for 15 minutes – to tweak a little bit the “judgment” they had plainly already written. And when they returned – they basically told us to sod off.

And bear in mind – this wasn’t a rejection of our case in a judicial review.

This was simply an utterly irrational flat refusal of permission to even mount a case for judicial review; a decision simply incompatible with precedent, case-law and the relevant constitutional authorities.

I was not even supplied with a copy of the judgment, or a transcript of the proceeding. But going from memory, the argument of the two judges was basically this:

“You want the actions of the UK Justice Secretary to be judicially reviewed because he is tolerating a corrupt and stagnant judicial system in Jersey. What you should be doing then is going before that corrupt and stagnant judicial system in Jersey – and ask then to judicially review themselves.”

You just couldn’t make it up.

So – sure enough. Every concern I had – all the dangers that troubled me – every hazard – every probable outcome – that I tried to head-off by writing to the Labour Party’s Jack Straw has come to pass.

A few, token – not well-connected – scumbags have been prosecuted – for appearances sake.

A few survivors have got justice.

The vast majority of the criminals have not even been prosecuted. They’ve simply been let-off - as predicted – by the Jersey oligarchy.

Most of the survivors betrayed – again.

In fact – the one of the few major court cases we’re going to see – is me – being prosecuted for allegedly breaking the data protection law by making public interest disclosures.

Funny, no? In a tragic kind of way?

And it just isn’t going to get any better. You want to know what’s changed since I wrote the report?

The then Bailiff, Phil Bailhache has settled into luxurious retirement.

Michael Birt has been promoted from Deputy Bailiff to Bailiff.

Bill Bailhache has been promoted from Attorney General to Deputy Bailiff.

So the whole armour-plated, invulnerable, Teflon-coated succession of megalomaniac, unethical neo-feudalists continues - with the apparent blessing of the Labour Government. .

So I’d like to make a simple appeal to those who read this posting – who read the report below – and who are members or supporters of the Labour Party.

Your leaders don’t give a damn.

They have sat-back – and watched the plainly stagnant and corrupt upper-class, rich oligarchy in Jersey get away with protecting and concealing child abusers.

And betraying the victims of child abuse.

If you believe the Labour Party should exhibit higher values – great responsibility – better ethics – then many thousands of you ordinary members of the Party need to get angry – get mobilised – and get a very – very – clear and powerful message to your bosses.

Because they sure as hell aren’t going to do the right thing unless driven to it by grass-roots pressure.

And when reading the report below – always bear in mind what it is the survivors, the whistleblowers, the many decent people of this community, and some of our politicians, like me, are seeking.

Not revolution, not anarchy, not invasion by the UK, not the destruction of this small island’s culture, not annexation, and not some kind of utopian fantasy.

All we seek are a genuinely independent judiciary, an objective and non-political prosecution service, a separation of powers, objective and impartial courts, effective checks and balances, the good administration of justice – and the proper rule of law.

And this in the 21st century.

Is that really too much to seek?

Stuart.

REPORT TO JACK STRAW

From: Senator Stuart Syvret
C/O Morier House
St. Helier
Jersey
JE1 1DD

E-mail: st.syvret@gov.je
st.syvret@gmail.com

27th March 2008

REPORT TO THE UNITED KINGDOM JUSTICE SECRETARY
JACK STRAW MP
CONCERNING CHILD ABUSE IN THE ISLAND OF JERSEY
AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES
TO ENSURE THE RULE OF LAW AND THE
GOOD ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Jack Straw M.P
Justice Secretary
House of Commons
London

Dear Mr. Straw,

I write to you to draw to your attention a very serious range of issues for which you have responsibility, and to request that you use your constitutional powers to ensure the good administration of justice in Jersey.

Please forgive the length of this report – but the maters it deals with are of the utmost gravity.

The situation is this:

Hundreds of vulnerable children in Jersey have suffered the most appaling child abuse. This abuse has affected generations of people, leaving most of them with ruined lives. Others have committed suicide.

The scale of the abuses, their systemic nature – and the fact that they were able to take place largely unexposed and unpunished for decade after decade represents a catastrophic failing of ‘checks and balances’ in Jersey.

Such failure to protect vulnerable children calls into question the Rule of Law and the good administration of justice in the island.

Every part of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus is hopelessly conflicted in respect of any matter – civil or criminal – which may arise from the child abuse crisis in Jersey.

This fact is well-evidenced.

I will explain that evidence later.

Accompanying this e-mailed letter are two PDF files, the Sharp report and the Dylan Southern Report.

Both reports evidence in detail disastrous breakdowns in child protection and the Rule of Law in Jersey.

Given the profound conflicts of interest concerning the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus, no part of it is remotely capable of meeting the test of the “appearance of objectivity” which any credible judicial process must meet.

I am, therefore - and at the express request of a significant number of my constituents who are victims of the systemic child abuse in Jersey - writing to request that you use the constitutional powers vested in you to ensure good governance and the proper administration of justice in Jersey.

Structure of this Report.

In this report I detail the following facts:

1: The background to the present child abuse disaster in Jersey.

2:Your constitutional responsibilities and powers in respect of the Crown Dependencies.

3: The nature of the United Kingdom’s international obligations for what takes place in the Crown Dependencies.

4: The good name of the Crown – and why that good name is presently in serious jeopardy in Jersey.

5: The established and accepted doctrine of the separation of powers.

6: The conflictedness of the Jersey judiciary.

7: The conflictedness of the Jersey prosecutory service.

8: The established and accepted test of ‘the appearance of objectivity’ which any respectable judicial process must meet.

9: Democracy and the good administration of justice: recognising that they are not always the same cause.

10: The United Kingdom: jus cogens, erga omnes and Jersey.

11: Evidenced examples of possible criminality by senior figures in Jersey’s judicial and prosecutory services.

12: The present status of the current investigations of those senior figures by the Police Force.

13 Action that must be taken by you in defence of the victims, in the name of the Rule of Law, to defend the good name of the Crown and to meet the United Kingdom’s international obligations.

14: Conclusion.

1: Introduction.

As you will be aware, the island of Jersey is having to come to terms with at least seven decades of the most monstrous and persistent child abuse.

95% of which has gone unexposed and unpunished.

These crimes may have even included child murder.

The States of Jersey Police Force are still undertaking their investigations, and expect to make a substantial number of arrests.

The offences being investigated by the Police Force are not confined only to instances of abuse; they are also investigating the extensive cover-ups and concealments of that abuse – abuse which has taken place over many decades.

In this respect, they will almost certainly be seeking to bring charges of Perverting the Course of Justice, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice and Misconduct in a Public Office.

And it is this aspect of the crisis – the concealment of abuse and resultant perversion of the course of justice – that is of particular interest to you given your constitutional responsibilities and powers.

The central importance of this aspect of the Jersey child abuse disaster cannot be over-stated. Every community, sadly, has abusers within it. Other jurisdictions have also experienced well-documented examples of persistent abuse concealed for many years by certain institutions.

However – what makes the Jersey situation so extreme is the sheer quantity of victims – and the fact that the abuse was able to persist largely unexposed for generations.

This failure by the island’s authorities to adequately protect Jersey’s vulnerable children has been caused by a near-complete breakdown of effective checks and balances.

Whilst there has, plainly, been a catastrophic breakdown of oversight and regulation on the part of the island’s government – of more alarming concern must be the failure of the Crown in Jersey to properly fulfil its role with respect to good governance, the rule of law and the good administration of justice when dealing with child abuse.

I will explain these – well-evidenced – failures later.

I will now turn to your role and responsibilities in helping the people of Jersey re-gain the proper protection of the Crown, the rule of law and the good administration of justice.

2: Your constitutional powers.

As Justice Minister, a post formerly designated Lord Chancellor, you have ultimate power over the Crown Dependencies insofar as “good governance and the proper administration of justice” are concerned.

It is, naturally, disputed by the Jersey authorities of today that you possess these responsibilities and consequent powers.

Such a claim is historically and constitutionally unsustainable and readily disposed of.

Over the generations, most Jersey authorities – including its Crown-appointed officers – have accepted that the Crown ultimately has responsibility for – and thus the consequent power to intervene in - matters of “good government and the proper administration of justice”. In practice these responsibilities and powers lie with the UK government.

This view was the conclusion of the 1973 Royal Commission on the Constitution (the Kilbrandon Report)

I will refer to the Kilbrandon Report in more detail later.

3: The United Kingdom’s International Obligations.

Even setting aside the established, constitutional existence of an inherent power of the Crown to intervene in the Crown Dependencies for the purposes of good governance and the proper administration of justice, there are further – unambiguous – obligations upon, and therefore powers vested with, the United Kingdom.

Whilst the authorities of Jersey are customarily allowed to govern the island’s internal, domestic affairs, it is well-established that the United Kingdom does, indeed, carry responsibility for any international or foreign policy matter which bears upon the island.

The United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The island of Jersey is also a signatory to the ECHR. But in the case of Jersey, we are signatories to the Convention through the United Kingdom. This is also the case in respect of many other international treaties and conventions.

Therefore any breach of the Rights enshrined in the ECHR by the Jersey authorities, has the effect of placing the United Kingdom in breach of its Convention obligations.

To illustrate this point further we need only reflect upon the fact that any human rights case pursued by a resident of Jersey to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg is always designated [the plaintiff] ‘Vs the United Kingdom’

The fact that the United Kingdom carries responsibility for adherence to the Convention in the Crown Dependencies has long been recognised by London.

Let me give two, brief examples of intervention by London to ensure compliance with the ECHR by the Channel Islands.

Homosexuality remained illegal in Jersey up until the late 1980s. The island authorities of the day strongly resisted the arguments for change. The States of Jersey exhibited much prejudice, and resisted persuasion from London. There was an absolute determination by the States of Jersey to resist the necessary legislative changes.

But the criminalisation of homosexual acts was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore the refusal of the Jersey government to meet its ECHR obligations had the effect of placing the United Kingdom in breach of its convention obligations. This fact was well-recognised by the authorities in London who made increasingly serious attempts to make the Jersey authorities undertake the necessary legislative changes. Yet still the traditional establishment of the island resisted.

Ultimately, therefore, Jersey was told by London “Either you change your laws as required – or we will do it for you - and impose the necessary legislation.”

The island’s authorities – reluctantly seeing the inevitability of legislative intervention – conceded in the final analysis and changed the law. But only did so after immense pressure – and finally the ultimatum “you change your law – or we will do it for you.”

In this case we see on the part of the authorities in London, a clear recognition of the fact that the UK is placed in breach of the ECHR if breaches of that Convention are permitted in the Channel Islands. Moreover – with such a consequence for the UK, it was also recognised that, ultimately direct intervention by London both could take place, and may even be necessary.

A further, more recent, example of intervention by the authorities of the United Kingdom in Channel Island domestic affairs is to be found in the case of Sark.

The island of Sark was – until very recent changes, which were required by the United Kingdom – Europe’s last functioning feudal society. Democracy did not exist as the Sark ‘parliament’ – the Chief Pleas – consisted of wealthy landowners who were not elected – but instead had an automatic seat in the assembly by dint of their property ownership.

The feudalism of Sark – whilst appearing quaint to some – was clearly wholly incompatible with several key clauses of the ECHR. This was, again, recognised by the United Kingdom. Not wishing to become in breach of the Convention, London brought immense pressure to bear upon the authorities in Sark and Guernsey to introduce functioning democracy. The ultimate threat was the imposition of legislation from London. So, although the traditionalists strongly resisted change – they recognised the inevitability of UK intervention and, reluctantly, changed their legislation so that it met the requirements of the ECHR.

There is also the view - indeed it was the conclusion of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution in 1973 (the Kilbrandon Report) - that if the United Kingdom has an international obligation, then it must have the concomitant legal power to take such action as is necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom does not breach that obligation.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this will mean that if there were an international obligation binding on the United Kingdom as a result of, in this case the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom can assert that it was in law entitled to take action to ensure that Jersey performed its obligations.
Considering the above points, it is, therefore, clearly established that the government of the United Kingdom has the constitutional power – in the name of the Crown – to intervene for the purposes of good governance and of the proper administration of justice.

It is also clearly established that in respect of foreign policy matters – such as adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights – the United Kingdom carries responsibility for what takes place in the Channel Islands – and therefore has a concomitant power to ensure adherence to such conventions.

In the present case it is difficult to imagine a more serious ECHR requirement than ensuring the good administration of justice – that Article 6 of the Convention is adhered to.

There can, therefore, be no credible argument against your powers to intervene in order to ensure the rule of law and the proper administration of justice in Jersey.

4: The Good Name of the Crown.

Whilst Jersey is proud to be a self-governing jurisdiction – the apparatus of the state and its powers in the island is not based upon purely ‘indigenous’ institutions.

The island is proud of its status as a Crown Dependency, always expresses loyalty to the Crown – and, in particular, its judiciary enjoys the authority and credibility of association with the good name of the British Crown.

Indeed, it should be clearly noted at this point that the senior judicial and prosecutory officers of Jersey’s Royal Court are, in fact, appointed from London.

They are not accountable to any entity or public authority in Jersey.

It is, therefore, even more clearly demonstrated that the United Kingdom cannot wash its hands of responsibility for the standards and performance of its appointed agents in Jersey, such as the senior judiciary and Crown Prosecution officers.

It must be understood clearly – and there can be no escaping this fact – that if the Crown-appointed, Royal Court authorities in Jersey display any misfeasance or malfeasance then the good name of the Crown becomes blackened.

If the British state is content to allow the good name of the Crown to be used by Jersey, and if the Jersey authorities are likewise pleased to enjoy that credibility of association – then both sets of authorities must defend the reputation of the Crown from any possible hint of taint.

5: Separation of Powers.

In modern democracies it has long been recognised and established that there should be a separation of powers. Although in the United Kingdom some small, but largely symbolic, overlap in powers remains, in practice the Crown Prosecution Service, judges and the Courts are free from any political association, let alone political interference.

Thus the administration of justice in the United Kingdom is recognised to be amongst the finest in the world.

But in Jersey, an archaic and profoundly unhealthy overlap exists between the legilsature and the judiciary. Moreover, this overlap also politically contaminates the island’s Crown Prosecution Service.

To briefly explain the conflicts of interest as manifested in Jersey’s arrangements.

The head of the island’s judiciary, its chief judge, is known as ‘the Bailiff’. But in addition to being the Crown appointed leader of Jersey’s judicial apparatus – he is also President – the equivalent of Speaker – of the island’s parliament, ‘the States’.

The present incumbent is Philip Bailhache. The present Jersey Attorney General is his brother, William Bailhache.

The deputy head of the island’s judiciary – and also deputy Speaker of its parliament is the ‘Deputy Bailiff’; the present incumbent being Michael Birt, a former Attorney General.

The present Attorney General is William Bailhache, the Bailiff’s brother. In Jersey the Attorney General is the de facto Director of Public Prosecutions and its Crown Prosecution Service.

His deputy is the Solicitor General, who is vested with similar powers.

Therefore we have the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff – who are active and busy judges in Jersey’s Royal Court – also acting as Speakers in the island's parliament.

And in this latter role, they frequently exercise extremely archaic supposed ‘powers’ to determine what bills may be tabled, or what questions may be asked, by elected members of the States assembly.

6: The Jersey Judiciary.

However, the major concern with the deeply conflicted position of Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff is in the exercising of their judicial functions.

Routinely chairing meetings of the Jersey parliament, both of these individuals are regularly exposed to all of the ideological arguments, purposes, disputes, motivations and political influences on display during the debating of legislation – laws they are subsequently expected to adjudicate upon.

These contaminating influences therefore clearly render both individuals incapable of meeting the necessary test of ‘the appearance of objectivity’ when hearing cases in the Royal Court.

However the conflictedness of these two individuals is even more serious. Both the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff are deeply politicised individuals – indeed, often making little attempt to hide that fact.

By way of recent – and highly pertinent example – the Bailiff gave a political interview to the island’s only newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post. This was published on Saturday 15th March 2008.

In this interview he strove to repeatedly defend the island’s political establishment. This included making a number of quite clearly false assertions – such as ‘the island’s authorities are doing all in their collective power to ensure the truth emerges and that wrongdoers are punished.’ Numerous examples show this to not be the case.

He went on to make the political assertion that all was well and safe in child protection in Jersey today. This claim is also demonstrably untrue and simply the regurgitation of the ‘spin’ of the Jersey political establishment.

Most interestingly, he asserted that the Courts in Jersey were capable of dealing with any matter – civil or criminal - arising out of the child abuse disaster.

It apparently not occurring to Mr Bailhache that by giving this political interview – in which he strove to defend the Jersey political establishment – he was simply demonstrating, through his own actions, the dangerous politicisation of his position.

Moreover – he was demonstrating clear prejudice in respect of a number of matters which will, inevitably, come before the Jersey Royal Court.

The concern shared by very many of the victims, whistle-blowers and witnesses I represent is that the Jersey judicial apparatus is politicised, conflicted and incapable of constituting an impartial tribunal.

Judicial proceedings must be – and must be seen to be – completely objective.

Any individual who, or entity that, has a clear interest in a case – or who has expressed prejudice prior to proceedings – cannot remotely be regarded as meeting the test of ‘the appearance of objectivity’.

Having overtly sided with – and defended – the Jersey establishment, essentially the same oligarchy responsible for the decades of concealed child abuse, he has demonstrated that he holds a highly prejudiced personal and political bias in these matters.

Though it should not need pointing out, this fact clearly eludes the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus: namely that the Courts should be entirely indifferent to the considerations or the reputations of the government.

The Political victory of this or that faction should play precisely zero part in any consideration concerning the rule of law and the good administration of justice.

The law is the law. And the Courts should be coming to an objective judgement on the law – and the facts of each case.

If such adjudication proves profoundly embarrassing or problematic for a government – that is simply ‘tough’.

Yet in Jersey we have a Court system so incestuously entwined with day-to-day political considerations that it is simply not competent to properly administer justice when to do so would be damaging for the Jersey political establishment.

We need look no further than the highly political and prejudiced interview given by Jersey’s chief judge, Philip Bailhache, to the Jersey Evening Post.

The hopeless position of the Jersey judiciary in respect of the present child abuse disaster is thrown into even starker relief by the UK Crown Prosecution Service guidance “Judicial independence, open justice and advance sentence indication”, a short excerpt of which I quote here:

“Principle.

Judicial independence is fundamental to the Rule of Law.

The integrity of the Criminal Justice System depends upon a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

These principles must be followed by all CPS staff in the conduct of casework.”

In Jersey, the island’s judiciary has frequently committed itself to overt and explicit political positions, the effect of which is to have – by its own hand – rendered itself incapable of meeting the reasoned Principle quoted above.
The Jersey judiciary cannot meet the fundamental independence test required by the Rule of Law.

A politisised judiciary cannot deliver a “fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal” – when the tribunal in question has demonstrated itself to not be independent of partisan political considerations.

It is plain – even to a lay-person – that “justice must not only be done - but must be seen to be done.”

The Jersey judiciary cannot remotely hope to meet such a requirement under the present circumstances. So hedged about with conflicts and contradictions are the Jersey judicial and prosecutory functions, that every faction – every party – be they victims of abuse – or those accused of abuse – already holds the indigenous Jersey apparatus in contempt.

This is a matter of such fundamental importance I will return to it later.

But the inescapable fact is that no ‘reasonable person on the Clapham omnibus’ could even begin to see the Jersey Courts as ‘disinterested’ parties – with no stake in the outcomes of criminal or civil actions arising from the child abuse disaster.

7: The Jersey Prosecution Service.

Precisely the same observations apply to the prosecutory service of the island.

Turning to the position of Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Both of these Crown-appointed Law Officers are classified as members of the States assembly – in which they are able to give speeches in the course of debates. So whilst they do not, however, possess a right to vote in debates – nevertheless, they frequently exercise tremendous influence in the course of debates; this by giving “legal” opinions – or frequently by simply making overtly partisan and political remarks.

In theory they are members of the States assembly so that they may give “legal advice” to members during debates.

But in addition to “advising” the island’s parliament in this way – they are also the legal advisors to the individual Ministries and departments of the States of Jersey.

Essentially, they provide day-to-day legal advice to all parts of the executive – as would jobbing lawyers to their private clients.

This is not to argue that the Jersey government should not be able to take legal advice – but we cannot but recognise the fact these London appointed, Crown Law Officers should not be involved in providing partisan legal advice to a political executive function.

Were this insurmountable conflict not sufficient argument, we must turn to another – even starker – example of the hopeless and indefensible position of the present arrangements in Jersey.

The island does not have an independent Director of Public Prosecutions. It does not have an independent Crown Prosecution Service.

Instead – quite extraordinarily – these functions are fulfilled by the Jersey Attorney General and Solicitor General.

No prosecution in the island’s Royal Court can take place without it first gaining approval from either one of these two individuals.

Consider just how absurd and unsustainable this arrangement is?

As explained above, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are both, routinely involved - on a day-to-day basis – in giving general legal advice to departments of the States of Jersey – as though they were private lawyers advising private clients.

But these are the very same two individuals who must then determine whether prosecutions take place.

We have, therefore, the truly remarkable situation whereby these Law Officers may have been giving jobbing legal advice to a States of Jersey Ministry one week – only for a file to land on their desk the next week recommending that the department be prosecuted.

Such a profound conflict of interests would be disturbing under normal circumstances. But today - we are considering the deserved prosecution of a number of States of Jersey departments and States of Jersey employees in connection with the child abuse disaster.

And it will - ultimately – unless you use your constitutional powers to ensure the impartial Rule of Law in Jersey - be either the Jersey Attorney General or Solicitor General who will have to decide upon such prosecutions.

The same people who have been providing – often seriously defective – legal advice to departments in respect of child protection and welfare matters for many years.

It is true that the giving of advice to departments is usually split between the Attorney General and Solicitor General – thus had one been giving legal advice to a particular department which subsequently faced criminal action – the determination of the prosecution would be considered by the other.

But for a variety of reasons, this arrangement does not approach satisfying an ‘appearance of objectivity’ test.

Both Law Officers work from the same building, and often take advice themselves from the same Crown Advocates working in their department. Both individuals are close colleagues – and generally share an interest in providing legal protection for States departments, de facto political support – and, of course, they share a common interest in protecting each other’s professional reputations.

How realistic, it must be asked, is the prospect of one of these Law Officers prosecuting a States department whose policies and actions transpired to be ultra vires but had been legally advised that such polices were lawful by the other Law Officer?

To this toxic mix of conflicts of interest we must also recognise that both of these post-holders are deeply politicised and have frequently engaged in public support for the political establishment of Jersey.

Would – we must ask – the proverbial “reasonable person on the Clapham omnibus” be expected to view these arrangements as reliably objective?

The answer to that question is plainly ‘no’.

If we take as a model, the Code for Crown Prosecutors, as issued by the Crown Prosecution Service of the UK, we see, at section 2, General Principles:

“2.2 Crown Prosecutors must be fair, independent and objective. They must not let any personal views about ethnic or national origin, disability, sex, religious beliefs, political views or the sexual orientation of the suspect, victim or witness influence their decisions. They must not be affected by improper or undue pressure from any source.”

The entire child protection disaster in Jersey - in addition to being catastrophic for the victims – also threatens – and justifiably so – the integrity and standing of Jersey’s historic amalgam of legislature and judiciary. The present episode represents a crisis for the Jersey establishment of greater threat than the Nazi occupation of the island – which the traditional local elites seemed to survive remarkably easily.

Even without the extremely serious conflicts of interest I will explain later, no reasonable person could imagine the present prosecutory service in Jersey to be impartial and indifferent to the political consequences of this or that prosecution and conviction.

The prosecution service as presently configured in Jersey cannot even remotely approach the necessary ‘appearance of objectivity’.

Even under normal circumstances, the present – deeply politicised and conflicted – nature of both the prosecutory and judicial apparatus in Jersey clearly could not continue.

It would be an historic anachronism – one incompatible with the good, objective administration of justice and the rule of law – even during uncontroversial times.

With the island confronting the child abuse disaster – the worst peace-time crisis in Jersey’s 800 year history as a quasi-independent jurisdiction – it is not even faintly credible to imagine the present arrangements can suffice or continue.

In many respects, that the traditional authorities in Jersey cannot – or will not – see that fact simply serves as final proof of their inadequacy and inability to furnish the people of Jersey with the effective Rule of Law and the good administration of justice according to accepted standards of jurisprudence.

8: The Necessary Appearance of Objectivity.

Although the above factual descriptions of the conflictedness of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial authorities are sufficient of themselves, we must further illustrate the case with an examination of the established principles of natural justice.

It is well-established in all respectable jurisprudence that the administration of justice must be both impartial – and appear to be impartial.

Any person appearing before a Court should be able to have faith in the fact that the judge is independent of Government and equally that the judge is independent of the parties.

Historically a person has a right to a audi alterem partem, or a fair trial, meaning a trial which is independent, impartial and timely. This has long been a common law entitlement.

The fact that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done has been given specific judicial approval in the English case of R v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.

In this case, a solicitor, whose firm acted for a defendant in a civil action for damages, had also sat as a clerk to the Justices in respect of the criminal aspect of the case. Whilst it was not suggested that the solicitor/clerk had been biased – the mere appearance of conflict was unacceptable.

Lord Hewart CJ said:

“A long line of cases shows that it is ......of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done ....... Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper inference with the course of justice.”

Should there still be any doubt about the absolutely essential nature of the appearance of objectivity – simply consider the case of Lord Hoffman. He was one of the Law Lords who sat to determine whether the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was able to be charged and prosecuted.

Lord Hoffman – it was revealed later – was a supporter of Amnesty International. This mere appearance of bias was sufficient to cause the decision to be set aside.

These fundamental principles are further described and enforced in the European Convention of Human Rights.

“Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law....”

The inescapable facts are these:

1: Given what might be perceived to be the political pressure upon the island’s authorities to secure convictions – many of the accused will – without doubt – argue that they cannot receive a fair hearing at the hands of the judiciary of Jersey - it being so entwined with the political considerations of the day.

2: Victims could also – justifiably – be of the view that prosecutions of those who harmed them will be confined to only the most extreme cases – this in order to minimise ‘reputational’ damage to the Jersey establishment.

3: Plaintiffs in civil actions for compensation may, with good grounds, view the Jersey judicial processes biased against finding for them – or awarding them sufficient damages against the States of Jersey.

And let there be no misunderstanding about the seriousness of, or degree of, conflictedness of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial authorities.

For it is already a matter of public record, that Jersey’s Attorney General has advised the Chief Minister of Jersey to not apologise to any of the abuse survivors as this may increase the quantum of damages they may be awarded.

And let us remember – this is the same Attorney General who will be determining whether prosecutions should take place.

A man already committed to a partisan political position.

9: Democracy and the Good Administration of Justice.

It will, no doubt, be argued by the Jersey authorities - and if things run true-to-form, certain advisers in Whitehall – that if these problems with the administration of justice exist in Jersey – if its present judicial and legislative arrangements need changing – or if there were public demand here for such change - then the island’s government; its parliament, can make those changes itself - if it so wishes.

That, it is claimed, would be the normal course of democratic self-determination.

There is, of course, an obvious and fatal flaw in such an argument. For it assumes that democracy – and the good administration of justice – are the one-and-the-same thing.

They are not.

The ‘democratic’ will of the mass – of potentially the mob – can very easily be opposed to objectivity, the rule of law, the human rights of minorities and the good administration of justice.

It may be that 100 people would wish to lynch 1 person – the ‘democratic’ will in action. But that ‘majority’ decision would be unlawful, unjust and barbaric.

Thus the political establishment of Jersey may decide to maintain “tradition”, and not embrace the impartiality of the good administration of justice. And may even have public support for such a position. But that ‘democratic’ will may result in oppression and trampling of the rights of individuals to justice. A denial of such things as a ‘fair hearing before an impartial tribunal’.

It is abundantly clear that there is not the remotest possibility of the Jersey political and judicial establishment agreeing, of its own initiative and free-will, to introduce such changes as an effective separation of powers.

We must, therefore, conclude that the United Kingdom authorities cannot rely upon an argument to the effect that “if change is needed, the island’s government can enact such change.”

Both the good name of the Crown, and the United Kingdom’s obligations under the ECHR, require that London take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the good, objective and impartial administration of justice – the effective Rule of Law - quite regardless of the political whim of the Jersey establishment.

10: The United Kingdom and jus cogens and erga omnes.

The case, the right, the power of the UK authorities to intervene is already categorically established, for the reasons described above. But even if the historic and constitutional case for Crown power in Jersey – especially in respect of the protection of its subjects and that of the good name of the Crown itself – was not so clearly established, we could consider the legal principles of erga omnes, which is argued by some to confer an obligation upon a state to the broader community of states. I think it fair to argue that the systemic rape, battery and torture of vulnerable children – possibly even their murder – must give justification to invoking erga omnes.

A similar argument applies to the legal principle of jus cogens – or the ‘compelling law’ that nation-states may be expected to honour. Whilst there may be arguments as to the applicability of jus cogens to particular circumstances – if jus cogens bears any credibility at all – it must surely do so in the case of a need to act to punish and prevent the abuse, battery and possible murder of vulnerable children.

11: Suspects who are members of Jersey’s judiciary and Prosecution Service.

We must always bear in mind the profound seriousness and truly horrifying nature of what has taken place.

Vulnerable children – already in need for a variety of reasons – used, abused, tortured – and even possibly murdered; children who were helpless – and yet were subjected to the most foul and despicable crimes.

It is clear that the scale and persistence of the abuse which has taken place in Jersey is such that it cannot be viewed as an aberration; some isolated crimes carried out occasionally by small, secretive groups of abusers.

That the abuse and suffering of these children was able to carry on for decade after decade after decade must force us to conclude that some, fundamental, structural failing within the island’s ‘checks and balances’ enabled the concealment to take place over generations.

Whilst public attention has been focused upon the police investigation of actual abuses, it should not be forgotten that the police are also enquiring into the concealment of abuse; the failure to report abuses - and the failure to punish those guilty of abuse.

I have been able to contribute to the police enquiry by furnishing them with evidence – and making formal statements to them in respect of what are a number of criminal offences; for example:

1: Perverting the Course of Justice.

2: Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.

3: Misconduct in Public Office.

Whilst apprehending and punishing the abusers is, clearly, the priority – we must not lose sight of the question: “how were all of these terrible things able to persist for such a long period of time – and 95% of the offences go unreported and unpunished?”

For, in many respects, this question is the most fundamental. If we are to recognise and honestly accept the ‘cultural’ failings of the island’s public administration which led to the atrocities taking place and going unpunished – there can be no immunity from scrutiny; no deferential failure to challenge those in possession of great power – if those people have questions they must answer.

And many of them do.

The following senior figures - Crown appointed judges and prosecutors – each have well-evidenced, more than prima facie cases to answer in respect of one - or more - of the offences I describe above.

1: Sir Philip Bailhache, the Bailiff; presently head of the island’s judiciary and the President of its legislative assembly, ‘the States’. Formerly the Attorney General, and thus then head of the island’s Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions.

2: Michael Birt, presently Deputy Bailiff, presently deputy head of the island’s judiciary and deputy President of its legislative assembly. Also a former Attorney General, thus then head of the island’s Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions.

3: William Bailhache, presently Attorney General and head of the island’s Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions. Also the brother of the present Bailiff.

4: Francis Hamon, presently a judge of Jersey’s Royal Court, and former Deputy Bailiff. A Governor at Victoria College during an extensive abuse episode.

5: John Le Breton, ‘Jurat’ – a lay-judge – of Jersey’s Royal Court – formerly Vice-Principle of Victoria College during an extensive abuse episode.

As explained above – a fundamental concern that any civilised person must have is the question of the cover-ups and the concealments of abuse.

For it is that issue which makes the Jersey child abuse disaster so uniquely persistent and appalling in modern western democracies.

I will describe briefly the culpability of the five, above-named senior figures from the Jersey judicial and prosecutory apparatus.

I will then go onto describe and affirm the fact that these matters are being investigated by the Police Force.

The Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, head of Jersey’s judiciary. Potential Criminal Offences.

Philip Bailhache cannot be seen to be objective. He is conflicted. The reasons for this are several. He is one of the individuals who need to face questions over his past failure to protect children from paedophiles. For example, when he was Attorney General, he failed to take the appropriate action to prevent the paedophile Roger Holland from joining the St. Helier honorary police. Holland then went on to abuse children whilst a parish police officer.

This gross failure must amount to a conflict of interest so severe as to make his position untenable. And that is to take a charitable view.

Philip Bailhache should face a charge of Misconduct in Public Office for this dereliction of duty alone.

The Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, was also the Chairman of the Board of Governors of Victoria College during the early phases of the child abuse which eventually lead to the conviction of Jervis-Dykes. The paedophilic activities of this man were brought to the attention of the School leadership again and again - yet he was allowed to remain in post and committing abuse for years before - eventually - being arrested and charged. Again, this is a matter that should be re-investigated. No person is above the Law. The Bailiff should be charged with both Perverting the Course of Justice, and with breaching his legal requirements to protect children from harm, as described in the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

Philip Bailhache also unlawfully prevented my parliamentary response to the dismisal motion against me from being published. He also failed to declare a conflict of interest in this matter, as some of the evidence he was suppressing related to the child abuse offences committed at Victoria College when he was Chairman of the Board of Governors.

In similar vein, he unlawfully and undemocratically stopped me from delivering a speech of empathy for abuse survivors.

The Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt, Deputy Head of Jersey’s Judiciary: Potential Criminal Offences.

The previous Attorney General - now Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt - exhibited all of the politicised and conflicted behaviour I described earlier. As is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice-Principle of Victoria College, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. Just as should the Principle, Jack Hydes. Just as should Francis Hamon, a Governor of the school at the time and a person who went on to become Deputy Bailiff. A person who still remains a senior Judge in Jersey’s Royal Court.

Another individual who, without question, should have faced prosecution is Piers Baker, the man described in the Sharp report engaging in wilful attempts to obstruct justice – and who – infamously – said to the Police at the time of the investigation that paedophilia was "teachers perks".

Whilst an overwhelming case could be made for the prosecution of Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker for Perverting the Course of Justice, an even more relevant Law, the breaking of which renders each man answerable to a Court, was the then current Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

I quote Article 9 here:

9 Cruelty to children under 16

(1) If any person who has attained the age of 16 years and has the custody, charge or care of any child under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes him or her, or causes or procures or permits him or her to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him or her unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, limb, or organ of the body, and mental derangement), he or she shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker should have been prosecuted for breaking this part of the Law. Unambiguously so. At best, all four of these creatures ‘caused’ or ‘permitted’ the children to be ‘assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause him or her unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.

No such prosecutions took place. It is plain that the then Attorney General – now Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt - placed the "reputational" considerations of the Jersey Establishment above the proper protection of children - and above the Rule of Law.

But this was not the only example of political considerations overriding the Rule of Law. The then Attorney General, Michael Birt, also abandoned a prosecution for another set of very serious offences against children.

The case I refer to was the prosecution of Mrs Jane Marie Maguire and Mr Alan William Maguire. The Act of Court records that the prosecution was abandoned on the 20th November 1998.

"Her Majesty’s Attorney General declared that he abandoned the prosecution against Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support it.

The Court therefore discharged the said Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire from the prosecution and, by virtue of Article 2(1) (c) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law, 1961, ordered the payment out of public funds of the costs of the defence".

And it is the battery, torture and abuse of children, as committed by these two, which is part of the subject matter of BBC Panorama, scheduled to be broadcast on Monday 31st March 2008.

The Maguires were routinely beating, abusing through grotesque punishments, neglecting and treating with great cruelty many of the children that passed through the group-home they used to run for the then Education Committee, which body had responsibility for child “protection” at the relevant time (1980s to mid-1990s).

When I was Minister for Health & Social Services, just one of the many issues I recently had drawn to my attention by whistle-blowers was the case of the Maguires. I requested access to the relevant files.

I read the two very substantial lever arch files and one smaller ring-binder file. The evidence contained in these files is absolutely compelling. Many witness statements, affidavits of victims, statements from other members of staff, an “internal” report from 1990 by the Children’s Service, which concluded that the actions complained of were happening - and, essentially, a catalogue of utter savagery against the children.

Notwithstanding this plain and evidenced conclusion reached in 1990 – 8 years before the police came to know of the crimes - the Children’s Service of the day failed to inform the police of the abuse – instead allowing Mrs McGuire to “retire” from running the group-home – and instead to come and work in the Family Development Centre.

Purely through happenstance, the States of Jersey Police became aware of the abuse episode – 8 years later - in 1998.

The McGuires were investigated and charged.

Yet Michael Birt, the then Attorney General, asserted, as in the record of Court I quote above, that there was “insufficient evidence” to continue the prosecution.

But I have read the files of evidence. That evidence describes many children being routinely – over a period of years – beaten with fists, implements and other items which were used as weapons against them. They were frequently made to eat soap. They were held down and made to drink Dettol. One child had his head smashed violently against a bunk bed frame. One of the part-time support staff witnessed “Big Al” Maguire throw a child a distance of about 7 feet across a room to impact against the wall because the child was not tidying up to Maguire’s satisfaction. Psychological and emotional cruelty and abuse were routine. Female child residents were sexually abused by Mr Maguire.

Most of these offences were evidenced, witnessed by former victims or junior staff members – and yet the then Attorney General, Michael Birt, claims to have had “insufficient evidence” to carry through a prosecution.

The decision of Birt to not proceed with the prosecution was a straightforward Perversion of the Course of Justice.

Clearly - to have prosecuted the Maguires would have been to expose to outrage and contempt a States of Jersey department for permitting the abuse to continue for a decade – the 1980s - and to have acted unlawfully in not informing the police the instant the abuse came to the department's attention. Further, the department would have been viewed with even greater contempt and disgust by the public when it became known that Mrs Maguire was kept in employment by the department for some years afterwards - working in the Family Development Centre! It would also have meant exposing to contempt and disgrace a Jersey Establishment icon, Iris Le Feuvre, then President of the relevant Committee, who happily went along with the cover-up in 1990 and, moreover, wrote a quite sickening letter of "thanks" to the Maguires upon their “retirement”.

It is plain that the failure to see through the prosecution in this case represents a complete breakdown in the Rule of Law. An abandonment of justice in order to protect the "reputation" - such as it is - of the Jersey Establishment. The victims of the Maguires were denied justice.

Birt also – though this is incidental – endorsed and supported an illegal departure from due process as described in the States of Jersey Law when the Jersey Council of Ministers – fast-tacked – a dismissal meeting against me – giving me less than five days notice of the meeting date – and only supplying the ‘case’ against me less than 24 hours before the meeting. I was, incidentally, being dismissed for publicly stating that I had no confidence in Jersey’s child protection systems – this, apparently, constituting the heinous offence of - “undermining staff moral”.

But if the above-described events were not appalling enough – the habits and approach of Michael Birt remain – to this day – despicable - and truly extraordinary.

The States of Jersey Police Force made public their covert investigation into historic child abuse in November last year. They said at the time they were examining an historic range of abuse episodes, but in particular, they were examining abuse at Haute de le Garren – and the Jersey Sea Cadets.

The Sea Cadets being of particular interest as certain members of staff had been convicted of child abuse in individual cases some years ago.

The Police applied for a warrant to enter, search and remove evidence from the building. The judge they had to apply to was Michael Birt.

He rejected their application for the warrant.

The word “astonishing” doesn’t get close to describing this ruling.

Here were the police – already heavily committed to an investigation into historic child abuse; an investigation they had been conducting covertly for about a year; and here was an institution that was one of their two principle targets – and an institution which “had form” so to speak when it comes to child abuse in Jersey.

And the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – second-in-command of Jersey’s judiciary - refuses to give the police a warrant.

Birt should be charged and tried for these offences. Indeed – I have made formal statements to the States of Jersey Police in this regard – as I will explain below.

William Bailhache, present Attorney General and brother of Bailiff, Philip Bailhache.

As far as the Attorney General, William Bailhache is concerned, some time ago when I was President of the then Health & Social Services Committee, I sought from him (and I still have the correspondence) the full police report and its six appendices into the child abuse scandal at Victoria College.

My reason for needing this information was that I was examining what went wrong in that case, whether the then current law was defective, how it compared to our present Children Law – and whether what we were doing today – in the light of the Bichard Report – was adequate.

It proved immensely difficult for me to obtain anything from the Attorney General. After much persuasion he eventually sent me a version of the police report – with no appendices – but the version was so redacted as to be utterly useless. Indeed, it contained far less information than that contained in the Sharp report – which he knew I possessed already. I was not, therefore, properly able to consider this key material with a view to ascertaining what went wrong and why only one prosecution was mounted. The Attorney General's actions in behaving in this way actively obstructed me in my lawful work under the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in that I was not able to carry forward my investigation into improvements in child protection legislation and policies. This obstruction of the lawful duties – and clear obligations - of my then Committee for Health & Social Services, as defined in the Children (Jersey) Laws, was criminal.

But again – things get worse.

Even in the course of the last year – when issues of child protection and child abuse have been of paramount public concern in Jersey – the Attorney General, William Bailhache – has received reports from the police describing charges for child abuse offences – and he – astonishingly - has refused to prosecute – on the supposed grounds that to do so “would not be in the public interest”.

This conduct also has the appearance of being criminal, in that it may be a Perversion of the Course of Justice.

A further, insurmountable conflict - is this. It is plain that many States departments have - for very many years - been breaking various laws in respect of the care, protection and welfare of children. Obviously and inescapably so.

Therefore one of the most pressing and obvious questions is this: why has neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General ever correctly advised the relevant departments that their practices were unlawful? Why have no departments been prosecuted? It is plain that much - perhaps even a great deal of - the culpability for the States of Jersey engaging in decades of policies which were unlawful lays with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General or their predecessors.

Therefore, for the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to undertake any widespread prosecution of States departments would be to - effectively - put themselves on trial as well. Possibly as defendants - certainly reputationaly.

This is not an even faintly credible or sustainable situation.

Francis Hamon, Commissioner in Jersey’s Royal Court and former Deputy Bailiff.

Francis Hamon was, infamously, a senior figure in the Victoria College Board of Governors during the sustained abuse episode which took pace throughout much of the 1990s.

As is described in the Sharp report, the Principle, Jack Hydes, informed Hamon ‘during a squash game’ that he was receiving complaints of abuse. He asked Hamon what he should do about it.

Hamon advised him to do nothing, and it would all be forgotten about.

This was a further, unambiguous criminal offence - both a Perversion of the Course of Justice, and a breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

Hamon, like Hydes, Le Breton and Baker should have been prosecuted.

Instead, their friend Michael Birt failed to do so.

John Le Breton, ‘Jurat’ of Jersey’s Royal Court.

Again, as is well described and evidenced in the Sharp report, Le Breton was Vice-Principle of Victoria College during the abuse episode. He – like other senior figures – was aware of the complaints of abuse.

Not only did he fail to take the necessary action to protect the children - after allowing things to continue for some years until the complaints became too serious to ignore – he, along with Hydes, pro-actively attempted to humiliate and intimidate two of the victims into withdrawing their complaints.

Again – Le Breton should, Like Hamon, have been prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice and breaching the Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

Le Breton’s position also has the effect of rendering all of the remaining 11 Jurats conflicted. None could be considered sufficiently remote and impartial in these matters. All are friends and colleagues of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff; friends and colleagues of the Attorney General and Solicitor General. But in particular, all are friends and colleagues of Jurat John Le Breton.

It is well established in respectable jurisprudence that people cannot be a part of a jury if they personally know any of the key actors in a case.

All of the Jurats fail this test.

Moreover, each and every one of the Jurats is drawn from the traditional ranks of the island's Establishment. As detailed above - an Establishment that puts its own interests - the protection of its “image” and of its customary powers - over and above the pure consideration of the Rule of Law, should the Jersey oligarchy be threatened in any way.

12: Status of investigation into the above-described suspects.

In respect of the above-described potential criminal offences, I have made formal complaints to the Police Force.

I have furnished the Police with documented evidence which supports the case of criminal conduct.

Given the profound seriousness of the matters, the Police Officer leading the investigation in Jersey, Lenny Harper, commissioned two officers from a United Kingdom force to come to Jersey and take statements from me, this in order to avoid any “political” difficulties for his investigation – as certain elements in Jersey have already tried to damage and obstruct the work of the Police.

I gave two statements on successive days – one of two hours and the other of four hours duration.

I have signed both statements and confirmed to the Police that I am entirely ready to give evidence and be cross-examined under oath when matters come to Court.

Since giving the statements, Lenny Harper has confirmed to me in writing the following:

1: I have given the statements.

2: They were extensive.

3: They are signed.

4: He is in possession of those signed statements.

5: That the complaints made are going to be rigorously investigated.

As described above, the Jersey judicial and prosecutory services would be hopelessly conflicted in any event.

But to add to that fact we must now note that the key individuals within that apparatus are – in fact – suspects - in respect of Perverting the Course of Justice and Misconduct in Public Office.

It is, of course, feasible they will be acquitted – but until such time they cannot act in any role within the administration of justice.

13: Actions sought from you.

The people I am representing - including many dozens of victims and whistle-blowers – are asking you to use your constitutional powers to secure for them – and this community – certain fundamental protections.

We appreciate the historic, constitutional position of Jersey. We certainly wish it to continue to be a self-governing jurisdiction.

But given that we are a Crown Dependency – and that the good name of the Crown is the foundation upon which the administration of justice in Jersey is built – all we ask is that those administering justice in our island, as long as they use the name of the Crown – are required to perform to a standard worthy of such association.

What we seek is, by no stretch of the imagination, ‘revolutionary’ or ‘radical’.

We seek good governance.

We seek the effective Rule of Law.

We seek the good administration of justice.

We seek an independent prosecution service – one free of conflicts and political taint.

We seek an independent judiciary – one free of conflicts and political taint.

We wish it to be recognised that in a small, self-governing jurisdiction the ‘checks and balances’ provided by the judiciary are even more important than they would be in a large nation state.

Specifically –

We ask that, as a matter of urgency, you require the Jersey prosecutory and judicial authorities to accept the fact of their insurmountable conflictedness in respect of any matter – civil or criminal – arising out of the Jersey child abuse disaster.

We ask that you – or a senior figure from the British judiciary who has no prior connection with Jersey – appoint independent prosecutors from the UK to consider and lead any prosecutions arising from this episode.

We ask that you – or a senior figure from the British judiciary – appoint judges from the UK, with no prior connection with Jersey, to hear any case – civil or criminal – which may arise from this episode.

We ask that you give serious consideration to furnishing the Jersey Courts with juries drawn from the United Kingdom to hear any trial that may require a jury.

We ask that, by taking these actions, you ensure that any prosecutions or civil actions are compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in that they constitute a ‘fair hearing before an impartial tribunal’.

These actions are essential and urgent, given the imminent nature of some of the cases. There is not, therefore, time for a protracted round of argument and negotiation with the Jersey authorities.

To ensure justice in the Jersey child protection disaster – prompt and forthright action on your part is needed.

We ask that, in the fullness of time, you require the Jersey authorities to establish a permanent separation of powers, so that this island may always rely upon an impartial and non-politicised prosecutory and judicial system.

14: Summary and Conclusions.

I apologise for the length of this report; but by way of mitigation I hope you would recognise the huge degree of suffering which has taken place in Jersey over a period of decades.

In the course of the last year, I have gradually built-up contacts with many victims, got to know them, and have heard of the awful things that have blighted their lives.

All they are seeking – and all I am seeking on their behalf - is true justice and the effective Rule of Law.

We hope to hear from you soon, and thank you for taking time to read this document.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey.

“WE’VE GOT SOME DIFFICULT DAYS AHEAD”

2009-08-02T20:59:00.002+01:00

Some Reflections on the Law:

Its Failures; Its Oppressions

And its Betrayals.

An apology to those readers who have been waiting with the patience of a Jersey Income Support applicant for the next post in our experiment in web-based legal advice. Well, apologies to all readers actually – it having been so long since I wrote anything substantive for the Quite Vile Blog.

Although the next dispatch recounting the latest news of our real-life version of ‘The Trial’ is nearly completed, it has been delayed – as certain, crucial information I need to obtain is being kept from me by the prosecution and the Jersey courts.

Not only has it proven to be immensely difficult - and I mean ‘immensely difficult’ – to get the Jersey courts to even produce transcripts of proceedings so far – I’ve been warned that such material is supplied for the purposes of the defence only – I assume to stop me publishing it here. In fact, I’ve even been threatened with “contempt of court” actions by the prosecution if I publish certain material.

OK – whilst I can see a degree of circumspection must be adopted when publishing material relevant to a live criminal case – I still very much get the vibe that the Jersey apparatus is especially keen to hamper my web-based legal defence exercise – thus further denying me a fair trial.

In fact – the defence co-ordinator – me – feels threatened and intimidated by the Jersey police, judiciary and prosecution apparatus.

Naturally, I’ll be publishing part 2 of our web-based legal advice experiment in a few days.

Hopefully.

But before then, I’ll have to attempt to divine a path through the epistemological semiotics of the prosecution’s post-modern, fluxing aporia – which they engage in with a commitment of which Jacques Derrida would have been proud. I’m reminded of the words of Foucault, who, accusing Derrida of ‘terrorist obscurantism’, said, “He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, "You didn't understand me; you're an idiot." That's the terrorism part.”

You see? – It isn’t big - and it isn’t clever.

But when dealing with lawyers trying to prosecute you – the least you can do is find some compensatory entertainment in retaliatory word-nerdism.

A few months ago, I began the task of undertaking a major tidying and sorting of my office space. I was, perhaps, half-way through that task – having arranged categorised heaps of documents, files, books, letters, transfer cases, newspaper clippings and entire racks of note-books, filled with my illegible scrawlings, replete with “Life-Enriching” spelling-mistakes – when our very good friends, the 'under-new-management' States of Jersey Police Force, came calling.

They and their “Bosses” having decided to found and launch a new association - 'The Jersey Child Abusers, Bribe-Taking Gangsters and Mass-Murderers Protection Society'.

Admittedly, the acronym doesn’t quite trip off the tongue – but the name ‘does what it says on the tin’.

I do such “stock-takes” of my political work two or three times a year. Things reach a stage when even the chaos-theory of filing begins to be tested by the sheer accretion of paper-work, so periodically, I undertake a kind of archiving exercise.

But when I eventually had time to complete the task on the last occasion, there was another purpose – namely attempting to identify what the Jersey police had gone through, copied or simply taken when they mounted their unlawful raid on my home.

Let me put it this way – an awful lot more material was taken and copied by the cops than they’ll ever admit to.

Virtually all of it covered by the protection of parliamentary privilege – and much of it being legally privileged as well.

Given that the Jersey Establishment Party have, so responsibly, ensured the courts have a lot of time available - by letting off 98% of the child abusers and concealers of child abuse – the administration of “justice” in Jersey is able to focus on the really important stuff – like arresting, searching, charging and prosecuting the first and only member of the Jersey parliament to identify, and speak out against, the decades of concealed child abuse.

For allegedly failing to renew my driving licence, and allegedly breaking the data protection law by disclosing public interest information – Barking Bill Bailhache has set his pit-bull top-dog prosecutor on me – one Advocate Baker. He had originally given the job to another Crown lawyer – but his ability to take the case forward with sufficient ruthlessness appeared to simply disintegrate upon receipt of my first letter – 16 pages – outlining what the defence requires for disclosure - and the relevance of those disclosures.

We’ve had three magistrate’s court appearances so far – and yet another directions-hearing scheduled – which will take place after my appeal to Jersey’s Royal Court against the magistrate’s refusal to accept her conflictedness. An appeal at which, incidentally, I’ll be making exactly the same ‘conflicted’ argument against the Royal Court.

And all that before we even get into a trial-proper!

God knows how much this exercise is going to cost, ultimately.

Plainly, I don’t have a prayer of getting just treatment at the hands of any component of the Jersey “justice” apparatus – so these proceedings are merely the first steps on that long and winding road to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.

But – before we get there, we have to go through the Jersey clowns’ pantomime; an exercise which will actually give me some time to focus on some important work.

You see, I’m paying no fines – and I’m taking the jail sentences instead.

In addition to being able to do some very useful and important constituency work in Jersey’s prison – I’ll be able to really focus down on the task of writing detailed affidavits concerning all I know of the various monstrous failings of the Jersey oligarchy.

Admittedly – it won’t be a happy task – for reason’s I’ll go on to explain.

Trying to work in an environment in which you’re surrounded by crooks, liars, aggressive homosexuals, gangsters and the educationally subnormal would seem a daunting prospect to many people.

But – hell – I’ve managed it fine for the last 19 years, so I just can’t see what the big deal is, I really can’t.

Actually, no – that’s too un-diplomatic – even for me.

I’d like to apologise to the in-mates of La Moye Prison. When I spent a day visiting 19 of my constituents in the slammer a while back, I came away from the process feeling remarkably refreshed at the candour, honesty and frankness each man exhibited. The contrast with my usual work environment was actually quite startling.

But joking aside – I said that finally having the time to write down my sworn evidence – in all its detail and breadth – would not be a happy task.

If what I write on this blog seems too satirical, disrespectful, inappropriately humorous, aggressive and – heaven forefend – “impolite” - just try to bear in mind the real tragedies – real people with their lives destroyed – people betrayed – so many accounts of gross criminality I’ve almost lost count – the utter horrors I have come to be aware of – and then at least allow me the latitude to express myself.

Frankly – the things I’ve learnt during the last two years – and then observing the Jersey establishment apparatus swinging into full survival-mode in order to crush the truth - yet again – would drive a saint to express anger, mockery and contempt.

And in that vein – it’s my task to inform you of the next round of betrayals.

Expect imminently an “official announcement” that yet another tranche of the child abusers are to escape justice – current, highly paid, senior civil servants amongst them – not that you’ll be told that, of course.

My sources inform me that even certain abusers with very powerful cases against them will avoid prosecution.

Well – I suppose it’s a “public interest” decision – isn’t it? After all – Jersey’s prosecution system and its courts don’t possess limitless resources. So if you have to, effectively, ration the administration of justice, obviously, letting off the child batterers and rapists is that hard choice you just have to make – in order to prosecute real bastard threats to society – like me.

But – at this stage, some of the survivors who speak to me are not even upset by it any more; they ceased to be surprised by the escape of their abusers a long time ago.

A while ago one of my “esteemed colleagues” submitted a thinly disguised rant of anonymous abuse against me. One of the – apparently – heinous “offences” of which I should be ashamed is “having no respect for the States”.

No. Two years ago I had no respect for the States.

Today – I can scarcely discover words adequate to describe my loathing, disgust, contempt and – ultimately – the shame I feel as a States member.

Let me describe how and why I feel that way.

When I first started investigating the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster in early 2007, I began to meet a lot of damaged people; people who had been abused, ignored, betrayed and oppressed by pretty much every single component of power and authority in Jersey.

These encounters increased and continued to the present day.

A notable, shared, experience of many of the survivors was this: in the past, they had told people in authority of what had happened to them; they had reported the abuses they suffered.

But they were simply ignored, insulted, dismissed – even, in some cases, threatened with defamation actions - or even with being sectioned under the mental health law – if they continued to “repeat these psychotic delusions”.

Therefore many – many – of these people had zero confidence in the Jersey authorities – the health service, the police, social services, the courts – all of it.

I just couldn’t count the number of times people have said to me words to the effect, ‘well, I’m telling you this because you’re the first person to publicly tell the truth and try and do something about it. But I just want it stopped. I’m not going to the police. Complete waste of time. Come on – this is Jersey, you know as well as I do nothing will come of it.”

That was a view I, sadly, shared – until I became aware of the covert police investigation in November 2007.

Suddenly, everything seemed transformed; at last – here were good, straight cops – determined to nail the bad people.

But still – the cynicism felt by many survivors remained.

So I did absolutely everything I could in my power to meet with, speak with, and try and persuade as many survivors as possible to go to the police. I pleaded with them. I said, “Look, you’re right to feel as you do about the past. You were ignored; you were betrayed – back then the cops were a part of the problem. But please believe me – this time – things are different. Take my word for it – now, there is no longer any hiding place for the abusers.

“But they will only be brought to justice if people like you go to the police and add your testimony to that of others.”

And many survivors – against their better judgement – listened to my words – and went to the police and the NSPCC with their testimony.

Today – when I meet with some of those survivors – and look into their eyes – I feel ashamed.

Ashamed of public administration in Jersey. Ashamed of the civil service – ashamed of the island’s parliament – ashamed of the police – ashamed of the prosecution system – ashamed of the judiciary – ashamed of the local media.

The survivors had to endure every nightmare consequence of revisiting their experiences; bringing the memories back, speaking to councillors, giving statements to the police – being subjected to repeated requirements to go through statements again and again, attempting to prepare themselves for the trauma of facing their abusers across court – and recounting their experiences to a room full of people.

And in a number of cases – having to tell their partners - for the first time ever – what had happened to them.

Sometimes with traumatic consequences.

All for naught.

A tiny handful of survivors have had some justice – perhaps one or two others still might.

For most – they’ve simply been abused - all over again - by the Jersey oligarchy.

When I look back – and think of the naïve optimism I felt in November 2007 – I can only shake my head and say, “how could I have been so stupid.”

“How – after 18 years experience in Jersey politics – can I ever have imagined that this time, truth and justice would prevail?”

“What made me think, for an instant, that this time they’d bring back from the UK child raping ex-Jersey civil servant maggots - like Geoff Spencer - to face justice – when the Jersey oligarchy had already let him off – twice?”

I feel ashamed.

Ashamed for Jersey.

But not surprised. I should have known better.

When considering the Jersey oligarchy – we are looking at a monopoly of power which has remained entrenched for over 800 years. Utterly invulnerable through some kind of mystifying immunity and protection – conferred upon them by the British Crown, and so immovably embedded as to be completely untouched by five years of Nazi occupation – which the Jersey establishment passed through comfortably, with scarcely a ripple.

No. Really – we shouldn’t be surprised.

When all authority and power in Jersey has effectively pooled in a cess-pit for centuries – we could have expected nothing better.

But to the survivors – I say don’t give up.

The Jersey Establishment Party may have closed down the criminal aspects of the investigation.

But you can still take civil legal actions against the States of Jersey. There doesn’t have to necessarily be a criminal prosecution in order for you to secure some kind of justice.

I’ll write in detail about the civil legal options available to survivors soon.

Until then – consider these observations.

Do not necessarily trust your lawyers or the firms they work for.

Be aware that legally the States of Jersey doesn’t have the proverbial leg to stand on – regardless of whatever cobblers your lawyers may be giving you about your cases being ‘timed-out’. Human Rights are powerful tools.

And be assured - that there are many people out there – myself amongst them - who will testify to the true, shameful incompetence, dishonesty, negligence, collusions, corruption and out-right criminality of the States of Jersey as an entity.

Which is why I’m looking forward to getting those affidavits written and notarised.

Stuart.

LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE WEB: # 1

2009-07-17T15:22:00.002+01:00

COMMUNALLY PROVIDED

LEGAL REPRESENTATION:

AN EXPERIMENT.

Can a Web-Based Community

Provide Effective Legal Advice?

Today I’m launching an experiment.

I’m asking readers to participate in an exercise in providing communal, web-based legal advice, support and guidance.

It may be a disaster – of course, but, nevertheless, I thought it would be fascinating to see whether the World Wide Web can enable and supply some robust legal support for an accused person.

For those who aren’t in-the-know – some basic background information.

Jersey is – to all practical purposes – a single-party state; a jurisdiction controlled by an entrenched oligarchy – people who control, with a grip of iron, all meaningful power in the island.

The legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the senior civil servants, the prosecution service, the police, most of the local media and all the significant employing businesses in the island – all are controlled by a broad coalition of the traditional ruling elites. Many of the individuals involved may hate each other – but – invariably – when the chips are down – they unite and ruthlessly abuse all power in defence of their lucrative status quo.

I have been one of the very few opponents of this entrenched stagnation throughout my political career; an opposition which has become both very serious and very difficult during the last two years – given my attempts to uncover and expose the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. And such has been the nature of the threat this episode poses to the oligarchy’s business-as-usual plans – they’ve gone out of their way to try and oppress and crush me – even more so than during the preceding 18 years.

The apotheosis of this process occurred in early April – when, one morning, I stepped from the door of my home to retrieve my iPod from my car – and was suddenly surrounded – and arrested in the presence of ten cops – who had been waiting outside in four cars and an incident-van.

I was taken to the police station and held under lock and key for over seven hours whilst an army of cops conducted a total “fishing expedition”-type search of the premises.

Though I’ll explain some of the legal details and questions in later postings – to cut a long story short, I am now charged with four alleged criminal offences.

These are:

1: Failing to renew a driving licence after an automatic expiry date.

2: Failing to notify a change of the registration address for my car.

3: Allegedly disclosing controlled data on this blog.

4: The data in question not being formally registered as under my control.

Those are not the precise words, which we can examine in subsequent postings – but that’s the gist of it.

Obviously – the two alleged data protection law breaches are, by far, the more serious charges.

It was very obvious from the questioning I was subjected to when under arrest that I had been under surveillance for a long time – that a detailed ‘intelligence-gathering’ exercise had been undertaken – and that all my methods of communication had been tapped and monitored.

Therefore – just by way of one example – it is my legal contention that such surveillance and monitoring was unlawful – for several possible reasons – and thus any evidence so gathered is inadmissible. These are the kind of issues I’m hoping readers can help me with.

And I need that help – because Jersey does not provide a paid legal aid service – in direct contravention of the case-law of the European Convention on Human Rights – which requires that all people have effective – with the emphasis on the word, ‘effective’ - legal representation. Jersey’s system doesn’t get onto the radar-screen of being “effective legal representation”. But rectifying that will obviously be a longer-term project.

Whilst I have had some pro bono legal advice and support from a good Jersey lawyer, his practice is small – and it would not be reasonable to call on his limited resources to provide what would need to be extensive legal representation.

So – with your help – I’m largely representing myself.

As I said – don’t worry about the precise details at this stage – we’ll examine those in coming posts.

I’m writing today simply to set the scene – and launch the experiment.

By way of a start, I’ll put a few initial questions towards the end of this post – for which I’d be grateful for answers.

But, before getting to the questions, I should describe my thinking behind the idea for this exercise.

In laying out the design of this experiment – a design which could be flawed, and require modification – we have to think of, and acknowledge, the obvious limitations and risks involved.

So let’s run through some of the issues and risks which occur to me; no doubt readers will add others.

1: Sabotaging the experiment.

As we all know – web sites can receive all sorts of rubbish – much of it deliberately designed spin-doctoring, trolling and/or seemingly plausible misinformation.

We must, therefore, be on our guard against such attempts to sabotage the experiment.

I will attempt to vet out the more obvious examples of deliberately submitted utter rubbish – but not being a lawyer, I could get taken-in by something, such as an inappropriate or wrong reference to a legal principle, or the irrelevant citing of examples of case-law, or the use of jargon, etc.

So our experiment will require readers to consider in detail the comments that get published – and alert us to any demonstrable errors, or deliberate attempts to mislead, which may get through.

2: The sub judice rule.

I believe that we can largely remain within any such consideration, given that we are not dealing with a jury trial. It’s the magistrate initially, and when it gets sent up to the higher court, it will be one of Michael Birt’s judges, and two Jurats who will hear the case.

My understanding – and please correct me if I’m wrong – is that the judiciary customarily argue that judges – who are “experts” in what they do – are not open to influence or prejudice to the same degree as a lay-person juror. Is that right?

However – in any event – it is only me who is responsible for what gets published on this site – so no risk accrues to my readers. And I take the view that they can do me for contempt of court if they wish; I’ll just add it to my grounds for taking things all the way to Strasbourg.

Given the Jersey oligarchy have pro-actively refused to furnish me with paid - thus effective - legal aid, of my choosing, I’m fully justified in seeking communal legal advice.

3: Jersey laws vs. the laws of other jurisdictions.

Obviously – there will be some differences between the legislation of Jersey and that of, say, the USA, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Canada, France etc – and even the United Kingdom.

I will need to be conscious of those differences – and check-out any specific guidance or references offered for compatibility and relevance with Jersey laws.

However – in respectable, democratic countries, the great majority of basic legal principles, and the objectives of modern statute law, are frequently very similar. So comparisons with the Jersey situation will still be very useful, in at least two ways.

Firstly, some novel arguments or principles which could be run in a Jersey court may come to light.

Secondly, simply as an intellectual exercise it will be very interesting indeed to compare laws and their interpretations in Jersey – with accepted practice in other modern democracies.

It is also worth bearing in mind that whilst Jersey has its own laws – the great majority of the island’s modern legislation is simply copied and pasted from the UK equivalent – so there will be strong similarities with UK law.

It is also to be hoped at least one or two Jersey lawyers may join our experiment – who will then be able to point out to us any incompatibilities between the suggestions of readers from other jurisdictions, and Jersey law.

4: Legal privilege and confidentiality.

Though the Jersey oligarchy are strenuously attempting to resist 95% of my requests for disclosure of evidence to the defence side – for the very obvious reason that much of what I’m seeking would be immensely embarrassing and damaging to them – I do hope to, eventually, obtain certain disclosures.

Much of this material will have to be regarded as confidential – as will any legally privileged communications between the prosecution and defence and the court administration.

However, without breaking that confidentiality, I’m reasonably confident that I can distill down the evidence to a few generalised, fundamental points, which I can then put to you – my ‘collective lawyer’ – for your advice and guidance.

And, again, I must make the point that as I have been denied effective legal representation – in direct defiance of the European Convention on Human Rights – and I’m only a carpenter – I have a right to look somewhere for my legal guidance.

5: Showing one’s hand.

It may be argued that by communally discussing and constructing a case for the defence in this very public manner – we allow the prosecution to see what cards we hold – and thus enable them to prepare counter-arguments.

Two thoughts occur to me.

Firstly, as far as I’m aware – and correct me if I’m wrong – it is a basic principle of criminal trials that both prosecution and defence disclose to each other their evidence and their basic arguments in any event.

If that is so, then I’d have to share my case with the oligarchy come what may.

Secondly - if there were any useful arguments, devices or manoeuvres which could, legitimately, be retained from the prosecution side – readers can e-mail them to me in confidence at st.syvret@gmail.com.

6: Quality of advice may be poor.

Well, yes, that’s a possibility – but on the other hand – it could be extremely good – especially when one considers what will, hopefully, be a multi-input case.

In this experiment – the legal guidance and advice from readers – and their comments and observations on such advice - will act as an intrinsic peer-review; a kind of quality-control mechanism.

Well – that’s the hypothesis – and this is an experiment – so we can but try.

So those are my initial thoughts. The methodology of the experiment will run something like this –

I will publish the input and comments from readers (with the usual caveats) and hopefully, we can have a dialogue concerning the observations made.

After a few days, I will publish the next post in the series, in which I will up-date readers, try to encapsulate where we’ve got to in forming our case so far – and stating what I think we need to look at next.

In asking for input from readers, whilst personal experiences could be useful if directly analogous to the charges and situation I face – I think we should try to steer clear of too many recountings of the, no doubt, many bad personal experiences people have had at the hands of the law.

The kind of contribution which would be really helpful would be if readers could draw this blog and this experiment to the attention of any lawyers they know – and ask them to contribute.

Or – you may be a lawyer, in which case – let us know your thoughts.

Or – you may simply be able to do some useful research – and let us have your ideas.

So – does this idea – this experiment – interest readers?

Is the methodology I posit suitable?

Have I missed any important points?

And – to begin the legal questions – can readers share with us any initial legal understanding they may have of the underlying principles of “disclosure” – the process whereby the prosecution has to disclose to the defence side evidence which may help the defence – or undermine the prosecution case?

I ask this - though it is a theme we’ll return to again and again – because the Jersey oligarchy are strenuously resisting the disclosures sought by me, instead claiming that it’s up to the prosecution to decide what is – or is not – of relevance to the charges they have brought.

In the next post in this series – I’ll be addressing readers in-put - and giving some more detail – for example, quoting the charges precisely, and explaining what my – non-legal and non-expert – assessment of the situation is.

Thanks.

Stuart.

THE PEASANTS REVOLT

2009-07-09T21:39:00.003+01:00

THE POWERLESS CHALLENGE POWER

The Weak and Vulnerable

Strike Back at the Heart of Darkness.

“It’s more than rain that falls on our parade today
It’s more than thunder, it’s more than thunder
And it’s more than a bad dream now that I’m sober
Nothing but woe-begotten grey skies now.”

‘More Than Rain’

Tom Waits.

Those typically bleak-to-the-point-of-being-funny words from a song by my favourite musician, Tom Waits, pulsed through my mind in the brief moments of silence in between our shouted protests - which – oh so “rudely” - crashed into one of the Jersey oligarchy’s great plastic pageants this morning.

With all the “politeness” of a savage beating from Al McGuire -

With all the “appropriateness” of a bottle of Dettol poured down a child’s throat by Jane McGuire -

With all the “discretion” of a right-hook to the head of a 14 year-old, administered by Tom McKeon -

With all the “confiscating” of innocence - as inflicted on vulnerable children by the States of Jersey for decades –

With all the “respectability” of a broken arm inflicted by Mario Lundy –

With all the “responsibility” of Francis Hamon, telling a headmaster – ‘whilst they play a game of squash’ - to ignore complaints of child abuse –

With all the “compassion” of Jurat John Le Breton – trying to intimidate child victims of abuse into withdrawing their complaints – by humiliating them in front of their parents –

With all the “decency” of the Dean, openly forbidding his clergy to offer support to abuse victims – and protecting an abusing church warden couple -

With all the “kindness” of a traditional Catholic battering from Mrs. Bonner -

With all the “consideration” of a deliberately detached glucose drip – with a bung inserted in the end -

The survivors struck-back.

Today Michael Birt – former Jersey Attorney General – was sworn-in as the replacement ‘Bailiff’ – the hopelessly conflicted post of head of judiciary, and speaker of the island’s parliament.

“Politeness – uber alles” – may as well be the motto of the Jersey oligarchy.

To quote John Bale, “Though it be a foul lie; set it a good face.”

No matter what wretched atrocities are committed - and tolerated – and pro-actively hidden - by Jersey’s “Great And Good” – it simply isn’t “The Jersey Way” to speak the truth about them.

So – no matter the betrayed children – the destroyed lives – the suicides – the human wreckage – the perversions of justice – the massed-ranks of Jersey’s “polite” gradually accreted upon the States building this morning - to engage in a orgiastic ceremony of Groupthink - by which they attempted to deflect reality by wearing fancy-dress – and parading to impress the peasants and the plebs.

About 15 of us gathered in the Royal Square to begin some small protest against both Birt as an individual, and against the stagnant and defective “justice” apparatus in Jersey. And as the “polite” gradually arrived the smugness was palpable. Many of the lawyers in particular openly laughed at the survivors as they filtered into the building.

But we proles well and truly rained on their parade.

Our protest was so strong – heartfelt – and loud – that it was audible throughout the building during their delusory exercise in self-congratulation.

But such vulgarity hasn’t – hitherto – happened in Jersey during these “great” events. The expected procedure is for the adoring masses to turn-out and tug their forelocks in deference to their social “superiors”.

The culture-shock was palpable.

Eventually – realising we weren’t going to go away – the assembled “dignitaries” – amongst their number, lawyers, politicians, judiciary, jurats, estate agents and journalists - blinking and wide-eyed with shock – exited the building in preparation for their parade to the Town Church – where they’d hear a sermon – to the effect of how wonderful they all were – and what a load of scummy rabble we were – from Bob Key.

And as this toxic amalgam spewed forth like some vast, advancing slime-mould I was struck by the sense we were witnessing a step-change – a tipping-point - in Jersey political culture.

I looked across the assembled faces and just couldn’t help noticing that so much of the hauteur, the contempt, the confidence, the sense of invulnerability as displayed as they entered the building - had drained away.

Though a number of them tried to put on a brave face – rictus grins – and embarrassed attempts to applaud Birt and his entourage – one got the strong impression that even these entrenched oligarchs may have finally – in the year 2009 – caught their first glimpses of advancing reality.

Our chanting, whistles, drumming on the bins – was more than thunder.

It was something more than rain which fell on their parade.

Though they’ll have been toasting one another with Champaign and wine all day – in an effort to blot-out our vulgar intrusion into their fantasies – it will be more than a bad dream when they’re sober.

Today – after more than eight hundred years of unopposed and abused power – the culture of deference was finally put to the sword.

As far as Jersey’s oligarchy are concerned – it is, metaphorically, “nothing but woe-begotten grey skies now.”

For the rest of us – it’s a bright new dawn.

Today – people who have been powerless, ignored, abused, regarded as irrelevant and betrayed by the States of Jersey – struck at the heart of the posturing plastic fakery of the island’s power-apparatus.

And did so with all the subtlety of a Lenny Harper memo – or the tact and diplomacy of a Stuart Syvret e-mail.

As a formerly powerless abuse survivor remarked to me at the end of the protest –

“God – that was good.”

Stuart.

WILLIAM BAILHACHE’S PROSECUTION SERVICE:

2009-07-08T15:51:00.004+01:00

KEEPING JERSEY’S OLIGARCHY SAFE.

Stuart Syvret to be Arrested and Charged

For Publishing the Truth.

Eleven Child Rapists and Batterers

To be let-off.

Just a very brief posting – and sadly it might be my last for some time – as I have just learnt that I’m required at Police Headquarters at 5.00 pm this afternoon where I will be arrested and charged with supposed breaches of the Data Protection Law.

I don’t know if I’ll receive unconditional bail – if not, they’ll keep in the slammer overnight – if not longer.

I’m going to try and get there around 4.50 to speak to some of the media if you feel like coming along to watch.

Just to place my supposed gross criminality in context – I’m going to be arrested and charged – one day after Bill Bailhache – Jersey’s Attorney General - announces – without apparent embarrassment – that 11 of the accused child rapists, child batterers and concealers of child abuse are not to be charged and the cases against them dropped.

And to think – some people still labour under the delusion that the administration of justice and proper rule of law actually works in Jersey.

Though, having said that – you just couldn’t pay for stupidity of this grade.

Ironically – as far as I’m aware – as the police have never given me formal notification of any change in circumstances – Bill Bailhache, Emma Martins, Bill Ogley – and a number of similar Jersey oligarchs, remain under criminal investigation for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

Oh well – pretty handy I guess – being in charge of prosecution decisions – when you’re under investigation.

Right – now what I need are two States members who will go and have a private, secret meeting with Bill Bailhache – and ask him to drop the charges – and there you go!

Sorted.

I mean, if it’s good enough for Roy Boschat to get away with bribing cops - following Deputy Egre and Senator Ferguson going to ask Bailhache to let him off – then it’s good enough for me.

Remember – we’re all equal before the law!

Let me leave you with this observation, made by Harry S. Truman:

“My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse – or a politician. And to tell the truth – there’s hardly any difference.”

I’m just going outside now. I may be some time.

Stuart.

JERSEY ABUSE SURVIVORS BETRAYED

2009-07-05T20:15:00.001+01:00

AGAIN.

Historic Abuse Investigation

To be Ended.

Once Again the Survivors

Are the Last to Know.

Just a very, very brief posting – as my time has been – and will be – today consumed with speaking to Jersey abuse survivors – and trying to think of some positive words that can be said.

Said in the face of the stark, brutalising – yet inevitable fact that the Jersey oligarchy has done it once again.

Misused and abused their monopoly of power – in order to protect themselves – and betray the weak.

The historic abuse inquiry is to be formally announced as “over” – by Gradwell, Warcup and their puppet-master, Bill Bailhache.

Many victims of abuse – and many other people who have made formal complaints to the police – like me, for example – have not even had the vague courtesy of being kept-in-the-loop.

Survivors out there have been labouring under the delusion that the crimes committed against them were still under investigation – that the still living people who abused them – and those who concealed that abuse – were going to face justice.

Instead – as was easily gauged from the ethical and intellectual bankruptcy of Warcup and Gradwell – as evinced in their wholly unprecedented PR, spin-doctored press-conference – in which they did their best to trash all of the prior police work – they’ve decided that it can all be wrapped-up now.

These two men have plainly thrown aside whatever professional and intellectual credibility they may have once possessed – back in the distant, early years of their careers.

I doubt very much whatever paltry reward they’ve received – for becoming a part of the cover-up apparatus – approaches adequate compensation for having destroyed their souls – and reputations.

Because know this – the memory of this horrifying, decades-old history of foul and monstrous abuse – and the memory of those who contributed to the concealing of that abuse – is not going away; will never be hidden – will never be forgotten about.

So this is not the end.

On the contrary – we live in the 21st century – when those who were weak have now become strong.

The war simply moves into its next phase.

The abusers, those who have failed to prevent that abuse, those who have concealed that abuse, those who have contributed to the barbarism and criminality of the suppression of the truth – are going to be beaten.

Even those who have latterly joined them – like Mick and Dave.

This issue has not gone away.

It will never – ever – go away.

Those who have failed to do their duties in properly enforcing the law – and properly enforcing justice – know this.

Henceforth – you – each and everyone of you – will live the rest of your lives looking over your shoulders – for the approaching hand of justice.

One day – you will be in the dock – standing along side the child abusers you’ve supported and concealed.

It may take two – or five – or ten years – but this conspiracy by the powerful and wealthy against the week and vulnerable will be exposed – and it will be beaten.

There is no hiding place.

There is no rest.

Those who have participated in the betrayal of the survivors during the last two years – are now in the same team as child rapists, psychotic torturers, murderers and abusers.

One day – justice will catch up with you.

Stuart.

JUSTICE FOR JERSEY

2009-07-01T22:40:00.001+01:00

Access to real justice for everyone.

Time to let your voice be heard

A PUBLIC PROTEST
SATURDAY 4TH JULY
12.00 NOON
PEOPLES PARK

Have you ever been let down by Jersey lawyers?

Charged too much – for incompetent service?

Have you ever had to call upon legal aid - only to find the standard of representation provided to you abysmal?

Have you been the victim of a crime – only to find the standards of Jersey’s prosecution service hopeless?

Have you had to go to court in civil proceedings – and found the standard of the judging to be atrocious?

Do you feel you’ve been failed by the Family Division of Jersey’s courts?

Have you ever got the feeling that those who are “well-connected” have received favourable legal treatment?

Do you ever get the impression that the administration of justice in Jersey is contaminated by politics?

Do you believe that we should be protected by a genuinely objective and impartial judiciary – that has no unhealthy overlap with the States?

Do you believe that the people of Jersey should be able to access an effective and properly funded legal aid system?

Do you believe that the good administration of justice has to be a fundamental feature of any civilised society?

IF YOUR ANSWER TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS “YES” – THEN COME AND JOIN THE PUBLIC PROTEST

SATURDAY 4TH JULY
12.00 NOON
PEOPLE’S PARK.

Many people will have been dismayed at the failures of Jersey’s prosecution system and its courts to bring child abusers to face justice.

The well-connected – the wealthy – and the powerful seem to get away with their crimes - and their failures to do their duty in protecting children – whilst the victims of these terrible crimes are marginalised and ignored.

It was these considerations which originally motivated the organisers of this public protest movement.

But the more we have explored the issues – the clearer it has become to us that the entire administration of justice in Jersey is hopelessly defective – in many different ways.

It isn’t only abuse survivors who have been failed and betrayed by the Jersey judicial system; people from all walks of life have been let down – in many different ways - time and again.

So whilst initiated by child protection failures, the protest which will be taking place this Saturday will be expressing much broader concerns.

A cross-section of our community will be launching a campaign for genuine, affordable, objective and accessible justice – justice for all – not only the well-connected and the wealthy.

A Protest for Justice on Saturday 4th July 2009 had been planed on behalf of victims of child abuse - both past and present. This protest was in response to the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute former States employees against whom there is overwhelming evidence that they were responsible for child abuse.

The failure to prosecute has come as a great blow to the victims who will now never see justice. We cannot accept the Attorney General taking to himself the powers to be judge and jury – as well as prosecutor. We believe that it is in the public’s interest that the guilt or innocence of an accused person should be decided by an impartial court – not one person, such as the Attorney General, making the decision - behind closed doors - in his office.

But as we have learned more, spoken with other people, examined the issues in greater detail, and shared experiences – we have come to the conclusion that the administration of justice in Jersey – as presently structured and run – has far greater failings than those which are apparent in the child protection issues.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the entire administration of justice in Jersey is defective.

Which is why we have decided that the protest this Saturday will be the beginning of a campaign for the good, affordable and objective administration of justice in Jersey.

Justice for all.

We invite anyone who has personal experiences of the inadequacies of justice in Jersey – in whatever context – to join us this Saturday – where we will begin a campaign for the fair, affordable and impartial rule of law.

We will march to the Royal Square, where one of the protest organisers, Carrie Modral, will address the gathering.

Also saying a few words will be Senator Stuart Syvret – who fully supports our campaign.

SATURDAY, 4TH JULY
12.00 NOON.
PEOPLE’S PARK TO ROYAL SQUARE

PLEASE JOIN THE CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE.