JERSEY AND ITS CHILD-PROTECTION FAILURES –

ON THE PARLIAMENTARY RECORD AGAIN

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has tabled an “Early Day Motion”, or EDM, on the need to include the Crown Dependencies in the overarching UK child-abuse inquiry. This is the last day of parliament before it begins its summer recess, so this particular EDM is unlikely to gain much attention, but it still places on-the-record the key issues concerning the proper investigation of child-abuse issues in the Crown Dependencies such as Jersey.

As Jersey has sadly shown, these small quasi-self-governing enclaves simply do not have effective checks and balances, or meaningful separations of power. In Jersey, rather than each of the relevant authorities holding each-other to account, they close-ranks against the vulnerable, the weak and against the public interest in order to protected “The Jersey Way” from scrutiny and protect the ruling oligarchy from “damage to its reputation”.

When the UK parliament resumes in September, more sophisticated procedures will be used to raise these issues and campaign for the proper rule of law and real child-protection in Jersey.

Stuart

EARLY DAY MOTION – INQUIRY INTO CHILD ABUSE AND THE CROWN DEPENDENCIES

  • Session: 2014-15
  • Date tabled: 21.07.2014
  • Primary sponsor: Hemming, John
  • Sponsors:

That this House, being conscious of the numerous cases of previously concealed child abuse in which individuals have been able to use their status as public figures to deter victims and to prevent or disrupt investigations of their crimes, and being conscious that in some cases abusers, and those who have concealed abuse, have been able to use their positions in public office and the institutions of the state such as Parliament and Government to shield them and their wrongdoing from proper, lawful scrutiny, recognises that the dangers of such cover-ups occurring are even greater in small, quasi-self-governing communities than at national level, where, even though checks and balances are more extensive, child abuse and cover-ups by the well-connected have still occurred; notes that a local public inquiry in Jersey into child abuse, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, has not gained the confidence of all victims and witnesses; and calls on the relevant UK authorities, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Crown and the Privy Council, in exercise of their responsibilities and powers to ensure good governance, the rule of law and proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies, to empower the overarching UK inquiry into child abuse to include the Crown Dependencies.

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/279

JERSEY’S “PUBLIC INQUIRY” INTO CHILD-ABUSE

Gets Into the Parallel Universe of Jerseyland –

Where Even the Corruption –

Is Outstripped by the Stupidity.

“We now know – only by the happenstance of the recent disclosure by Google of a letter (copy attached) – that contrary to the lies of the Jersey Attorney General – and the lies of his friend the prosecuting Advocate Stephen Baker – and the perjury of Data Protection Commissioner, the conflicted Emma Martins – that in fact the Jersey oligarchy were desperately attempting to get Google to shut down my blog – actually get the entire URL removed from the internet – from at least November 2008 – when I was opposing child-abuse cover-ups and questioning the obviously illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.”

From the Application by Stuart Syvret for Legal Funding – to Jersey Public Inquiry – 22nd April 2014.

“Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.”

Former Police Chief Graham Power – writing to the Jersey parliament Privileges & Procedures Committee in reference to the illegal suspension conducted against him – and quoted by Stuart Syvret in his application for Legal Funding.

“I was oppressed and suppressed in my political work – as the Police Chief was oppressed in his work – by conflicted powerful people with individual and collective interest in covering-up the facts concerning their own corruptions and the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey.

Those same people then set about oppressing and suppressing me in my journalistic work.

Those people are the “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law.

Those individuals are the Crown Officers: – Bailiffs, Lieutenant Governors, Deputy Bailiffs, Attorney Generals, Solicitor Generals, Data Protection Commissioners.

Central to the oppression, harassment, witness-tampering and suppression directed against me have been four factors:

  • The corrupt abuse of the Data Protection Law by a conflicted Data Protection Commissioner;
  • The corrupt, politicised abuse of prosecutory powers by directly conflicted, corrupt Attorney Generals;
  • Police-state abuse & oppression carried out by a captured, corrupted, politicised policing function following the illegal suspension of Mr Power;
  • Political-oppression via Stalinistic show-trials in front of corrupt, conflicted judges.”

From the Application by Stuart Syvret for Legal Funding – to Jersey Public Inquiry – 22nd April 2014.

The Parallel Universe – of the Land of Stupid.

When the long and wretched history of the breakdown in the rule of law in the Crown tax-shelter of Jersey comes to be written – when the festering stagnation of the polity of the island is dissected, the overt rot that gripped governance here will be seen to have had certain defining characteristics.

One of those core conditions is stupidity.

Simple stupidity. For example, the kind of stupidity that can even imagine it being possible for William Bailhache to remain in any kind of public office – let alone be promoted to “Bailiff” – without “the system” ultimately cutting its own throat.  The failure of those in “the system” to see the stark fact that the man is simply finished – finished, or “the system” is – is a level of stupidity that only arises when your polity is, in truth, really nothing more than an 800 year old racketeering matrix.

I mean, you know – this is a quote from an actual affidavit – published – sworn testimony – from an actual Chief of Police – in which the Chief of Police is referring to the behaviour of the then Attorney General William Bailhache: -

“In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone.   So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General.   Not long afterwards I was suspended.”

Sworn, published testimony – by an actual Chief of Police.

You can see how really stupid the Jersey oligarchy is, in that it continues to think the rest of us are stupid. These people think we’re cretins; they think we can’t read – think we can’t see; they think our cognitive abilities and curiosities go no further than having a few quid to spend down the bingo or on the dogs.

That these people just carry on – and carry on – thinking the rest of us are idiots, is there to be seen in their actions.

They think we’re idiots – because they think they can rescue themselves and their system from their swamp of corruption by performing ever more nutty acts of stupidity. And they think we’re stupid, so we won’t recognise their stupidity when we watch them heaping stupidity – upon stupidity.

Stupid – because, like, when the very credibility of your entire system of governance is thrown into doubt by the exposure of decades of concealed child-abuse – the thing you really, really need to do to restore confidence is another act of gangsterism – like oppressing the Social Services Minister for trying to protect children. And, so, when that doesn’t get the lid back down on the atrocious mess, just what you need to do is illegally suspend the Police Chief. Then – when that too proves, for some reason, to have just thrown more petrol into the flames – what you need to do is get expressly & directly conflicted judges to throw-out the Police Chief’s judicial review application. And when – for mystifying reasons – you’re faced with quite an inferno by this stage – what you need to do to rescue your edifice of governance from the flames is order a massed illegal police raid against the leading opposition member of the legislature. And when that – inexplicably – has proven only to stoke the fires – you prosecute the bastard for whistle-blowing, that’ll teach him. And when his public-interest disclosure defence not only destroys the prosecution case – but rather inconveniently shows the Jersey polity to have concealed clinical serial-murders – well, then, hey, no worries, you just deem this embarrassing defence-case “no longer admissible”. Three months into the proceedings. And you make sure you don’t have to worry about the court not agreeing with this action because – hey – you chose and appointed the judge – and she’s already a directly conflicted party because of her involvement in the endemic failure of Jersey’s prosecution system to bring child-abusers to justice. But yet – still the flames rage higher – you’re burning – burning – the entire edifice is going up – the flames threaten you – so, what you really, really need to do now is to get some more directly conflicted judges – to stand the entire data protection law on its head – in a way that has no parallel in any democratic state – and make free-speech and investigative journalism actually illegal; criminalised not via legislation, but judge-made-law. Now, all of that could have been a problem – but you were able to bring in even more of your judges – from outside of Jersey – to give you credible cover. Who will ever notice that one of them simply read-out in court a load of crap written by an improperly hired spin-doctor? And the bloody plebs will never see that the extraordinary conduct of the other one now contaminates the UK Supreme Court – rendering it structurally conflicted in any matter touching upon Jersey for as long as he remains in office. Well, that’s no problem, the FACAWS will ensure no case concerning Jersey corruption ever runs up through the London court system. What’s this? Still the inferno grows? Out, damn flames! This will douse the fires of modernity! A public inquiry! There! That’s what we needed! What finer fire-brigade could one call upon – other than that trusty get-out-of-jail-free-card that has so often been the “insurance-policy” of the British establishment – a public inquiry – reliably peopled with Ourchaps? What – what’s this!? The bastard wants legal representation? Tell him to fuck off!!! It’s our public inquiry and it can do whatever the fuck it pleases! Now what? What? The plebs are going on about the “Salmon Principles” now! Who taught this fucking rabble to read – oh it’s getting hot in here – so hot – the smoke – struggling to see! Somebody pass me another can of incendiary stupid – quickly! Before the fucking proles start citing the primacy of Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention – and all of the associated ECtHR case-law….!

In the parallel universe that is Jerseyland – where the criminals run the justice system – and they jail the good guys – where directly conflicted criminals try and coerce the Police Chief into not investigating them – and when he refuses to be coerced, they organise his illegal suspension – where that’s able to happen – without fear of prosecution on the part of the person doing the coercion – because the coercer was actually the Attorney General and sole prosecuting authority – where, conflicted, bent judges – can jail those who try to expose their corruption – where those who occupy the highest public offices are simply thick – a self-perpetuating claque of dopy cretins with the corporate intellectual advantage of a slime-mold – where people of intelligence – and especially of integrity – are pro-actively crushed out of “the system” – where you can stand human civil society and all it values on its head – if you have enough money and silly titles – in the realm of the Jersey oligarchy where 800 years of thoroughbred anarcho-feudal cretinism is colliding with modernity – what passes for a “public inquiry” into decades of concealed child-abuse issued some statements.

One of which was to refuse to provide me any legal representation funding – de facto to refuse to provide me with legal representation – contra all requirements of settled case-law – and of Article 6 of the ECHR.

Apart from that – apart from denying legal representation to a person who is quite feasibly the key witness into the structural breakdown in the rule of law in the Jersey polity that permitted so much concealed child-abuse – the public inquiry has been busying itself – organising an “open-day” at which members of the public can take a look around the offices and room where the inquiry will hold its carefully pre-structured public-hearings.

I’ve been urged to attend. But as I said in response, “what on Earth” – or words to that effect – “for? Do they have especially nice chairs for me to test? Am I to admire the choice of wallpaper? Is the hue of carpet especially soothing? Am I to raise an appreciative artisan eyebrow at the timbered desks? Are they some marvellous blend of Douglas Fir and Indian Rosewood sculptured, as by wakened hands, a la Jim Krenov? I mean – why? Do these people not grasp that I’ve been repeatedly jailed – and will be again – for seeking to protect powerless victims of crime in Jersey? Jailed by the same collection of child-abuse concealing gangsters and bent judges that stand behind the authority of this public inquiry? I’ve seen the inside of courtrooms during the last five years probably more frequently than most of Eversheds lawyers. If these clowns think I’m ‘nervous’ – that a cosy trip to their office might allay my ‘fears’ – then they simply haven’t been paying attention.”

But, those are my circumstances; I guess it could be seen as a reasonable enough assumption that members of the public – those who’ve never been involved in quasi-judicial or judicial proceedings – potential witnesses like many of the victims of child-abuse in Jersey – might have benefited from seeing the arena.

What a pity, then, that the “open-day” consists of 2 hours on a Monday afternoon – when the vast majority of people will be working.

Still, things could be worse I guess. The public inquiry could have employed spin-doctors with a directly relevant history of working for an organisation responsible for concealing abusers who had victims in Jersey, and could thus – in certain ways – be legitimately seen as relevant witnesses themselves.

Or the London legal chambers involved in the public inquiry could be directly conflicted because they already have clients amongst expressly involved organisations.

Well, thank God nothing that crazy has occurred, eh!?

Anyway – you can read the Committee of Inquiry’s “ruling” – their rejection of my application for legal funding – on their web site. I publish the link below.

They lay out their “reasons” for rejecting my application in a little over two pages. It’s the predictable “lawyers-guff”, so I’ll have to explain it to you. The “reasons” issued by the public inquiry for refusing to see that I receive unconditional legal funding are – to use the technical term – complete horseshit.

Here are what are known as the “Salmon Principles” – the settled, procedural safeguards that underpin the conduct and methodologies of public inquiries. These are not controversial: -

“The Salmon Principles

1. Before any person becomes involved in an inquiry, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are circumstances which affect him and which the Tribunal proposes to investigate.

2. Before any person who is involved in an inquiry is called as a witness, he should be informed of any allegations which are made against him and the substance of the evidence in support of them.

3. (a) He should be given an adequate opportunity of preparing his case and of being assisted by his legal advisers. (b) His legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds.

4. He should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or counsel and of stating his case in public at the inquiry.

5. Any material witness he wishes called at the inquiry should, if reasonably practicable, be heard.

6. He should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel any evidence which may affect him.”

Sometimes legal questions actually don’t require lawyers. Sometimes the facts and the law are starkly plain to any person who can read.

This is such a case, which is why the “ruling” of the public inquiry – to refuse to give me unconditional legal funding – in spite of the fact this public inquiry has chosen to use a methodology – to set “protocols” – that plainly defy, and are not in compliance with, the Salmon Principles – merits no greater exposition than the description “complete horseshit”.

My human rights are engaged by these quasi-judicial proceedings.

Indeed – these proceedings could – quite easily and foreseeably – subpoena me before the Committee of Inquiry and demand that I reveal, for example, the identity of certain of my sources over the years. I will not do so.

And when I don’t do so – the Committee and its processes and powers could trigger actual contempt of court proceedings against me – which would – again – involve directly conflicted Offices and directly conflicted individuals – in jailing me – again.

For up to two years.

For two years – this time.

So, you see, I’m not being entirely unreasonable – in wanting a lawyer – when faced with a quasi-judicial body – that has the power to have me jailed for two years – jailed by directly conflicted people – again – but which is not following the settled “Salmon Principles” by which public inquires conduct themselves.

Not unreasonable – in wanting a lawyer who could then advise me on my rights – and the many serious public interest issues that could – very easily – arise should this public inquiry seek to use its dramatic coercive legal powers against me in ways designed to target the numerous witnesses, victims and whistleblowers who have informed me over the years.

Look – if you hold a public inquiry – you axiomatically give centrally involved parties legal representation.

If you’re not going to give centrally involved parties legal representation – then you don’t hold a public inquiry. End of.

What you can’t do, is hold a public inquiry – and refuse to give involved parties legal representation.

Refuse to give them legal representation unless they assign their rights – by agreeing to some fucking “contract” that involves them in surrendering themselves – and their sources – and witnesses – and the public interest – and their liberty – again – to the mercies of an overtly conflicted collection of sleazy and despicable old men who run the racketeering operation that is the Jersey polity and the Potemkin village that masquerades as a Crown judicial system.

Stuart Syvret

Text of the Application for Legal Fees & Expenses Funding made by Primary Whistle-Blower, Former Health & Social Services Minister Stuart Syvret.

Dear Ms Garner & Mr Jones

I write as a key witness in the public inquiry into decades of concealed child-abuse in Jersey and the attendant concealment of the systemic and endemic governance failure by the Jersey polity.

As a member of the Jersey parliament, I had political and legal responsibility for child-protection matters from November 1999 until September 2007. From 1999 I was the President of the Health & Social Services Committee. When Jersey changed its system of governance from a Committee system to a Ministerial system in November 2005, I became the Minister for Health & Social Services.

It is plain – already shown on published evidence – that decades of concealed child-abuse – and associated child-protection failure – took place in Jersey. I became the first ever Jersey politician to identify, investigate and make public these matters.

In answer to a Jersey parliamentary question asked of me on the 16th July 2007, I said this: -

“I have serious concerns, to be honest, about the whole child protection, child welfare standards of performance of Jersey, not just within my own department, Social Services and the Children’s Service, but across the board. I am aware of a number of issues, this being one of them, a number of cases, a number of incidents that lead me more and more strongly to the conclusion that we are failing badly in this area. I am probably going to be seeking to initiate a major independent review into the whole sphere of child welfare, child protection in Jersey. So if you are asking me honestly, do I believe the performance of certain senior individuals within this field and of the departments generally is acceptable, no, it is not.”

I had come to those conclusions following months of my own investigations in the face of wilful obstructions from a number of senior civil servants and the Law Officers who were “advising” them but in reality acting as a “Government within a Government”. You will see that I knew then that only an external investigation would stand any chance of addressing the child-protection failures. I went on to propose that a Committee of Inquiry should be established.

Thus it is that the work of this Committee of Inquiry begins six-and-a-half years after I had intended – in my capacity as Minister for Health & Social Services – that there should be such an Inquiry.

A draft press-release, discussed at the Jersey Council of Ministers’ meeting of the 26th July 2007, contained the following: -

“Thirdly, the Council has decided to accept the recommendation of the Health and Social Services Minister, that a Committee of Enquiry should be established. At its next meeting on 6th September, the Council will consider terms of reference for this much wider review of child protection procedures throughout the States.”

However, unbeknown to me, but known to Jersey’s Crown Law Officers, and certain other Ministers, the senior civil servants were already engaged in an illegal conspiracy to engineer my dismissal. We know that to be so, because they made an attempt to suborn the Chief of Police into their plot during a meeting on the 25th July 2007. The Police Chief Graham Power QPM left the meeting and wrote a file-note (copy attached), in which he said this: -

“BO [Bill Ogley] and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”

The above illustrates very clearly two points: -

  • I am not opposed to a meaningful, serious, objective public inquiry into Jersey’s decades of child-protection failure and the attendant systemic and endemic failings of the Jersey polity. On the contrary – such an investigation was my idea – I being the first Jersey politician to have indentified and spoken-out concerning our failures to protect the vulnerable.
  • I am a central witness to those issues.

In addition to the political role I played, I have also played a key and historic role in my journalistic capacity. As an independent journalist blogging at http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com I provided – for the first time in Jersey’s history – a media outlet for the views and concerns of the island’s child-abuse victims – and evidence and testimony from many of them. I also provided – again for the first time in Jersey’s history – a media outlet that was willing and able to publish documentary – public-interest – evidence; evidence of harassment, abuse, violence, battery, rape, attempted murder, murder, the incompetence, ethical bankruptcy & cover-ups that permitted such things and widespread & endemic corruption in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

The extensive and damming nature of the evidence I have published is such that the extant Jersey power-apparatus is exposed for being a simply lawless entity – essentially, a thinly disguised feudal “court” in which power is abused by and for the “court”, its courtiers, thanes and vassals – and against anyone who dare oppose them. If you are “of” the “court”, you can commit approved crimes with utter impunity – if you are not “of” the “court” crimes will be committed against you and you will have no remedy or protection.

That broad truth is so plain on a reading of the evidence published on my blog that the Jersey oligarchy have subjected me to political imprisonment for blogging and the “crime” of being a political dissident. When that coercion failed to make me remove evidence for their corruption, they took the step of persuading Google to take-down my entire blog.

Of course – with the assistance of international supporters – the blog has been re-established, and it can now be read here, http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/

We now know – only by the happenstance of the recent disclosure by Google of a letter (copy attached) – that contrary to the lies of the Jersey Attorney General – and the lies of his friend the prosecuting Advocate Stephen Baker – and the perjury of Data Protection Commissioner, the conflicted Emma Martins – that in fact the Jersey oligarchy were desperately attempting to get Google to shut down my blog – actually get the entire URL removed from the internet – from at least November 2008 – when I was opposing child-abuse cover-ups and questioning the obviously illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.

In the course of his battle against that plainly unlawful suspension, Mr Power wrote to the Privileges & Procedures Committee of the Jersey parliament. It is useful to quote from that letter (copy attached): -

“It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.

On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs [the then Deputy Andrew Lewis] knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.”

I was oppressed and suppressed in my political work – as the Police Chief was oppressed in his work – by conflicted powerful people with individual and collective interest in covering-up the facts concerning their own corruptions and the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey.

Those same people then set about oppressing and suppressing me in my journalistic work.

Those people are the Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law.”

Those individuals are the Crown Officers: – Bailiffs, Lieutenant Governors, Deputy Bailiffs, Attorney Generals, Solicitor Generals, Data Protection Commissioners.

Central to the oppression, harassment, witness-tampering and suppression directed against me have been four factors:

  • The corrupt abuse of the Data Protection Law by a conflicted Data Protection Commissioner;
  • The corrupt, politicised abuse of prosecutory powers by directly conflicted, corrupt Attorney Generals;
  • Police-state abuse & oppression carried out by a captured, corrupted, politicised policing function following the illegal suspension of Mr Power;
  • Political-oppression via Stalinistic show-trials in front of corrupt, conflicted judges.

That oppression has included the politicised perversion of the data protection “law” as a means of state-sponsored suppression of political opposition – illegal massed police-raids – conducted without a search-warrant following the unlawful suspension of Police Chief Graham Power – my arrest, detention in a locked, windowless police-cell for seven-and-a-half hours – the theft of vast quantities of my then constituents’ private data, the theft of my parliamentary-privileged lap-top – my prosecution on the orders of the conflicted, corrupt then Attorney General William Bailhache – coercive show-trials in front of a succession of judges axiomatically conflicted for being chosen and appointed by their friends, conflicted Bailiffs such as Philip Bailhache and Michael Birt – and a succession of on-going political imprisonments.

It is clear – and established on the evidence – that: -

  • I am the victim of a number of criminal acts associated with the improper concealment of child-abuse and the concealment of child-protection failures – and other crimes – in Jersey. Those criminal offences included – for example – conspiracies to pervert the course of justice, and of numerous examples of corruption, and of misconduct in a public office;
  • I am the victim of a catalogue of past and continuing human rights abuses at the hands of a dysfunctional, plainly corrupted and structurally ultra vires Crown apparatus in Jersey.

These are exceptional circumstances.

Having now read the protocols published by the Committee of Inquiry, I am far from assured that this process signals an end to the oppression I have suffered. Instead, I have concerns that it could lead to more of the same.

Not the least amongst my concerns are the range of deeply troubling conditions that are automatically imposed upon anyone who takes up “Interested Party” status.

It seems to me that a number of serious legal issues arise, and that those conditions engage my human rights. I therefore must take independent legal advice. The Inquiry has a mechanism for funding legal representation for witnesses, but that process requires that an applicant must sign-up to Interested Party status first, before legal funding will be granted.

I am not going to sign-up to any conditions until and unless I have been able to take independent legal advice on those conditions first.

Only a fool is coerced into signing a contract, which they can only take legal advice on, after they’ve signed it.

And in addition to the conditions attached to Interested Party status, there are a number of further significant legal issues arising from the methodology and protocols adopted by the Inquiry – issues for which I need legal representation.

Paragraph 2 of the Inquiry protocol on Legal Fees says: -

Applications for an award in respect of legal fees and expenses for someone who is not an Interested Party will only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

These circumstances are exceptional – and I herby apply for legal fees and expenses funding.

I would be grateful if the Inquiry would confirm as a matter of urgency that it agrees to my request, and that it issues to me a formal notice of agreement to fund that I may then use in my negotiations with prospective legal representation.

Thank you for your assistance.

Stuart Syvret.

Attachments:

  • Police Chief Graham Power’s July 2007 file-note re conspiracy against the Health & Social Services Minister;
  • Letter disclosed by Google showing sustained attempts by Jersey oligarchy to get Stuart Syvret’s blog removed from the internet from at least November 2008;
  • Police Chief Graham Power’s letter to Jersey parliament’s Privileges & Procedures Committee.

[ENDS]

The Jersey Public Inquiry Into Concealed Child-Abuse rejected the above application for legal representation funding. The text of that rejection can be read here:

http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Key%20Documents/Application%20for%20funding%20of%20legal%20representation%20for%20Stuart%20Syvret.pdf

WHEN NURSES KILL:

And When Nurses Kill in Tax-Shelters.

Realms Without the Rule of Law.

On 29th March, in Manchester, UK, male nurse Victorino Chua was charged with three counts of murder. Chua has also been charged with one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, 22 counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and eight offences of attempting to administer poison, under the Offences Against the Person Act.

These charges relate to a cluster of deaths and serious illness amongst patients in Steppings Hill Hospital, Stockport, England in June & July 2011. In spite of the hospital management and the police becoming quickly aware of an anomalous death & illness rate, and the rapid launching of an investigation it has taken nearly three years to bring these charges. That’s not a criticism of the UK police & prosecutors but rather a recognition of just how difficult it can be to uncover and map-out the facts in a murder-case such as this; a case when the police are starting from a position when the victims, and the tools of the murders – and the alleged attacker – are all known to have been in the same building – the hospital – at the relevant times. You might think that’s a huge advantage to a police team, compared to other murder investigations, when there may be little, if any, evidence that places the victim, and the weapon – and the murderer – together at any particular time or the same location.

But a hospital environment automatically presents a setting with hundreds of unwell people – and dozens of deaths as a normality of each week. The use by hundreds of staff – on different shifts – of medicines and medical technology, the misuse or withholding of which could potentially harm or kill, is routine. And if anomalous deaths are even noticed in the first place in such an environment, any investigation is unavoidably starting from a position in which there are literally dozens of entirely credible suspects – any one of whom could have withheld those drugs, changed that prescription, administered the wrong medicines, turned-up that diamorphine-pump, contaminated the products, detached the drip, administered insulin improperly, tampered with life-support machines or blocked that lung-drain tube.

The vast majority of those staff will be innocent. One will not be.

But the brute fact confronting hospital management and police is that there might be dozens of entirely credible suspects who had access to the means and the opportunity to harm or kill the patients who have suffered unexpected near-death episodes, or who have suddenly died. That fact distinguishes hospital murders from other killings, in which the police can usually and very quickly narrow down the cohort of credible suspects to two or three people; in fact, usually one person – the prime suspect – pretty easily.

But when unlawful killings have been recognised in a hospital – where there could be twenty realistic prime suspects – where do the management and the police start?

Sometimes, they don’t.

Sometimes very credible suspicions – and eyewitness complaints – and hard evidence – for attempted murders – murders in hospitals – can exist, yet the management not even notify the police.

There is no other profession that provides both the opportunity and the means to murder people – murder perhaps dozens, even hundreds of people – and to do so with comparatively slight risk of detection as nursing.

And that is so, not least because the deaths are hidden in plain sight.

The complexities of such cases are well-summarised by a report in the Manchester Evening News which said: -

“Rachel Smith, who is part of the prosecution team, said: “The defendant has been charged with three murders and a significant number of other serious offences arising out of the investigation into the poisonings of patients at Stepping Hill Hospital in 2011, and further offences relating to patient records in 2012.

“This case is listed for preliminary hearing – the defendant having been charged on Friday, and having appeared at the lower court (Manchester Magistrates) on Saturday.

“This is a case of some complexity – the evidence currently amounts to more than 20,000 pages and the current witness list exceeds 600 witnesses. The collective view is that this case could take three to four months to try.

“The size of this case, its complexity and the amount of expert evidence involved in it is such that it would seem unlikely that those representing the defendant would have everything they need to be ready for trial by September – the next most obvious point to set a trial of this length would appear to be January 2015.

“Engaged in this case are experts to causes and consequences of hypoglycemia, there’s neuropathological evidence, likely pathological evidence in respect of those with whom there are murder charges, evidence from forensic biochemists as to sampling of blood from patients and the interpretation of that sampling, and one of the experts engaged by the prosecution is, I understand, a world-renowned expect based in Cologne in Germany.

“There is other expert evidence relating to handwriting, all of those areas would have to be considered by those who represent the defendant.

“The case may ultimately become ‘was it this defendant who was the perpetrator?’ – or there may be a challenge to the assertions the offences occurred in any event.””

Profoundly serious issues – reflected in the fact so many witnesses, so many resources – so many pages of evidence – are involved.

In the expert opinion and cases I cite below, you will read how sometimes authorities go to extraordinary lengths to actually conceal the fact there may have been a serial-killer nurse in their hospital.

How far can those extents go?

Let me put it this way – I exposed a case in which a rogue male nurse almost certainly murdered at least 13 of my then constituents – in the sample two-month period – and quite probably murdered perhaps dozens of other people – in other locations – over the years.

I was prosecuted for making that public-interest disclosure – and was given zero legal representation – and have had, all-told, well in excess of 25,000 pages of documentation served on me – to which I have been expected to respond – without so much as £50 to spend on employing a lawyer.

And if that doesn’t illustrate sufficiently starkly the extent to which authorities will go, and collude, in concealing clinical murder cases – in Jersey those who prosecuted me for whistle-blowing – and the judges who heard the case – were actually chosen by the directly conflicted individuals.

The individuals responsible for the original cover-up.

It is not by accident that the public authorities in the British quasi-self-governing jurisdiction of Jersey – the world’s largest tax-shelter – have been given such protection and licence to engage in and conceal such utter breakdown in the rule of law.

Were Jersey like Manchester things would have been straightforward enough. But instead the “almost-legal” liminal Crown realm of Jersey harbours too much of the City of London’s client-wealth to “risk” giving free-reign to the rule of law.

Stuart Syvret

Twenty Five Murdering Nurses: A Global Media Survey – Introduction:

The following quote is taken from an article for Crime Library, titled, Angels of Death: The Male Nurses:

“In an article for Forensic Nurse, Kelly Pyrek, indicates that since the mid-1970s, there have been 36 cases of serial murder among nurses and other healthcare workers in the U.S. A survey shows that the incidences appear to be increasing, with 14 during the 1990s and already five since 2000. (The article was written before Cullen’s atrocities came to light, so that makes at least six.) ‘Many experts speculate,’ says Pyrek, ‘that healthcare has contributed more serial killers than all other professions combined and that the field attracts a disproportionately high number of people with a pathological interest in life and death.’”

In USAToday, journalist Rick Hampson wrote of the 2003 case of the male nurse and mass-murderer Charles Cullen: -

“But possibly the biggest reason that some nurses kill is that they can.

“They have access to patients who are often very sick, very old or very young — and access to drugs powerful enough to kill unobtrusively through an intravenous tube. And they work at institutions with an inherent aversion to litigation and publicity.

“Katherine Ramsland, a forensic psychologist at DeSales University in Centre Valley, Pa., has worked with FBI profilers.”Some hospitals don’t want the public to know they had someone like this, so they sort of shove the problem aside” with a dismissal, she said. “But then the nurse gets a job somewhere else.”

In the case of the New Jersey mass-murdering male nurse Charles Cullen, seven nurses at St Lukes Hospital who worked with Cullen later met with the Lehigh County district attorney to alert the authorities of their suspicions that Cullen had used drugs to kill patients. They pointed out that, between January 2002 and June 2002, Cullen had worked 20 percent of the hours on his unit but was present for nearly two-thirds of the deaths. But investigators never looked into Cullen’s past, and the case was dropped nine months later for lack of evidence. It was later learned that hospital administrators had stymied the investigation by not being totally forthcoming with investigators.

In September 2002, Cullen found a job at Somerset Medical Centre in Somerville, New Jersey.

The executive director of the New Jersey Poison Information and Education System warned Somerset Medical Centre officials in July 2003 that at least four of the suspicious overdoses indicated the possibility that an employee was killing patients. But the hospital put off contacting authorities until October. By then, Cullen had killed another five patients and attempted to kill a sixth.

State officials penalized the hospital for failing to report a non-fatal insulin overdose in August. The overdose had been administered by Cullen. When Cullen’s final victim died of low blood sugar in October, the medical centre alerted state authorities. An investigation into Cullen’s employment history revealed past suspicions about his involvement with prior deaths. Somerset Medical Centre fired Cullen on October 31, 2003, for lying on his job application.

Initially charged with 16 murders, Cullen’s involvement in dozens of other deaths came to light. Experts have estimated that Charles Cullen may ultimately be responsible for some 400 murders, which would make him the most prolific serial killer in American history.

The obvious conclusions and concerns in respect of nursing and the opportunity the profession provides for murder were expressed by John Field, an Australian Barrister and registered nurse, who studied killer nurses for a PhD. During an interview with Australian radio, Field said: -

“Virtually the only time that these nurses are detected is when there’s a pattern of unusual deaths that’s discovered. So there are a number of implications of that, but one of them is that oftentimes the killing can go on for a long time so then they have multiple victims over a number of years. They move from place to place, they have no pattern that’s picked up.

“I think what we can learn is that nurses themselves need to have a heightened awareness of it. They have to at least at first accept the possibility that this could happen. And what I found was during the whole time I was doing this study, when nurses would ask me what I was doing my PhD on and I’d say, “Nurses that murder their patients”. And they’d say, “Oh, you mean euthanasia, you know, putting people out of their misery”.

“And I’d say, “No, I mean people who are murdering their patients, that are actually doing it with malice and forethought, that are intentionally killing them for no good reason and sometimes when they’re healthy.” And they’d be astonished. They couldn’t believe that a nurse would do such a thing. And I think that’s part of the problem is that it’s so hard to contemplate that that would be the case, it’s such a foreign concept that it would be almost impossible to suspect your colleague of doing that.”

Interviewer: “And you found that even in the response of some hospitals in these cases that quite often they simply moved that nurse on if there were some suspicions, which only opened up the possibility of them doing it somewhere else?”

“That’s right. Now the practice of permitting people who were suspected or considered to be possibly be killing patients, just moving them on, probably isn’t a satisfactory way of dealing with it. And the fact that those people then went on to have long killing careers, sometimes 16 or more years, suggests that’s a very poor practice.”

It is very clearly – and tragically – established in the public record, beyond any credible dispute, that nursing as an activity is attractive to that small number of people who have psychopathic urges to exercise the power of life and death over vulnerable people. The public record also shows that nursing – perhaps uniquely, because of the amount of time and unsupervised access nurses have to vulnerable patients – presents to psychopaths an unparalleled access to the opportunity – and the means – to kill. And to kill with comparatively slight risk of detection.

Twenty Five Murdering Nurses: A Global Media Survey:

1: Robert Diaz

1984

Robert Diaz was an American serial killer that used his position as a nurse to gain access to his victims. In March and April 1981, he murdered at least 12 hospital patients. His victims, both men and women, ranged in ages from 52 to 89. His choice of weapon was the drug lidocaine.

Robert Diaz, also known as David Robert Diaz, was born in Gary, Indiana in 1938. He grew up in a large, poor family, but managed to capture the attention of his parents with the many illnesses he suffered throughout his younger years. Because he was frequently ill he also missed a lot of school and only completed 10 grades before dropping out.

At the age of 18 Diaz joined the Marines, but he was unable to adapt. He was later discharged after going AWOL for six weeks.

In 1981, Diaz worked through a temporarily employment agency which placed him in various hospitals in counties all around Riverside County in California, usually to work graveyard shift. Immediately the number of older patients dying noticeably increased. Many of the patients dying were not considered critical cases which raised the suspicions of hospital administrators.

An investigation was launched and in several of the cases the coroner found high levels of lidocaine in the tissue of the deceased patients. Lidocaine is used to regulate heartbeats, but when administered in too high a dosage the outcome can be lethal. The dosage found in patients was up to 2,000 milligrams. The normal lidocaine dosage is 50 to 100 milligrams.

An anonymous tip into the San Bernadino County coroner named Diaz as being responsible for several of deaths. Investigators took notice and began piecing together timelines. It did not take long to determine that Diaz was somehow involved in the suspicious deaths.

At the Community Hospital of the Valley in Perris, California, there was a 12-day span when several patients died suspiciously. Diaz had worked 10 of those shifts. He also worked one shift at the San Gregorio Pass Hospital in Banning when another patient died due to an overdose of lidocaine.

Co-workers told investigators that Diaz had an uncanny ability to predict when some of the patients would die and even went as far as suggesting that co-workers schedule their breaks based on his predictions. Diaz was also seen giving injections to patients prior to their deaths.

The investigators had enough evidence to get a search warrant for Diaz’ home. There they found several bottles of lidocaine and morphine, as well as syringes containing lidocaine that were labeled with some of dead patient’s names. Many of the lidocaine syringes were also labeled as being a lower dosage than what they contained.

Judge John J. Barnard found Diaz guilty on all counts and on March 29, 1984, he was sentenced to die and was sent to San Quentin to await execution.

2: Genene Jones

1985

“Genene Anne Jones (born July 13, 1950) is a former paediatric nurse who killed somewhere between 11 and 46 infants and children in her care. She used injections of digoxin, heparin and later succinylcholine to induce medical crises in her patients, with the intention of reviving them afterward in order to receive praise and attention. These medications are known to cause heart paralysis and other complications when given as an overdose. Many children however, did not survive the initial attack and could not be revived. The exact number of murders remain unknown, as hospital officials allegedly first misplaced then destroyed records of her activities to prevent further litigation after Jones’ first conviction.

While working at the Bexar County Hospital (now The University Hospital of San Antonio) in the Paediatric Intensive care unit, it was determined that a statistically inordinate number of children Jones worked with were dying. Rather than pursue further investigation the hospital simply asked Jones to resign, which she did.”

3: Donald Harvey:

1987

“Donald Harvey is a serial killer responsible for killing 36 to 57 people, many of who were patients at hospitals where he was employed. His killing spree lasted from May 1970 until March 1987, only ending after a police investigation into the death of a patient resulted in Harvey’s confession. Labelled the “Angel of Death” Harvey said he first began to kill to help ease the pain of dying patients, but a detailed diary he kept paints the picture of a sadistic, cold-hearted killer. Beginning on August 11, 1987, and throughout several more days, Harvey confessed to killing over 70 people. After investigating each of his claims he was charged with 25 counts of aggravated murder, to which Harvey pled guilty. He was given four consecutive 20-year sentences. Later, in February, 1988, he confessed to committing three more murders in Cincinnati.

In Kentucky Harvey confessed to 12 murders and was sentenced to eight life terms plus 20 years.”

4: Richard Angelo

1990

“Working the graveyard shift put Angelo into the perfect position to continue to work on his feeling of inadequacy, so much so that during his relatively short time at the Good Samaritan, there were 37 “Code-Blue” emergencies during his shift. Only 12 of the 37 patients lived to talk about their near death experience.

Angelo, apparently not swayed by his inability to keep his victims alive, continued injecting patients with a combination of the paralyzing drugs, Pavulon and Anectine, sometimes telling the patient that he was giving them something which would make them feel better.

Soon after administering the deadly cocktail, the patients would begin to feel numb and their breathing would become constricted as did their ability to communicate to nurses and doctors. Few could survive the deadly attack.

Then on October 11, 1987 Angelo came under suspicion after one of his victims, Gerolamo Kucich, managed to use the call button for assistance after receiving an injection from Angelo. One of the nurses responding to his call for help took a urine sample and had it analyzed. The test proved positive for containing the drugs, Pavulon and Anectine, neither of which had been prescribed to Kucich.

The following day Angelo’s locker and home were searched and police found vials of both drugs and Angelo was arrested. The bodies of several of the suspected victims were exhumed and tested for the deadly drugs. The test proved positive for the drugs on ten of the dead patients.

Angelo was ultimately convicted of two counts of depraved indifference murder (second-degree murder), one count of second degree manslaughter, one count of criminally negligent homicide and six counts of assault with respect to five of the patients and was sentenced to 61 years to life.”

5: Waltraud Wagner

1991

Waltraud Wagner started began a murder spree at Lainz General Hospital, Vienna, Austria. Most of the people who go there are elderly, many of them with terminal illnesses. It’s not difficult to hide a murder or two among people who are already at death’s door.

Wagner began the killings in 1983 and by the time officials began to look into the suspicious deaths some six years later, the death toll stood at 42. However, an unofficial count was in the hundreds.

Wagner, 23, had a 77-year-old patient who one day asked the girl to “end her suffering.” Wagner claims to have “hesitatingly” obliged by overdosing the woman with morphine. It was then that she discovered she enjoyed this kind of power. It was apparently not difficult for Wagner to recruit accomplices from the night shift. Maria Gruber, 19, was happy to join. So was Ilene Leidolf, 21. The third recruit was a grandmother, 43-year-old Stephanija Mayer.

Wagner was the “death pavilion” leader, and they planned the murders as a group. She taught the others how to give lethal injections, and she added some fatal mechanisms of her own creation. The “water cure” involved holding a patient’s nose while forcing him or her to drink. That was an agonizing death that filled the lungs, but undiscoverable as outright murder. Many elderly patients had fluid in their lungs.

All four women were arrested in April 1989.

Collectively they confessed to 49 murders, and Wagner took credit for giving a “free bed with the good Lord” to 39 of them. She had decided that their deaths were long overdue, and she reveled in the fact that the power over their lives rested with her. However, one of her accomplices believed that Wagner’s death count was closer to 200 in just the past two years.

Ultimately, Wagner was convicted of 15 murders, 17 attempts, and two counts of assault. She was sentenced to life in prison. Leidolf got life as well, on conviction of five murders, while the other two drew 15 years for manslaughter and attempted murder charges.

6: Irene Leidolf

1991

Irene Leidolf, 27 at the time, was the “second-n-command” to Waltraud Wagner. Leidolf had come to Vienna with her parents from the agricultural north of Austria. She was a shy woman who rarely joined in any of the other nurses’ gossipy chats, but Waltraud Wagner liked her because she always did as she was told.

Throughout the years of wholesale murder in the hospital, the slight good-looking Irene never gave any indication that what she was doing was wrong. Her only comment to police was: “I had a family to feed and I wasn’t going to put my job on the line by refusing to help Nurse Wagner.”

Leidolf was sentenced in March 1991 to life for seven counts of murder.

7: Joseph Dewey Akin

1992

Nurse Joseph Dewey Akin, 35, who worked at Cooper Green Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama, was tried in September 1992 for killing Robert J. Price, 32, a quadriplegic, with a lethal dose of lidocaine. Investigators suspected Akin in over 100 deaths in the area over the past decade in twenty different facilities where he worked. However, many of those facilities had thwarted investigations.

Akin had long been suspected of causing many Code Blue medical emergencies, both in Alabama and in hospitals around the metro Atlanta area. The number of such emergencies at one hospital in Georgia was unusually high when Akin was working there, and colleagues noticed that at least four types of heart drugs had been stolen.

In the incident in which Akin was arrested, the amount of lidocaine found in Price’s body was twice the lethal dose and four times the therapeutic dose. While defense experts attempted to explain it as something other than murder, prosecution experts had a ready counter-explanation.

At Akin’s trial, Marion Albright, Price’s assigned nurse, testified that when she came back from a lunch break she saw Akin walking out of Price’s room. She attempted to enter it to check on her patient but he had tried to prevent her from doing so.

In the end, after just over an hour of deliberation and only two votes, the jury decided that the circumstances warranted a conviction. When the verdict was read, Akin put his hand to his face.

One juror, when interviewed for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, said, “Too many people all placed him at the scene of the crime, and nothing he said to explain it made sense.”

On appeal, Akin’s conviction was overturned, yet when he was tried again, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Another retrial was scheduled for March 1998, but two months before it was to begin, Akin pled guilty to manslaughter. He received a sentence of 15 years.

8: Beverley Allitt

1993

“Beverley Gail Allitt (born 4 October 1968, Corby Glen, Lincolnshire, England), dubbed by the media the Angel of Death, is an English serial killer who murdered four children and injured nine others while working as a State Enrolled Nurse (SEN), on the children’s ward of Grantham and Kesteven Hospital, Lincolnshire. Her main method of murder was to inject the child with potassium chloride (to cause cardiac arrest), or with insulin (to induce lethal hypoglycaemia).

She was sentenced to life imprisonment at her trial at Nottingham Crown Court in 1993 and is currently being held at Rampton Secure Hospital.”

9: Orville Majors

1999

“A former nurse who gave lethal injections to six hospital patients has been sentenced to 360 years for the “diabolical” murders.

Orville Lynn Majors, 38, who reportedly told a colleague that old people ”should all be gassed”, had been linked to 130 deaths.

But he was only tried on the seven cases the prosecution thought most likely to secure a conviction. Majors was found guilty on six of those counts last month.

“It’s the judgement of this court that the maximum sentence is the minimum sentence in this case,” said Judge Ernest Yelton.

Relatives of Majors’ victims broke down in tears as he was sentenced to 60 years for each of the six murders.

Judge Yelton described Major’s crime as “a paragon of evil at its most wicked”.

The patients, four women and two men aged 56 to 89, died between 1993 and 1995 at the Vermillion county hospital in Clinton, Indiana.

Prosecutors said Majors gave his victims fatal overdoses and that some of the injections were witnessed by their loved ones.

Investigators said he used the potentially heart-stopping drug potassium chloride, vials of which were found in his home and car.”

10: Edson Izidoro Guimarães

2000

“Edson Isidoro Guimarães (born 1957) is a Brazilian nursing assistant and convicted serial killer. He confessed to five murders of which he was convicted of four, but is suspected of committing up to 131 in total. He claimed that he chose patients whose conditions were irreversible and who were in pain.

Guimarães worked as a nurse in the Salgado Filho Hospital in the Méier district of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He was caught in 1999 when a hospital porter saw Guimarães fill a syringe with potassium chloride and inject a comatose patient who immediately died. The police were informed and a higher than average death rate on his ward increased their suspicions. On his arrest he confessed to five murders.”

11: Kristen Gilbert

2001

“A former veterans hospital nurse who killed four of her patients with injections of poison should spend the rest of her life in prison, a federal jury decided Monday. Kristen Gilbert, a 33-year-old mother of two, could have faced death by lethal injection and would have become the only woman on federal death row.

Gilbert was convicted March 14 of the first-degree murder in the deaths of three veterans. She also was convicted of the second-degree murder, which is not subject to the death penalty, in the death of another veteran. Gilbert also was convicted of trying to kill two other veterans in her care.

From August 1995 through February 1996, Gilbert dealt out wholesale death. Her victims were helpless patients who trusted her as a caregiver, only to learn too late that she was a killer, her weapon a drug capable of causing fatal heart attacks. But she got away with murder until three of her fellow nurses could no longer ignore the proliferation of deadly “coincidences” on Gilbert’s watch. Investigators believe Kristen Gilbert may have been responsible for as many as 40 deaths.”

12: Alison Firth

2001 “A nurse who drugged and killed a frail elderly woman has been found guilty of murder by a jury at Newcastle Crown Court.

Alison Firth, 36, poisoned 84-year-old Alice Grant with an overdose of the sedative drug heminevrin in May last year.

The court was told Firth may have killed Mrs Grant because she was lazy and could not face having to provide regular care for her in the future.

Outside court, Detective Superintendent Chris Symonds, who led the inquiry, said the nurse acted in an evil manner and was a disgrace to her profession.

He said: “The verdict demonstrates that elderly people have the protection of the law, notwithstanding the fact that they are extremely ill and in the last stages of their natural life.

“In this case Alice Grant, as was articulated by witnesses, although very ill, was described as alert and able to express feelings through her eyes and touch to those who were caring for her.

“She did not deserve to be killed in this way.

“Firth deliberately set out, planned and executed the death of Alice Grant and the jury have seen Alison Firth for what she is.”

13: Timea Faludi

“In early 2001 the Hungarian nurse Timea Faludi (then 24) confessed on killing approximately 40 elderly patients “for mercy”. The case was uncovered when the medical director of the Gyala Nviro Hospital in Budapest noticed, that the death toll was unusually high, when sister Timea was on night-shift. Controls of the drug usage showed a shortage of tranquilizer. Faludi withdrew her confessions during trial and as all the victims had been cremated there was no evidence left.

Faludi was convicted to 9 years in prison for repeated attempts of murder and a lifelong prohibition to work as nurse.”

14: Christine Malèvre

2003

“French Nurse Jailed in 6 Deaths

A French nurse who said she helped the terminally ill die out of compassion was sentenced today to 10 years in prison for the deaths of six hospital patients.

The nurse, Christine Malèvre, had been charged with the murder of seven patients at a lung hospital in Mantes-la-Jolie near Paris in 1997 and 1998. She faced life in prison.

Ms. Malèvre’s case sparked energetic debate on euthanasia in France, a predominantly Roman Catholic country, after she initially said she had “helped” about 30 terminally ill patients end their lives.”

15: Lucy de Berk

2003

“A nurse thought to be one of the most prolific serial killers in the Netherlands has been jailed for life after a court found her guilty of the murder of four of her patients and the attempted murder of three others.

Lucy Isabella Quirina de Berk, 41, has repeatedly protested her innocence but on Monday a court in the Hague concluded that she had killed three babies and one elderly woman by lethal injection.

It also found her guilty of trying to murder two other babies and another pensioner.

The case has captured the public imagination because of the large number of people who died under suspicious circumstances in de Berk’s care. She was initially accused of killing 13 and of attempting to murder five others.

The murders happened between 1997 and 2001 at three hospitals in the Hague. In each case the patient died of an overdose of either potassium chloride or morphine and de Berk was the last person to be at the bedside. During her trial, statisticians gave evidence that the chances of her being present coincidentally at each death were one in 342 million.”

16: Anne Grigg-Booth

2004

“Detectives charged Grigg-Booth in September 2004.

The nurse was charged with murdering June Driver, 67, in July 2000; Eva Blackburn, 75, in November 2001; and 96-year-old Annie Midgley in July 2002.

She was also accused of trying to kill 42-year-old Michael Parker in June 2002.

As well as the murder and attempted murder charges, Grigg-Booth faced 13 counts of unlawfully administering poison to 12 other patients.

She was due to go on trial in April 2006, but died of an overdose aged 52 on 29 August 2005.

The night nurse practitioner was charged with the murder of three elderly patients after illegally prescribing and injecting powerful painkilling drugs as if she was a qualified doctor.

But police believe she may have killed many more during her 25 years working at Airedale General Hospital in Keighley, West Yorkshire.

Grigg-Booth also faced an attempted murder charge and 13 counts of unlawfully administering poison to 12 other patients but was never brought to trial because she died from a drink and drugs overdose at her home in 2005 at the age of 52.”

17: Charles Cullen

2004

“Charles Edmund Cullen (born February 22, 1960) is a former nurse who is the most prolific serial killer in New Jersey history, and suspected to be the most prolific serial killer in American history. Cullen told authorities in December 2003 that he could specifically recall the murder of perhaps 40 patients during the 16 years he worked at 10 hospitals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But in subsequent interviews with police, psychiatric professionals, and the only journalist with whom he had ever granted interviews, Charles Graeber, it soon became clear that he had killed many more, whom he could not specifically remember. Experts have estimated that Charles Cullen may ultimately be responsible for some 400 murders- making him the most prolific serial killer in American history.”

18: Abraão José Bueno

2005

“Abraão José Bueno (born 1977) is a Brazilian nurse and serial killer. In 2005 he was sentenced to 110 years imprisonment for the murder of four children and the attempted murder of another four.

Bueno worked as a nurse in the Instituto de Puericultura Martagão Gesteira of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

In 2005 Bueno, working in a children’s ward, began injecting babies and older children with overdoses of sedatives, causing them to stop breathing. He would then call medical staff to resuscitate them. In the course of one month up to fifteen children are thought to have been targeted, all between the ages of one and ten. Many suffered from AIDS and leukaemia.

Bueno was arrested in November 2005. On 15 May 2008 he was found guilty by judge Valéria Caldi on four counts of murder and four counts of attempted murder. He was sentenced to 110 years in total.”

 

19: Stephan Letter

2006

“A German nurse has been convicted and sentenced to life in prison for killing 28 patients at a hospital he worked at in the southern part of the country. Stephan Letter was found guilty of 12 counts of murder, 15 counts of manslaughter and one count of illegal mercy killing.

Letter, who was nicknamed the “Angel of Death” in the German media had admitted to giving lethal injections to 16 elderly patients at a local hospital and was thought to have killed 12 more.

He eventually said he could not remember how many he had killed.During the trial, Herbert Pollert, the lead prosecutor, said autopsies had been performed on 42 former patients at a hospital in the Bavarian town of Sonthofen.

The victims all died during the 17 months Letter worked at the clinic and most of the patients were above the age of 75, though one was as young as 40.

The deaths didn’t raise any red flags at the medical facility because of the patients’ age, but concerns appeared when officials found medications had disappeared.

Letter was finally arrested after authorities found some of the drugs at his home — an amount large enough to have killed 10 more patients. The nurse used a mixture of a sedative and muscle relaxant to kill the patients, and the drug cocktail would have taken only five minutes to induce death.

“We have the strongest suspicions that all 42 of the disinterred were killed by the accused,” a police spokesman said. However, Police are unable to check the causes of death of 38 other patients who were at the hospital during the same period, because their bodies were cremated.”

20: Benjamin Geen

2006

Killer nurse given 17 life terms.

A hospital nurse found guilty of murdering two patients and causing grievous bodily harm to 15 more has been sentenced to 17 life terms.

Benjamin Geen was told he would serve at least 30 years for the offences at Oxfordshire’s Horton General Hospital between 2003 and 2004.

The nurse injected patients with drugs to stop their breathing to satisfy his lust for excitement, the court heard.

The judge described Geen’s actions as a “terrible betrayal of trust”. The Banbury nurse was given life sentences for two counts of murder and 15 of grievous bodily harm.

Geen gave a total of 17 victims injections of drugs such as muscle relaxants, insulin and sedatives to stop them breathing.

The court heard how Geen looked elated as his patients went into respiratory arrest and even boasted to one doctor, “There is always a resuscitation when I’m on duty”.

David Onley, 77, from Deddington, died on 21 January, 2004, and Anthony Bateman, 66, from Banbury, died on 6 January, 2004.

Fifteen other patients recovered shortly after they developed breathing difficulties.

Initially, doctors could not explain the abnormally high level of respiratory arrests between December 2003 and February 2004.

Suspicion fell on Geen, a lieutenant in the Territorial Army, when it emerged that the incidents had taken place while he was on duty.

When he was subsequently arrested at the hospital on 9 February, 2004, police found a syringe filled with a potentially lethal muscle relaxant in his pocket.

Detective Superintendent Andy Taylor, who led the murder investigation, said: “Ben Geen abused this position of trust.

“We may never know what motivated him to select and poison his victims.

“It is clear that he wanted to be the centre of attention and in order to fuel this desire, brought some of his patients to the brink of death and coldly murdered two of them.”

21: Vicki Dawn Jackson

2006

“A former hospital nurse pleaded no contest Tuesday to killing 10 patients nearly six years ago by injecting them with a drug used to temporarily halt breathing.

Vickie Dawn Jackson, 40, will be sentenced to life in prison, the maximum sentence she faced if she had been convicted by a jury.

Authorities have not offered a motive for the slayings.

Jackson was accused of killing the patients, including her third husband’s grandfather, by injecting them with a drug used to stop breathing to allow insertion of a breathing tube.

Prosecutor said the deaths occurred during her night shifts at Nocona General Hospital in 2000 and 2001. More than 20 vials of the drug were missing and a syringe with traces of the drug was found in the nurse’s garbage, they said.”

22: Irene Becker

2007

German Nurse Sentenced to Life for Killing Patients.

A nurse has been sentenced to life imprisonment for killing six patients in her care at the Charite Hospital in Berlin with an overdose of medication.

The German nurse went on trial in April for the murder of six people and the attempted murder of two others between June 2005 and October 2006. Berlin’s Charite hospital, Europe’s biggest university hospital, came in for manifold criticism throughout the trial for failing to raise the alarm earlier.

Becker, who worked in cardiology, was arrested in October 2006 after a fellow nurse alerted a doctor about the disturbingly high number of patients dying in their ward. Most of the nurse’s victims had been elderly and close to death.

23: Colin Norris:

“A senior nurse who murdered four elderly women patients began a minimum 30-year jail term yesterday without showing remorse or explaining what led him to take his victims’ lives.

Passing sentence on 32-year-old Colin Norris, Mr Justice Griffith Williams said months of evidence had left him no wiser about the motives behind a “thoroughly evil” betrayal of trust.

He had carried out the murders with increasing confidence over a six-month period in 2002 at two Leeds hospitals.

The court and police praised Dr Emma Ward, who questioned an insulin dose given to one victim, 86-year-old Ethel Hall, and triggered the police investigation. But Hall’s son Stuart, 53, said yesterday that the family and other victims’ relatives were seeking talks with Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust about an independent inquiry into the case.

“We hope Colin Norris never leaves prison and is never in a situation where he can harm anyone else again,” he said. “I do not understand why he pretended to be a caring nurse when he was really a cold-blooded killer who preyed on the vulnerable.”

Norris was convicted on an 11-1 jury vote of murdering Hall, Doris Ludlam, 80, Bridget Bourke, 88, and Irene Crookes, 79, and attempting to murder Vera Wilby, 90, who survived a prolonged coma after an unnecessary insulin injection.

Det Chief Supt Chris Gregg, of West Yorkshire police, said he shared the judge’s frustration at not knowing what led Norris to kill. He said after the sentencing: “Only he knows the answer to that, but I am convinced he would have gone on to kill more patients had he not been stopped in his tracks.””

24: Katariina Pantila

2009

“A Finnish nurse dubbed “the angel of death” for murdering a mentally disabled patient and attempting to murder a healthy eight-month old baby with insulin was found dead in her jail cell, police said Tuesday.

“She has perished there,” an officer with the police in Turku, on the west coast of Finland, told AFP, confirming that Katariina Pantila, 28, died after resuscitation efforts in her cell at a Turku jail Monday.

Last week, an appeals court upheld a life sentence for Pantila, formerly known as Katariina Loennqvist, for the murder of a 79-year-old, bed-ridden woman by injecting her with insulin at a rehabilitation centre in 2007.”

25: Aino Nykopp-Koski:

2010

“A Finnish nurse was sentenced to life in prison on Wednesday for murdering five of her elderly patients with lethal drug overdoses, and for trying to kill five others.

The Helsinki District Court found Aino Nykopp-Koski guilty of five murders, five attempted murders, three aggravated assaults, three thefts and possessing illegal drugs.

The murders happened in hospitals, hospices and private homes between 2004 and 2009.”

 

GOVERNANCE IN JERSEY’S HOSPITAL

Another Blogger Writes.

On 6th April Mark Forskitt, a children’s rights campaigner, research engineer and environmentalist wrote a posting on his blog, Jersey Today, which will be of interest to regular readers.

So interesting is Mark’s article, I’m reproducing it in its entirety below, but the original can be viewed here: -

http://jerseytoday.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-coincidence-or-three.html

Mark was researching some important questions concerning whether Jersey’s proposed new hospital was being designed taking account of the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the course of his research he made some interesting discoveries concerning the cv and career-path of the Jersey Hospital’s managing director, Helen O’Shea.

The questions that arise are legitimate public interest concerns, given the evidenced history of the concealment of catastrophic governance-failures  – including the murder of patients by a rogue nurse – by Jersey Health & Social Services.

As Mark say’s: -

“Is it possible that the hospital, knowing they had problems with a rogue nurse, as exposed by Stuart Syvret, thought they had found someone who could protect them and ‘tidy up’ from the fall out? I have no idea. There is nothing of any substantive fact to show Mrs O’Shea to be anything other than a professional in her field. And yet there are those annoying coincidences and little questions that nag away at one’s confidence.”

Mark is an interesting and thoughtful commentator on many issues, and always worth reading at his blogs: -

http://jerseytoday.blogspot.com/

http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/

I remember an appointment-processes at Jersey Health & Social Services in which I was, as the Minister, a member of the interviewing panel. Unbeknown to me at that time, it was a charade – the appointment of the disaster that was Mike Pollard as Chief Executive having already been rigged with the involvement of Jersey’s so-called “Independent Appointments Commission”.

Mike Pollard then became a pro-active participant in a criminal conspiracy to engineer my dismissal, as witnessed by Police Chief Graham Power, who – in-turn – later became a victim of Jersey’s self-protecting, crime-concealing polity-mafia.

It’s good for the public interest that observant, inquiring people such as Mark Forskitt ask questions.  As history shows, we cannot rely solely on the “official systems” to protect us.

Stuart Syvret

A Coincidence or Three, by Mark Forskitt

I’ve been doing some reading around our proposed new hospital. It is not my usual arena, but recent events have highlighted some aspects that should be input into the planning of the facility, which we can easily image should last the Island a generation or more. Intuitively one would expect population and demographic models to be central. The reticence of the Minister in laying out the details of the models used is troubling. But it is not the only area of concern.

The recently published IPPC report is quite clear there are expected health, including mental health impacts on small island states. The summary can be found at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf . Unlike previous reports, this one explicitly identifies current impacts are occurring “Local changes in temperature and rainfall have altered the distribution of some water-borne illnesses and disease vectors”. A few other pertinent quotes are:

“The key risks that follow, all of which are identified with high confidence, span sectors and regions. Each of these key risks contributes to one or more RFCs.33
i. Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise”.

“Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence). Impacts of such climate-related extremes include alteration of ecosystems, disruption of food production and water supply, damage to infrastructure and settlements, morbidity and mortality, and consequences for mental health and human well-being. For countries at all levels of development, these impacts are consistent with a significant lack of preparedness for current climate variability in some sectors.”

I have written to the health minister to ask what extent these changes, both present and future have been considered in the planning of the hospital.

However I came across something else while looking for information. The hospital managing director is of course a pivotal person on the future of the hospital. So I did a search. A brief cv for Mrs. Helen O’Shea is on the States web site at http://www.gov.je/News/2012/Pages/NewHospitalManagingDirector.aspx . I used to do a lot of technical recruitment interviewing when I was running a rapidly growing software business. I’ve seen a lot of cv’s. Two things about that online piece stood out to me immediately. While all the other positions held had accompanying dates, the time at Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust does not. The other is the repeated occurrence of acting or interim office for what look like exceptionally long periods. This naturally raises the question of why she did not become the actual chief? It might be as straight forward as a glass ceiling effect.

Perhaps that temporal absence is simply a stylistic choice by a content manager. However we can infer that Mrs O’Shea was there between 2004 and 2011, rather longer than the other establishments. A very long time to be an acting chief, so I assume some other roles and positions were omitted. Her public profile on LinkedIn is even less informative, listing only the current position. More useful is zoominfo http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Helen-O%27Shea/815893917 Here we can identify that in 2006 Mrs O’Shea was director of performance (not an executive director however).

A bit more digging and this came up http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/hospital-names-boss-1-934551 from the 30th October 2008. Mrs O’Shea it seems did not put herself forward to be Chief Executive, despite having been acting chief for six months according to that article. (So that clarifies one of the points above). Perhaps it is not too surprising that she didn’t pursue the opportunity when you read this: http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/hospital-halts-bid-for-elite-status-1-929196 I’d say that was the right decision to make for the acting Chief, but you have to wonder what responsibility the former director of performance and director of operations had for being in such a position of failing to meet standards and the public’s expectations.

That wasn’t the only problem the Trust had that year. In April it was all over the national press after a bogus nurse was in court. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1017370/Woman-walks-street-land-job-NHS-nurse-years–treating-hundreds-qualifications.html and  http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/robust-checks-made-on-nurses-1-925910 Whether the recruitment, appraisal and performance checks up to that point came under Mrs O’Shea’s directorial responsibility I cannot say, but it cannot have sat comfortably given her immediate prior title.

Did the HR department and interviewing staff go to the bottom of those irritating and stand out cv points? Is it coincidence that in 2012 Jersey appointed a new hospital managing director who had experience of public glare due to a rogue or bogus nurse and a hospital failing to meet targets? Is it possible that the hospital, knowing they had problems with a rogue nurse, as exposed by Stuart Syvret, thought they had found someone who could protect them and ‘tidy up’ from the fall out? I have no idea. There is nothing of any substantive fact to show Mrs O’Shea to be anything other than a professional in her field. And yet there are those annoying coincidences and little questions that nag away at one’s confidence.

By Mark Forskitt

First published on 6th April, at Jersey Today: -

http://jerseytoday.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-coincidence-or-three.html

MRS WINDSOR’S PRIVATEERS – PART 2

Treason – or Reason?

Regular readers of this blog will be reasonably familiar with the reality of the money-generating feudatory that is the off-shore Crown Dependency of Jersey, the anti-democratic oppression carried out by its oligarchy, and the conduct of what passes for a “judiciary” in the island.

Just for example, the endless succession “legal” battles I face at the hands of the Potemkin village “justice” apparatus of Jersey.

Mrs Windsor’s Privateers – Part 1 – which is a handy introduction to the heart of darkness – can be read here: -

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/mrs-windsors-privateers-part-1/

To readers familiar with the Crown-empowered feudal “court” of Jersey, the e-mail I publish below requires no introductory explanation. Although a brief communication, concerning a pretty simple issue – my attempt to obtain an electronic version of a recent “court” transcript – the e-mail nevertheless states and shows – in so many ways – that what we face in Jersey is, actually, beyond Kafka.

I’ve titled this post, Mrs Windsor’s Privateers – Part 2 – because, well, that’s what we’re dealing with.

Privateers – directly empowered by the British monarch.

The still extant – in the 21st century – unbridled and absolute power of the “court” and its “courtiers”.

Just hope that your daughter or son never needs protection from those courtiers, their thanes and vassals – nor the apparatus that shields and succours them.

Stuart Syvret.

E-mail from Stuart Syvret to the Jersey “court” apparatus, concerning a transcript – and “judicial” conflicts of interest – and the monarch’s approval of William Bailhache:

From:  Stuart Syvret

To:   Jersey Appeal Court Secretariat, Bailiff’s Judicial Secretary

CC:   Secretary of State for Justice UK Government,  Privy Council, Justice Department UK Government,  Jersey Child-Abuse Public Inquiry

Date:  9th April 2014 16:47

Subject:  Re: Treasurer of the States v Syvret

Thank you for your e-mail.

Whilst I am grateful for the hard-copy, which I will collect when I am able, I require an electronic copy, so I would ask that a PDF of the transcript is e-mailed to me. (That has been the case with previous transcripts.)

My reason for requiring electronic copies of all documents I have to deal with in these interlinked cases is simple; I am self-representing (not of choice) and can only very occasionally obtain any pro-bono advice. Even that slight assistance is dependent upon me being able to e-mail electronic copies of the relevant material to those who may assist me.

There is also the simple matter of not being able to store or transport physical documents. For example, the material served on me by the directly and corruptly conflicted law firm Appleby Global / Bailhache LaBesse (which law-firm corruptly betrayed the Blanche Pierre child-abuse victims when they were legal-aid clients in 1998/9 when William Bailhache was the Senior Partner) now amounts to approximately 30 large lever-arch files – about 14,000 pages – which, alone, requires two sack-trolleys to transport. Such physical burdens are a pro-active obstruction (another) to the practical enjoyment of my Article 6 Rights.

When I have an electronic copy of the transcript, I will be able to prepare and lodge the appeal against the decisions and conduct of Michael Birt and Philip Bailhache’s dinning-companion, friend, admirer, defender, and public cheer-leader – and appointee – Howard Page QC – and his extraordinary conduct. Just for example – actually agreeing to hear the case at all – when he was (a) conflicted, (b) case-decided, & (c) functus officio – and displayed all of the thus predictable overt, actual bias in that he didn’t actually permit me to run a case against the aforesaid & associated & related evidenced factors.

The Crown judicial function in the feudatory of Jersey is – along with the Crown prosecution function in Jersey – a criminal enterprise – in-and-of-itself.

I suppose corruption will spring – wherever it is permitted to; “absolute power”, and all that. But what is remarkable about the Jersey situation is its sheer brazenness – the startling absence of even any attempt to disguise the lawlessness – the criminality hiding-in-plain-sight.

It’s the kind of brass-neck hubris that only the British ruling elites can pull off.

Directly, expressly – and very seriously – conflicted judges, such as Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt and William Bailhache – hearing cases they’re parties to – choosing and appointing their own  judges to further hear such cases – judges such as their friends, admirers, cheer-leaders and dinning-companions – like  Christopher Pitchers, Jonathan Sumption, Charles Gray, and Howard Page.

When I was most recently a political prisoner of this Crown-protected Jersey/City of London commune cosa nostra, I was denied my Article 6 Rights to access adequate “time and facilities” to prepare my legal appeals & applications. In an attempt to secure my Rights, I prepared an injunction application against the prison.

That application of mine was simply vetoed – prevented even from reaching court – by the expressly and fatally conflicted William Bailhache in the office of Deputy Bailiff. I was merely notified of his decision by a brief letter – which contained no attempted explanation or justification for this illegal, oppressive act.

The letter asserted that a fully reasoned explanation would be provided in due course.

No such explanation was ever received – and has not been received to this day.

I was thus prevented from accessing justice – prevented from securing my Article 6 Rights – when politically imprisoned by friends of William Bailhache – by William Bailhache.

That’s  the William Bailhache who I had been exposing in the public interest via Google/Blogger for such malfeasances as corruptly betraying legal-aid child-abuse victims, obstructing the 2008 child-abuse investigations, associating with priority criminal suspects, making non-prosecution decisions in cases he was directly conflicted in, breaking the Data Protection Law, aiding his equally criminal brother Philip Bailhache in the obstruction of anti-corruption investigations, attempting to illegally coerce the Police Chief Graham Power into dropping an investigation into planning-corruption, and then participating in the criminal conspiracy to illegally suspend the Police Chief.

As all of this – evidenced – conduct is so obviously approved of by the Crown – and Her Majesty personally, as evinced in the granting of Her Letters Patent to make William Bailhache Bailiff – you will understand and appreciate that I need every conceivable practical assistance – such as electronic copies of the transcripts.

A person faces hard enough odds as it is, in confronting the corruption and criminality in Jersey of Crown power. Though it hides in plain sight, who dare call it for what it is and confront its omnipotently empowered privateers?

It can only be a matter of time, surely, until the new Treason law is used to imprison me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Stuart Syvret.

THE VULNERABLE CHILD IN JERSEY – Vs. THE CROWN:

The Original E-Mail – Published Below.

After Six-and-a-Half Years

Of Unremitting Corruption,

Of State-Sponsored Oppression,

The Public Inquiry into Decades of Concealed Child-Abuse Finally begins

http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/

Dear Reader

Come with me on a journey of understanding – of knowledge; let us take a look at how lives are wrecked – destroyed – how neglect, cruelty, molestation, savagery and rape can be inflicted upon generations of helpless children; children who had the entire apparatus of the state, supposedly, protecting them.

How?

How does that happen?

It is extraordinary, is it not, to consider that  a system of public administration, of so many people, employed in so many different capacities, each with  vital professional and moral duties for child-welfare, can contrive to so disastrously fail so many vulnerable children for so long.

An entire polity – different public departments – their civil servants – and the police – and the legislature – and its politicians  – and the prosecutors – and the judiciary – a huge and expensive network who’s only purpose in existing is to serve the public good – not only failing to protect children, but in some instances pro-actively abusing them – and then all conspiring to cover-up the corporate failure – the disgusting conduct – the criminality.

How – really – does that happen?

Today a public inquiry into decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey began.

It could have – and should have – started six-and-a-half years ago.

That it didn’t – that so much time has passed – and so much opposition had to be overcome – is a fact I offer you to reflect upon. It is – in and of itself – a wretched demonstration of how large-scale child-protection failures can be concealed by public authorities.

The details of the public inquiry and how to contact it can be found on its website at the following link:

http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/

On the 16th July 2007 – after approximately nine months of often covert work with whistle-blowers and survivors – this is what I said in answer to a question I was asked in the Jersey parliament, in my then capacity as Health & Social Services Minister: -

“I have serious concerns, to be honest, about the whole child protection, child welfare standards of performance of Jersey, not just within my own department, Social Services and the Children’s Service, but across the board. I am aware of a number of issues, this being one of them, a number of cases, a number of incidents that lead me more and more strongly to the conclusion that we are failing badly in this area. I am probably going to be seeking to initiate a major independent review into the whole sphere of child welfare, child protection in Jersey. So if you are asking me honestly, do I believe the performance of certain senior individuals within this field and of the departments generally is acceptable, no, it is not.”

I had become – often in the teeth of opposition, obstructions and lies from senior civil servants – the first ever Jersey politician to recognise the gross and systemic child-protection failures in Jersey.

I undertook hard and often harrowing work to reach that state of knowledge.

I knew then that a major investigation into Jersey’s child-protection failings was needed – and that only an independent, external review could address the issues.

Once someone had uncovered some of the child-abuses, the systemic failings in child-protection – and revealed the crises to the legislature – it then takes simply staggering levels of incompetence, stupidity and ethical bankruptcy for those who have power in the executive to have resisted that truth – to have shielded the failed system – to lie.

Frank Walker – former Senator and Chief Minister – was unearthed today by Channel Television – the ITN/ITV franchise in the Channel Islands.

When I happened to see that ITV interview with Frank Walker – its lameness – its carefully choreographed spin – the absolute lack of any serious & sustained questioning – essentially a PR-package masquerading as TV news – I was reminded of why Walker underwent such a  catastrophic meltdown when faced with real journalists in 2008 when the international community learnt of Jersey’s concealed history of child-abuse. Then Walker, for the first time in his life, was facing challenge – real journalists – asking real questions – and not willing to swallow bullshit.

The result was a train-wreck.

Then, Frank Walker was shown for the incompetent, low-calibre, viciously unpleasant, frightened and fundamentally inadequate little man that he is.

But today – with Jersey’s indigenous media – it was business-as-usual.

In a very – very – carefully worded question – which didn’t actually mention Haut de la Garenne, but was nevertheless freighted with that abuse-episode implicitly – Frank Walker was enabled to give an answer which implied the whole child-abuse controversy happened before he and his colleagues were in office. Which would be true, of course – as HDLG closed in 1986, and Walker wasn’t elected until 1990.

But – of course – we’re not dealing only with Haut de la Garenne.

We’re also confronting child-abuse and child-protection failures – at one time or another – at most of Jersey’s state-run children’s institutions.

Let’s just mention a few shall we? Blanche Pierre, Les Chennes, Heathfield, Don Road, Greenfields.

But in many ways, a more fundamental problem – one that questioned the very safety of the public good in the island – was the systemic and endemic nature of the governance failures that had been discovered and revealed. These were overarching issues that should have been grasped – should have been faced head-on, and fixed – by any Chief Minister – any leader worthy of the name – in this community.

The disastrous and endemic failures of the Jersey polity to properly protect its most vulnerable – the clear non-existence of functioning checks & balances – was the great challenge Walker faced in his political career.

Sadly, for Jersey his response to this challenge was blathering, spineless failure.

Here’s the question ITV/ITN put to Frank Walker, and his answer:

“Care-leavers and bloggers are adamant that the government at the time was somehow complicit in covering up abuse and sweeping  this issue under the carpet. What do you say to that?”

“I’ve yet to see or hear any evidence of that. I wasn’t involved  personally at the time obviously, nor were any of my – um – colleagues in government when the whole – um – awful situation emerged. Um but there’s no evidence I’ve seen or heard.”

A spin-doctored answer – for a spin-doctored question.

The real question is, was Frank Walker’s government complicit in covering-up later examples of institutional and corporate child-protection failure? And – indeed – complicit in obstructing efforts to uncover historic abuse at Haute de la Garenne?

Yes.

But we can’t, of course, be surprised that the ITV franchise in Jersey – which is run by Karine Rankine – should be little more than a PR-outfit for the Jersey oligarchs; after all, her husband – Glenn Rankine – is a spin-doctor for the Jersey establishment – and between them they contrive to give every assistance to their powerful & wealthy friends. This has included – for example – leaking my e-mails to “journalists” at Channel Television – to people like Frank Walker: -

“—–Original Message—– From: Glenn Rankine [mailto:glenn.rankine@mulberry.je] Sent: 05 February 2007 10:26 To: Frank Walker Subject: FW: The Letter Importance: High ************************************************************************************** This e-mail has been received directly from the Internet: you should exercise a degree of caution since there can be no guarantee that the source or content of the message is authentic.   If you receive inappropriate e-mail from an external source it is your responsibility to notify Computer Services Helpdesk (telephone 440440).   The Full States e-mail Usage Policy can be found here: http://intranet1/aware/internet_email_issues.htm **************************************************************************************   Frank…

I send you this in complete confidence so you get an insight to what Stuart’s up to behind the scenes… Hope it helps.

G”

Anyway, I can see in the coming weeks we’re going to have to refresh Frank Walker’s memory about the role he – and his colleagues – did, in fact, play in attempting to suppress the truth concerning Jersey’s systemic child-protection failures.

For example, all of the abusive coercions he attempted against me, to obstruct me in the proper discharge of my duties – as defined in law – as Health & Social Services Minister in 2007.

Perhaps we need to revisit the documented history of the abusive solitary-confinement regimes being used against mentally ill children in the child-secure unit – and the efforts made by whistle-blowers such as Simon Bellwood and me to expose that?

Frank Walker and the rest of the Jersey oligarchy are going to have to remember the suffering of those victims – and then the  obstructions and oppressions endorsed and joined in by Walker against Bellwood and me – when we tried to change the system that had abused those children.

I think Frank Walker and his advisers are going to have to remember the report of the Howard League for Penal Reform. I succeeded in inviting that organisation in to Jersey to review how children had been treated by Jersey’s criminal justice system. The resultant review endorsed every single point Bellwood and I had been making.

Perhaps Walker needs reminding of the letter he wrote to the Howard League in an attempt to smear me, and discourage them from undertaking their review?

The Howard League review – as good as it was – was focused upon a narrow, but important, part of Jersey’s child-protection system. The need for a fully empowered, broad public inquiry remained.

I’m not sure it’s possible to convey – really – to other people just what it was like – how desperately hard and Kafkaesque it was to fight for a full public inquiry. Lies, obstructions and deceit were everywhere.

For example, here is a quote from a draft statement that was going to be issued by Jersey’s cabinet, the Council of Ministers, of which Frank Walker was the Chief Minister: -

“Thirdly, the Council has decided to accept the recommendation of the Health and Social Services Minister, that a Committee of Enquiry should be established. At its next meeting on 6th September, the Council will consider terms of reference for this much wider review of child protection procedures throughout the States.”

That draft statement was discussed at a Council of Ministers’ meeting on the 26th July 2007, when the CoM were going through the motions but secretly boiling-up a “crises” from the honest answer I had given to the Jersey parliament. In reality – unbeknown to me until far later – a conspiracy to engineer my dismissal was underway and already being enacted, for example, at meetings the day before.

We know that for a fact now, because we have the evidence in the form of a file-note written by the then Police Chief Graham Power immediately after he left a Corporate Management Board meeting on the 25th July 2007.

The Police Chief noted the conspiracy, and said this: -

“BO [Bill Ogley] and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”

This is how the entire apparatus of the state fails to protect vulnerable children – enables the abuse of vulnerable children – and actively oppresses those who try to protect vulnerable children.

Good, honest Police Chiefs take a stand against corruption – do the right thing – and get oppressed as a result. Conscientious Social Services Ministers take a stand against decades of failure – and get  oppressed as a result.

Criminal civil servants like Bill Ogley engaged in unambiguous corruption – and get over £500,000 in pay-offs and a gold-plated pension.

This is how horrifyingly vast, systemic child-protection failures happen.

The Committee of Inquiry said today, 3rd April 2014, that they wanted to learn – to develop an understanding of the factors at play; they said they wanted to be told the kind of questions they should be asking.

OK – the public inquiry wants to know the kind of questions that must be asked to uncover the toxic heart of just how the grotesque failure of the Jersey polity occurs?

Here, then are some pertinent questions that take the Inquiry into the heart of darkness:

How is it that the first Jersey politician to identify, investigate, uncover and make public the child-protection failures ends up arrested, prosecuted by conflicted Attorney Generals, his career destroyed, and politically imprisoned for whistle-blowing?

How come the first and only Jersey Police Chief to have required a full and serious investigation into the child-abuse and its cover-ups is subjected to an illegal suspension, his professional reputation trashed, denied due-process, and denied justice by conflicted judges?

How  – by way of contrast – did the two successive Chief Ministers  – Frank Walker and Terry Le Sueur – who were centrally involved in the machinations to obstruct people like me and Graham Power – and who both told a successions of breathtaking lies to the Jersey parliament when questioned over these matters – both get OBEs?

How did a directly and corruptly conflicted Attorney General – William Bailhache – who did all he could to oppress me – who blocked prosecutions – who associated with priority criminal suspects – who lied to the Jersey parliament – and who attempted to illegally coerce the Police Chief Graham Power – get to be recommended to the Queen for appointment as Bailiff?

Just what role have successive Lieutenant Governors played in these matters – and how many non-executive directorships – and other emoluments and benefits – have been given to successive Lieutenant Governors by the Jersey establishment?

Dig into questions of that type – and many similar such questions – and the Committee of Inquiry will start to expose and understand the wholly corrupted polity of Jersey – and how its stagnant, rotted oligarchy can still be resisting the clear need to restore the objective rule of law so as to protect vulnerable children – six-and-a-half years after the plain facts were known and the structural failure of governance in Jersey was confronted.

Enough of the facts were known – over six years ago -  to enable a recognition of the fundamental inadequacies of governance in Jersey

I identified those facts, and stated them in the e-mail below, dated 15th November 2007.

You want to understand how so many children can suffer – how so much child-abuse can be concealed – for so long –  by so many people – by the entire apparatus of the polity?

Read the e-mail below – then reflect upon the intervening six years of unremitting war of oppression the failed apparatus has waged upon survivors, whistle-blowers, good police officers, campaigners, bloggers – those who have tried to do the right thing.

This is how so much child-abuse can be covered-up, by so many, for so long.

Stuart Syvret

E-Mail to Jersey’s Law & Justice Agencies Concerning the Corporate and Structural Failure of Child-Protection in the Island, written by Stuart Syvret – 15th November 2007.

From:  Stuart Syvret  Sent: 15 November 2007 20:18 To: Graham Power; William Bailhache; Bailiff of Jersey; Michael Birt; Ian Le Marquand; Ian Christmas Cc: ‘andrew.brown@bbc.co.uk’; Andrew Williamson; ‘andrewwilliamson15@hotmail.com’ Subject: The Rule of Law & Child Protection in Jersey

Gentlemen

I write concerning the present examinations of the standards and performance of Jersey’s child welfare and protection apparatus. I am including the Lieutenant Governor as a recipient to this e-mail, given the UK government’s ultimate responsibility for the rule of law, the administration of justice and of good government in Jersey.

Although this e-mail is, of necessity, long, all I require from each addressee is a simple yes or no answer to the questions I ask at the end of this text.

Earlier this year, I began to become more and more dissatisfied with the performance of child welfare and protection services. I first made these concerns public in an oral answer in the assembly to a question from Deputy Judy Martin. Following this, and various concerns I was raising within the department, various civil servants, who understood perfectly well their inadequacy, set about engineering my removal from office.

However, since early summer up to the present, I have been researching the various issues in great depth. This has included speaking to very substantial numbers of people, including teenagers, young adults, parents, older people and front-line staff. This work is continuing – and looks as though it will continue for some time, such is the nature of the material.

This brings me to my point in writing to you.

I have no doubt whatsoever – and this is a view shared by experts from the UK who are advising me – that a variety of criminal offences against children have been committed, over a sustained period of time, by the States of Jersey through its various departments, and the Crown, through the Courts. Moreover, I am increasingly of the view that not only are we considering a variety of unlawful practices, conduct and  policies of the state, but also prima facie criminal offences committed by individuals employed by the States.

The scope and scale of the offences clearly involves every arm of the state; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. I will explain why this is obviously so in more detail below. But in essence, the situation is this: all three arms of the state are deeply and inescapably conflicted in these matters. This would not be the case in a large nation-state, but in a very small self-governing jurisdiction such as Jersey, the conflicts of interest are boundless, obvious and inescapable.

Personally, I find it very difficult to imagine how some criminal investigations and prosecutions could not now take place. And in the interests of possible victims, in the interest of the good administration of justice, and in the interests of Jersey’s reputation – any arising criminal investigations, prosecutions and trials cannot now be carried out by the relevant local agencies.

The Police Force is conflicted, what passes for a prosecutory service in Jersey is conflicted, and the judiciary are conflicted. These conflicts exist for both specific reasons, and also for certain general principles.

I do not believe the island has any choice other than to commission a specialist team of police officers from an unconnected force in the UK to investigate any and all complaints; no choice other than to  invite the Department for Constitutional Affairs to assign a suitably qualified person to act as Crown Prosecution Agent; and no choice other than to invite the DCA to assign a Judge or Judges to hear any trial.

1: The Conflictedness of the Police.

During interviews with teenagers, young adults and their parents, it is alleged that various assaults, unlawful conduct and abuses of children under both the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 have been committed by the police on various occasions.

The police force appears to have not comprehended the fact that the legal requirements to protect, and safeguard the welfare of, children does not cease to exist merely because the child in question has committed an offence. This, it would appear, has led to the fairly regular use of excessive force against unruly, drunken or abusive children. I have had reports of worse; of incidents which appear to be little more than violent assaults. To refer to just one victim as an example:  arresting a drunken and abusive girl in the police station foyer by the method of dragging her across the floor by her hair. The same child on another occasion was arrested for drunkenness and was actually lifted off the floor by a male officer by the handcuffs around her wrists. The same girl was also re-arrested when due for release from Greenfields after  2 weeks on remand – and held for another 4 weeks in an attempt by officers to make her confess to a breaking and entering offence they needed to clear up. Whilst in the custody of the police, the police have “parental responsibility”, as defined by law, for any child so held. I have had several accounts of this legal obligation not being met. To take just the female referred to above, on one occasion she was held in a police cell overnight, locked in despite her heavy state of intoxication, the cell call-buzzer was switched off, she was unable to call for water, her mother was not permitted to see her when she came to the station, no female officer dealt with her, her period began in the night and she had no sanitary product available to her. When she was eventually released to her mother in the morning, she was severely dehydrated, ill, exhausted and covered in blood from her period.  It should also be pointed out that people in a heavily intoxicated state can die if left unattended, usually through such mechanism as choking on vomit. That this didn’t occur in this case is more down to luck than judgement.

This is but one example. There appears to be a cultural view that the unlawful maltreatment of children somehow becomes acceptable if they have committed an offence. So widespread and so persistent does this culture appear to be, that it is, frankly, impossible to imagine the States of Jersey Police Force carrying out an acceptably objective wide-ranging enquiry into its own long-term conduct.

2: The Conflictedness of the Prosecutory Service.

In Jersey, decisions whether to prosecute are ultimately made under the authority of either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. As has already been accepted by her and the Attorney General, the Solicitor General is conflicted as she has also been the legal adviser to the Children’s Service for many years.

As far as the Attorney General is concerned,  some time ago when I was Minister for Health & Social Services I sought from him (I still have the correspondence)  the full police report and its six appendices into the 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 2002 in that I was not able to carry forward my investigation into improvements in child protection, and the relevant legislation.  This obstruction of the lawful duties of the Minister for Health & Social Services, as defined in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, may well have been unlawful.

In any event, it certainly matches a pattern of “political” decisions made by both the present Attorney General and his predecessor. The present Attorney General is noted for his “political” interventions. For example, his recent political interference with the work of a Scrutiny Panel in respect of the lawfulness – or otherwise – of the present prosecution and trial procedures engaged in by the honorary police and the Magistrates Court. It appears likely that the present procedures are not human rights compliant – or rather were not human rights compliant, given the Attorney General’s very recent instruction to change procedures. Were it to be found that the procedures were not human rights compliant, the implications for the reputation of Jersey and of its ability to properly pursue the rule of law would be severe indeed. It could, for example, lead to many people – perhaps hundreds from over the decades -  seeking to have their conviction at the Magistrates Court overturned on the grounds that their right to a fair hearing was compromised. The Attorney General has even been publicly quoted as saying that the disclosure of the Cooper opinion “would not be in the public interest” – a political comment if ever there was one.

It is also the case that, having repeatedly exhibited such concerns for the public image of the States of Jersey,  the Attorney General could hardly be relied upon to set aside such political considerations and instead view his prosecutory duties entirely impartially in the present controversy. Quite obviously, the reputational fall-out for the island’s oligarchy from any widespread prosecution of States departments and of individuals employed by the States would be very considerable and very serious.

It is entirely feasible that many of those children, many of whom are now young adults, who have been convicted of offences will now seek to have their convictions considered unsafe given the human rights issues arising out of the somewhat bizarre prosecution arrangements, and for other reasons too.

The Law Officers in general are also conflicted for this reason. As well as providing a prosecutory service, they also routinely act as legal advisers to both the island’s parliament and the various executive departments. Whilst this of itself is clearly unsustainable, what is the proverbial ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ supposed to make of the likelihood of these senior establishment figures – actually prosecuting the very departments and executive they routinely give legal advice to? No reasonable person could see them as meeting a reasonable test of objectivity.

A further – and in some ways even more 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 or 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 for decades in policies  which were unlawful lays with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

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. Not a sustainable or credible situation.

We also have to consider the long-term record of the office. The previous Attorney General – now Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – in fact exhibited all of the politicised and conflicted behaviour I describe above. As is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice Principle, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. Just as should the Principle. Just as should Francis Hamon, a Governor of the school at the time and a person who went on to become Deputy Bailiff. Just as, of course, should Piers Baker, the man who thinks paedophilia is “teachers perks”. Whilst a strong case could be made for the prosecution of Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker for attempting to obstruct the course of Justice, the relevant Law, prima facie breached, 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 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. When Attorney General, Michael Birt also abandoned a prosecution for very serious offences.

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”.

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 ran at the time for the Education Committee, which body had responsibility for child “protection” at the relevant time (1980s to mid-1990s).

When I was  Minister for H & SS, just one of the many issues I had 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 seemed absolutely compelling. Many witness statements, affidavits of victims, statements from other members of staff, an “internal” report from 1990 by Social Services, which concluded that the actions complained of were happening (though the “performance” of Social Services in this matter is another question entirely) and, essentially a catalogue of utter savagery against the children.

Yet Michael Birt concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to continue the prosecution. The evidence described 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 made to drink Dettol. One child had his head smashed violently against a bunk bed frame. One of the part-time support staff witnessed Mr 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. A female child resident was sexually abused by Mr Maguire.

Most of these offences were evidenced, and witnessed by former victims and junior staff members – and yet the then Attorney General claims to have had “insufficient evidence” to mount a prosecution?

It just won’t wash, I’m afraid.

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, 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 Child Development Centre! It would, of course, also have meant exposing to contempt and disgrace that Establishment icon, Iris Le Feuvre, then President of the relevant Committee who happily went along with all this in 1990 and, moreover, wrote a quite sickening letter of “thanks” to the Maguires.

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.

In case you do not remember the relevant documents, I attach to this e-mail copies of the Sharp Report into the Victoria College abuse scandal, the 1999 H & SS report into the Maguire case, and the associated letter from Iris Le Feuvre.

I’m afraid the facts make it plain that the people of this island of Jersey cannot rely upon this prosecutory service delivering the expected protections normally afforded by the rule of law. At least not when the reputation of the Jersey Establishment is at risk.

There can be no possibility of the necessary test of the appearance of objectivity being met by the Jersey prosecutory service in respect of any possible prosecutions arising out of these grotesque failures by the States in child welfare and protection cases. We must invite the DCA to appoint a special prosecutor who has no association with the island.

3: The Conflictedness of the Judiciary.

It is not even remotely possible to conclude that the Jersey judiciary could realistically be involved in hearing, and adjudicating upon, any case arising out of these child welfare and protection issues.

It is, for example, plain that the Jersey Magistrates Court has been acting unlawfully for many many years in its approach to imprisoning children; using remand, as a de facto sentencing device, failing to deliver the requisite ‘fair hearing’ as required by the ECHR – and, perhaps most seriously, actually assigning and prescribing the type of accommodation which remanded or sentenced children would be held in. For example, specifying they be held in a cell at Les Chenes or Greenfields, as opposed to a bedroom. This was through the device of designating the child as a “Status 1″ or a “Status 2″ prisoner. Status 2, being those who were allowed to mingle with other child inmates – and Status 1 being the isolation regime, which included very substantial amounts of punitive and coercive solitary confinement. Solitary confinement when used in this way is classified as torture by international convention, it is deeply harmful and damaging to children, it is unlawful. To treat children in this way has been for the Courts and the States of Jersey to be committing straightforward criminal offences against children. This is institutionalised abuse.

The Status 1 cells  – quite contrary to the impression the Minister for Education sought to portray – until recent times had unpainted cement walls with no furnishings. The bedding consisted of a school gymnasium-type crash-mat on the floor. Even this would be removed during the daytime. One of the cells, cell 4, did not even have an eye-level window, but merely a high, inaccessible skylight.

As explained above in the context of the prosecutory conflicts, the facts show that the Deputy Bailiff , when Attorney General, has – on more than one occasion – demonstrated himself to attach far greater importance to protecting the image of the island’s oligarchy, over and above the rule of law and the protection of children. Indeed, it is entirely  feasible that his very position should be brought into question following the full public exposure of these issues.

The Bailiff too, cannot be seen to be objective. He too is conflicted. The reasons for this are several. He is one of the individuals who needs 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 went on to abuse children whilst a parish police officer.

The Bailiff 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 investigated, and upon which the Bailiff should be required to answer some serious questions.

As already pointed out above, it is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, that the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice Principle, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. His actions, along with the Principle, were disgraceful – scarcely believable. He and the Principle – instead of contacting the police at the very first hint of abuse,  instead made a clear attempt to humiliate and intimidate some of the victims into withdrawing their complaints by disbelieving them, questioning them in a school office environment – and doing this in front of other people! These actions were a prima facie breach of Article 9 of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969, as quoted above.

Were all this not bad enough, we must recollect that Le Breton deemed himself a fit person to sit in Judgement on the then St. Helier Constable Bob Le Brocq who had had the misfortune to have the paedophile Holland as a member of his St. Helier honorary police force. The Superior Number of the Jersey Royal Court on this occasion being led by the Bailiff,  who pronounced the judgment. It, apparently, not occurring to him that Victoria College had tolerated paedophiles amongst its staff when he was Chairman of the Board of Governors. In addition to the Court records, the events of the Le Brocq trial are explained in the front-page lead news story of the Jersey Evening Post, dated 27th February 2001. That Le Breton had the sheer gall to be in Court for this occasion beggars belief.

Perhaps the fact that Le Breton was a Governor of Les Chenes goes some way to explaining the unlawful and abusive regime which existed there.

The position of Le Breton is completely untenable.   It would also take a deeply fanciful construct to maintain that any of the Jurats 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 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 everyone 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 power – over and above the pure consideration of the rule of law, should the oligarchy be threatened in any way.

Given the above facts, it is plain that we are dealing with the customary failing of public administration in Jersey. This being the habit of tolerating incompetence, derelictions of duty, institutional inadequacy and disgraceful mal-conduct – so when things begin to get exposed – every relevant person and agency shares the same collective interest in the cover-up and in the oppression of dissent.

Politicians, the police force, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff, the Jurats, the Magistrates – essentially the entire panoply of agencies have a shared, substantial and very very serious collective interest in burying all of the above-described  past issues – and certainly all of the forthcoming issues – which are going to be exposed – whether Mr Williamson wants to do it or not.

In the case of this long-term, sustained cultural failure to properly protect and defend children, the entire edifice of public authority in Jersey is on trial. It, therefore, has an inescapable self-interest in again sabotaging the rule of law and engineering another cover-up.   It is a fact well established by centuries of respectable jurisprudence that not only must the administration of justice be impartial – it must also be seen to be impartial. No aspect of the current policing, prosecutory or judicial apparatus in Jersey could remotely hope to meet this test in respect of the child protection issues arising out of the present episode.

Although the Jersey Establishment is heavily characterised by its overweening arrogance, megalomania and invulnerability, sooner or later, even it will have to face facts. The year is 2007 – not 1897.

My question to each of you is simple:

1:  Would each one of you please confirm to me that you recognise the hopeless level of conflictedness of each of your services, and that you agree to invite the Department for Constitutional Affairs to independently appoint the necessary and relevant agencies from the UK to undertake any necessary police investigations, prosecution, and to hear any relevant trial?

Thank you for your assistance.

Senator Stuart Syvret

States of Jersey

THE PUBLIC’S INQUIRY – INTO THE PUBLIC INQUIRY – STARTS HERE.

Well, here’s a surprise.

The blog the Jersey establishment strove to prevent you from reading – is back.

Thanks to a variety of campaigners, survivors, whistleblowers, IT experts and concerned citizens in a number of countries around the world, the most evidenced and accessible anti-corruption news and discussion forum in Jersey history lives on.

Like it was always going to.

And I’m personally very grateful to the same group of people – and many others – around the world who gave me such support, and who campaigned during my most recent stretch as Jersey’s first political prisoner since the Nazis were thrown out. Hey, it gave us some further insight into the kind of material the Jersey authorities would like to ban. Leigh LaFon @DenverElle sent me a beautiful illustrated anthology of Pablo Neruda’s poems, On the Blue Shore of Silence. The prison regime deemed this book “contraband”, and didn’t give it to me till I was released. Still, at least it was permitted to enter the island. By mistake, perhaps?

And, you know, so many people ask me these days what the – ah – um – perks were like in Jersey’s prison, and whether I enjoyed similar – err – services to drugs baron Curtis Warren? Alas, being a poor political dissident – and not a big-time crook with £100’s millions allegedly hidden away to get Jersey’s & London’s lawyers and judges salivating – no such benefits were ever made available to me.

The most entertaining thing I ever received in prison was an ex cathedra veto by Bill Bailhache of my appeal application.

These days, as this blog is run by international administrators and editors, I’m going to be merely an occasional contributing author amongst what I’m reliably informed will be a number of guest contributors.

Now, in no small part due to the oppressive folly of Jersey’s corrupt establishment, not only is this blog, predictably, back, it’s also going to be bigger and more scary than ever before.

No more Mr Nice Guy.

D’you hear that, John?

So, let’s get down to business, and take a look at the reason – the real reason – why powerful people in Jersey wanted my blog taken down.

Most people probably don’t perceive this yet, as it’s the kind of event that only becomes readily seen from the panoramic distance  of time, but what a few of Jersey’s bloggers have achieved represents a unique development in British history. Unique, because nowhere else in Britain would you find a vacuum where the Fourth Estate was supposed to be, just waiting to be filled by citizen journalists. To find an equivalent where the internet has enabled ordinary people to start reporting the facts usually buried by the passive media of entrenched establishments, we’d have to look at regimes around the world with no good history of democracy.

There is nowhere else in Britain that such volumes of damming documentary evidence – and high-level witness-testimony – to so much stark and dangerous corruption – would exist, and some part or the other of the traditional mainstream media not seize upon it, report it, and lead a media feeding-frenzy.

Think about it: can you imagine any other place in Britain, in which, on the evidence, major child-abuse investigations had been obstructed and sabotaged by a conspiracy of corrupt, culpable officials and conflicted public prosecutors – where the Deputy Police Chief had been repeatedly obstructed, and the Police Chief had been unlawfully suspended, and both of those men were not only willing to speak-out to the media about such corruptions, but had actually produced affidavits – sworn testimony – to confirm it, but yet none of the mainstream media were interested?

It’s inconceivable – unimaginable – anywhere else in Britain.

Try imagining a place in the British Isles in which the only media willing to report the testimony of a Deputy Police Chief and of a Police Chief were a few local bloggers?

Indeed – try imagining a situation anywhere else in Britain where men of such high-ranking professionalism as a Police Chief and a Deputy Police Chief felt that a few local bloggers were not only the only available channels for their public interest concerns, but were also the only outlets to be relied upon for fullness and accuracy?

This is the situation that prevails in Jersey.

It is an unfolding event unique in British journalism.

It is unique in British policing.

It is unique in British history.

These events are at the very history-making cutting-edge of citizen’s media activism in the nation.

You could not find an equivalent state of affairs as that which prevails in Jersey, in any established Western democracy.

But Jersey’s feudal mafia have not invested so many decades – generations – in controlling the local media, to willingly face the unavoidable redundancy of that whole bloated and expensive apparatus and its definitive power of “omission” and the role that power has always played in the island’s Currency-of-Concealment.

Such an incestuous, stale, unethical – and frankly not terribly bright – claque of hick-town potentates were never likely to be willing – or able – to see their racket was over.

It was over in 2007, and someone – someone senior in London – should have quietly led them to one side and broken the news to them. That didn’t happen. And because of Jersey’s unique situation – zero functioning checks and balances and all meaningful power in the hands of a narrow intermeshed syndicate of bent lawyers, spittle-flecked rentiers and drooling sock-puppets – futile resistance to the phenomenon known as reality was always going to be mounted. Not because it was ever going to succeed – but simply because they could.

These people were going to carry on employing bent civil-servants, concealing widespread corruption, allowing child-abuse to go unchecked, covering-up child-protection failures, concealing clinical murders, illegally suspending Police Chiefs, mounting illegal massed raids on opposition politicians, appointing their own conflicted judges, mounting Stalinistic show-trials, banning entire defence-cases, fraudulently misappropriating huge sums of public money, and protecting powerful serial-rapists from charges & prosecution  – for just as long as they were allowed to – no matter the deepening swamp of bedlam thus created.

The anarcho-feudal results are there to be seen.

The only place in Britain where the entire policing function is now a party-political tool wielded by the powerful against those who oppose them, and which is silent and unmoving against the crimes of the well-connected. The only place in Britain in which the director of public prosecutions can attempt to illegally coerce the Police Chief. The only place in Britain in which the actual judicial, policing and prosecution functions are all in the de facto control of a private legal syndicate. The only place in Britain in which Data Protection “law” can be abused in an effort to silence opposition activists and independent journalism. The only place in Britain in which  Data Protection “law” can be mobilised – covertly and dishonestly – to try and prevent public scrutiny of the unlawful suspension of the Police Chief. The only place in Britain in which Data Protection “law” is used to protect child-abusers and conceal child-protection failures.

So in Jersey we have a nationally historically unprecedented situation in two ways. Firstly, bloggers have done the detailed, factual, serious, evidenced reporting – have been the Fourth Estate – whilst the traditional media has sat by in collusion with power, silence, redundancy and increasing humiliation. Secondly, in the rest of Britain there are functioning checks and balances, and clear separations between different regulatory authorities and law-enforcement agencies; nowhere else in Britain do the same narrow group of people run all meaningful power, and nowhere else in the country would a group of close business associates and friends be permitted to capture the very apparatus of law-enforcement, nor to run it into such obvious gross and evidenced corruption.

But there’s a third way in which “the Jersey situation” is without national precedent.

That is this:

Never before in Britain have the powers-that-be decided to embark upon a public inquiry into a high-level public scandal – when the key evidenced facts – and the unavoidable factors – and the undisguisable conclusions – were already out there – in the public domain – laid out across the table – adumbrated – described.

Already there – unignorable like the elephant in the room.

The British establishment has a few trusted get-out-of-jail cards it plays every time the seething, endemic, boiling corruption and unaccountability of British society erupts above the cosmetic surface, and something-must-be-done!  For example, “announce a public inquiry”. With that trusty approach, in scandals like Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence – the culpable individuals and the stagnant system know they can fend-off exposure of the truth until the 2nd, 3rd or 4th public inquiry – after it became clear the 1st was a whitewash & PR job. You know? Until two or three decades later – when the real villains are dead – like Jimmy Savile – or the corrupt public officials are safely drawing their immense pensions.

Calling for a public inquiry is the British establishment’s all-purpose escape route; it is parachute, PR-strategy, shield and insurance-policy all rolled into one. It gives ‘cover’ – it provides time – and breathing-space – whilst the shredders hum, the excuses dreamed-up, the scapegoats indentified, the script-flipped and the diversionary counter-attacks manufactured.

And who cares if it’s all bullshit?

When the 1st public inquiry is exposed as crap – after another ten years of campaigning by hardy victims who refused to accept the nonsense – those who were paid to do the “inquiring” will, in turn, have their excuses just like those they were “inquiring” into, and, anyway, the big fat cheques will have long-since been cashed in exchange for briefs fulfilled.

But for the traditional British public inquiry to fulfil its divert-distract-and-cover-up function, one or two conditions precedent have to prevail. For example, we have to have the historic cap-doffing, forelock-tugging deference to men & women in silly costumes, with absurd titles and Eaton & Cheltenham accents. When Sir Lady Lord Baronet 27th Earl of Trustfundshire Dame Oxbridge QC, Thane of Lloyds and Groom of the Remembrancer’s Stool, O.B.E is appointed, by those to be inquired into, we have to sink to our knees in gratitude when they address us in their BBC-plausible voice and assure us they really, really do have the serious and genuine interests of us scummy proles upmost in their minds and not those of their fellow multi-millionaires who appointed them and who they’ll be chatting to in a north London lawyer’s club next week.

But does that culture of deference exists anymore? Well – perhaps a little, but it’s oh so diminished.  The traditional power elites are viewed with increasing scepticism across Britain, and even, surprisingly, in Jersey. It’s increasingly obvious that 500 pages of diversionary flim-flam generated via another few million quid of public money thrown into Bedford Row won’t work as it used to – like some kind of sleeping-gas – that would tranquilise and pacify everyone for another five years, before they started to wake up to the fact they’d  been conned.

But the Jersey public inquiry into decades of concealed child-abuse faces an even bigger problem than that loss of unthinking deference.

The insurmountable obstacle, in Jersey, to a traditional British
divert-distract-and-cover-up style “public inquiry” is that “Third-Problem” – let us coin that phrase. In the Jersey crisis, the British establishment faces several “problems” that are without precedent in modern British history; firstly, we have the undiluted abandonment of the job of scrutiny by all of the traditional media – and bloggers ably stepping into that vacuum where the Fourth Estate should have been – and secondly, we have a polity utterly devoid of any check & balance & of lawful restraint, and which is the apogee of disguised corruption. And the “Third-Problem”?

The Third-Problem is that the public inquiry is already redundant, before it’s even got underway.

It is redundant, at least, in that there’s no need to discover and identify the core issues – the neglect – the psychological abuse – the violence – the savage barbarisms – the rape of children – the gross systemic failings – the collapse in professional accountability – the cultural group-think of Jersey’s polity – an absence of rudimentary competencies – widespread ethical bankruptcy – the complete absence of effective checks and balances  – jaw-dropping obstructions to honest, ethical Police Officers – undisguised corruption and abuses of power – witness-intimidation – fear – suppression – and a toxic rot in the Crown functions of prosecution & judiciary in Jersey.

All of those things are already known, evidenced facts.

They are known facts because a grass-roots network of survivors, whistle-blowers, activists and bloggers have spent the last six years sharing, researching, collating, speaking, drawing connections, studying, curating – and publishing.

Certainly, the public inquiry – a good public inquiry – could still do important work – not least at last give recognition to the survivors, give them a forum – listen to their experiences – and force the Jersey government to address their needs.

And in terms of what took place and when, in the long catalogue of systemic breakdown of governance, much detail could be added.

But, you know – in terms of the big picture issues – the overt gross failures of Jersey – what else needs to be added, really?

We know that there was extensive and sustained child-abuse throughout many state-run institutions in Jersey.

We know that some of that child-abuse was committed by public employees.

We know that some child-abuse was facilitated and enabled by public employees.

We know that some children – and some staff – and other witnesses – did complain – but were ignored – or threatened and intimidated.

We know that several generations of vulnerable children who passed through the hands of Jersey government “care” had their lives seriously damaged – in some cases destroyed.

We know that some overtly corrupt civil servants were aware of the abuse over the years and decades, but concealed it.

We know that other civil servants passively went along with the Culture of Concealment.

We know that some victims of child-abuse were absolutely failed and betrayed by their own lawyers.

We know that in some cases those culpable lawyers – and those associated with them – have abused power and money to suppress the truth.

We know that senior civil servants routinely and pro-actively lied to successive politicians; that politicians were both mislead by omission, and overtly lied to concerning child-protection issues.

We know that a variety of senior civil servants engaged in a criminal conspiracy to block the lawful discharge of the Children (Jersey) Law by the responsible Minister.

We know that conscientious, honest elected representatives are subjected to political abuse and harassment and police-state oppression if they go against the Culture of Concealment.

We know that in 2008 – by which time Jersey’s parliament actually had a Scrutiny Panel whose key task it was to inquire into child-protection issues – that Scrutiny Panel flatly and repeatedly refused to undertake those inquiries – even though by this stage decades of scandalous failure had been exposed, and the Panel was being furnished with significant documentary evidence.

We know that the many good, ethical Police Officers were routinely obstructed in child-abuse investigations and had their work sabotaged by a corrupt minority.

We know that suspects in child-porn and child-abuse cases were tipped-off by corrupt Police Officers.

We know that the Deputy Police Chief was obstructed in his work by the Law Officers Department.

We know that the Police Chief was illegally suspended.

We know that the judicial remedy pursued by the suspended Police Chief was corruptly conflicted against him.

We know that the necessary public safeguard of whistle-blowing is pro-actively suppressed by Jersey’s establishment.

We know that the Data Protection Law has been distorted, twisted and abused to suppress and intimidate whistle-blowers.

We know that the Data Protection function is politicised and biased – suppressing public-interest disclosures on the one hand – yet on the other allowing the actual theft, trafficking and publication of simple private data.

We know that successive Jersey Attorney Generals have failed to prosecute crimes of child-abuse and crimes involved in concealing child-abuse, such as perverting the course of justice and misconduct in a public office.

We know that the prosecution function in Jersey is simply dysfunctional and structurally ultra vires, given it is vested in the Attorney General, an Office with a multitude of mutually exclusive roles, not least giving “legal advice” to the very culpable departments and civil servants that should have been prosecuted.

We know that the prosecution function in Jersey has been essentially corrupted by office-holders with direct personal conflicts of interest in the very cases they’ve decided not to prosecute.

We know that what passes for a judiciary in Jersey is politicised, and like the prosecution function with which the judiciary is incestuously entwined, will engage in the concealment of scandals.

We know that Jersey’s politicised judiciary has sought to trump the legislature by attempting to generate judge-made-law that militates against the public interest by making it virtually impossible to expose public wrong-doing.

We know that in one high-profile child-abuse prosecution, the judge – Christopher Pitchers  – simply read out – incorporated into his judgment – an un-evidenced screed of politicised and misleading nonsense written by a paid spin-doctor – one Matt Tapp – whose “employment” had been covertly and corruptly engineered by the conflicted David Warcup and Bill Ogley.

We know that a number of political and private interests have – de facto – simply captured the policing, prosecution and judicial functions in the island.

We know – quite simply – that for as long as the entire might of a conflicted and corrupted polity can be turned to the illegal suppression of a Social Services Minister – and the illegal suppression of a Police Chief – THE two ultimate champions of child-protection, to who vulnerable children should be able to look for fearless defence – vulnerable children will never be safe in Jersey.

Those are the facts – because Jersey’s bloggers have accumulated and published a variety of testimony and evidence that shows them to be the facts.

And equally, on the basis of those facts, we know what needs doing to fix the system.

Most fundamentally Jersey must have – and have urgently – a de-politicised, independent judiciary – and an independent, depoliticised Director of Public Prosecutions – effectively and objectively overseen from London. Public safety in Jersey and the very rule of law requires no less.

But – that one thing – that clear central problem, that so obviously most needs inquiring into – above all other factors – the politicisation and failure of the Crown functions of prosecution and judiciary in Jersey and the conflicted personal abuse individual office-holders have made of those functions, isn’t even up for discussion.

The Committee of Inquiry has neither the terms-of-reference or the remit to “go there”. And it won’t.

So, with so many evidenced facts already discovered – and published – by Jersey’s bloggers, and the obvious conclusions – and the obvious remedies – already plain on the face of things, well, that’s a bit of problem, isn’t it?

For a public inquiry to stand any chance at all of “credibly” performing the usual divert-distract-and-cover-up stunt for the British establishment there cannot be a competing narrative.

The trick just doesn’t work – and can’t work – if there is a competing narrative.

Especially a detailed, authoritative, witnessed, evidenced, multi-voiced – and growing – narrative.

A public – and published – narrative, which has already beaten the ‘official’ public inquiry to the punch.

You know?

The kind of grass-roots, public narrative of testimony and documentary evidence – as published already by Jersey’s bloggers.

Jersey’s bloggers – and the witnesses whose trust they’ve earned – witnesses like many abuse-survivors, whistle-blowers and good, honest men like the former Deputy Police Chief and the former Police Chief.

Jersey’s bloggers – and the witnesses – and the evidentiary documents  – that have made British history; made British investigative and anti-corruption history because we’ve had to, given the total failure of the traditional Fourth Estate in this island, and the wholesale endemic and systemic corruption of the entire polity of Jersey.

Put simply – there cannot be a competing narrative – a competing depiction of events – a competing publication of evidence – running parallel to the public inquiry – indeed, already ahead of the public inquiry and on the summit of obvious conclusions – if that inquiry is to stand any chance of delivering the requisite diversionary white-wash.

The lawyers and spin-doctors recognised that from the get-go.

Which is why the Jersey oligarchy and conflicted lawyers were secretly doing all they could to try and get my blog taken down – have the entire URL excised from the internet – from at least as far back as November 2008.

Trying to get my blog taken down – without any public statement – without my knowledge – and without any admission to any court.

We know this, only because Google recently disclosed to me a letter from the directly conflicted law-firm Appleby Global (formerly Bailhache LaBesse – Senior Partner William Bailhache) which said this: -

“I refer to the above matter. As you will be aware from previous correspondence, we act for the Jersey Data Protection Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’), who first contacted Google Inc. (Google) in November 2008, regarding her concerns in relation to a blog hosted by Google Blogger, at http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com (the Blog”). Mr Stuart Syvret is the owner and operator of the Blog.”

November 2008, eh?

And there we all were, thinking the Jersey oligarchy’s only interest and motivation in attacking this blog arose on the 19th March 2009, on which occasion I published evidence for yet another monstrous cover-up by the Crown officers in Jersey in which the evidenced conclusion was they had concealed the murder of a number of my vulnerable constituents in the Jersey hospital.

So – November 2008?

What was taking place around then? And what was I writing and publishing on this blog that can have so frightened the Jersey establishment?

Jersey’s public authorities were secretly attempting to get this blog taken down in November 2008 for three reasons: (a) to cover-up their concealment of child-abuse, (b) to prevent scrutiny of their illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power, and (c) desperate panic that their vacuous, spin-doctor-authored smearing of the Haute de la Garenne investigation had had its entire legality and scientific credibility challenged head-on, immediately, by postings like this:

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/37-questions-for-officers-warcup-gradwell/

The kind of questions I raised in that posting on behalf of my then constituents who had a right to the proper and professional rule of law – are now the same kind of questions that any credible public inquiry will have to address. Those questions – and many more just like them – and arising out of that whole episode.

And that’s a disaster for anyone hoping the public inquiry could be a whitewash – or even some kind of bland halfway-house, that aimed to “draw a line” under the whole controversy by giving a few scraps of concession to survivors and campaigners.

For any public inquiry that fails to address the kind of questions I posed to David Warcup and Mick Gradwell – and fails to address why the police investigation was politically sabotaged via covertly hired spin-doctors such as Matt Tapp – can have no credibility.

That posting, which so terrified and shook the Jersey authorities that they engaged in secret attempts to get Google to take-down the entire blog in November 2008, was – and is – and will remain – a key part of the competing narrative.

That posting, in which I published my 37 Questions to Officers Warcup and Gradwell, is an example – just one – from the serious, fact-based, contemporaneous narrative – which no public inquiry can credibly compete with – if the inquiry is to be a traditional “divert-distract-and-cover-up” exercise.

So blogs like mine – which publish actual evidence – such as affidavits from the former Deputy Police Chief and the former Police Chief – blogs like mine, which are based upon the witness testimony of actual victims – blogs like mine, which serve as a collective repository for so much of the history of the Jersey child-abuse cover-ups – blogs like mine, which serve as a supportive and uniting archive for many abuse survivors – blogs like mine which so starkly depict  – inescapably and on the evidence – the plain lawlessness of the Crown officers in Jersey – have to be smeared, silenced, removed, air-brushed from the public sphere – removed from history – by the Jersey/London establishment, like Stalin “airbrushed from history” so many “inconvenient” things.

And with my blog smeared, attacked, silenced – removed from the public narrative – the way would be left clear for a new, fake, narrative – a spun and manipulated and misleading narrative – to take its place. And with an example made of me, to add to the intimidation and threats routinely made against other bloggers like Voice for Children and Rico Sorda, those blogs too might be “tamed”; kind of watered-down, maybe, via a few legal threats, and slowly pushed to the margins.

Well, that worked.

Yet another train-wreck for the Jersey establishment and its London protectors.

The public inquiry & its gestures – were it not for these damn, pesky bloggers – would have been able to perform  the customary pas de deux with the local traditional media in which each side, with a nod & a wink to the other, would act out the tame chorography like a couple of fake wrestlers.

Instead – the public inquiry is going to have to compete; it is going to have whatever narrative it manufactures compared and contrasted with the narrative already to be seen in the historic and contemporaneous record to be found on Voice for Children, Rico Sorda, and this blog.

There is no hiding place.

The whole world is watching.

Given my scepticism towards the public inquiry, what do I advise survivors, witnesses and whistleblowers to do? Should they engage with it?

Yes, absolutely.

The more survivors, witnesses and whistleblowers who engage with the public inquiry, the harder any cover-up will be.

But I’m trying as gently as I can to forewarn survivors that this public inquiry could be another false-dawn. I feel I have to say that, as I have strong memories of another occasion when survivors and whistleblowers had their hopes up, and felt that, at last, some evidence for some of the failures and cover-ups would be officially published.

That occasion was going to be the publication of my Ministerial Official Comments to the Jersey legislature in response to the Jersey establishment’s engineering of my dismissal – an action we now know – thanks to the Police Chief’s July 2007 file-note – to have been a conspiracy by culpable senior civil servants.

The directly conflicted Bailiff – Philip Bailhache – prevented publication of my parliamentary response; not an action he had any lawful power to engage in. But yet, that is how a very significant selection of evidential material was improperly blocked from publication.

I remember that evening before the debate, having to telephone certain witnesses, whistleblowers & survivors to break the news to them that, in fact, the evidence they had been expecting to be officially published, had been blocked. Blocked by a directly conflicted public official. Some of them were reduced to tears of anger and despair.

It’s not an experience I’ll forget – or that I want to happen again.

So forgive me if I want the vulnerable to be cautious in their expectation. And I feel particularly obliged to say that – because in recent days three key witnesses have told me they will not now be making themselves known to the public inquiry or giving evidence.

Other key witnesses have told me they now have similar thoughts, and will likewise probably not now engage with the inquiry.

Why?

All of them feel directly and expressly threatened – intimidated – harassed and placed in fear as witnesses – by the recent public announcement of the agreement of the Queen to appoint William Bailhache as Bailiff.

The recent announcement that William Bailhache will be promoted to Bailiff has been made before the public inquiry has even begun – and whilst prima facie and unanswered evidence is in the public domain that William Bailhache is a criminal who involved himself in decisions on child-abuse prosecutions even though he was directly conflicted, that he associated with priority child-abuse suspects, and that he attempted to illegally coerce the Police Chief.

These witnesses see the promotion of the directly conflicted William Bailhache to the post of all-powerful Bailiff – where, like his brother before him he will wield such immense power over both the legislature and the judiciary – and who will actually henceforth choose and appoint the judges in all future Jersey court cases  - as a direct threat to their welfare and the future of their families.

The witnesses – who like so many other people in Jersey’s climate-of-fear were already worried about going up against “The Jersey Way” – were always conscious of the “examples” that had been made of me as the Senior Senator – and made of Graham Power as the actual Police Chief. Now they see the elevation of William Bailhache – especially at this time – as as stark and direct a threat – a signal of power – a warning – as you could get, short of finding a horse’s head in your bed.

Queen Elizabeth II decided that William Bailhache will be empowered via her Letters Patent, as Bailiff – almost certainly on the recommendation of people like his brother Philip Bailhache, and current Bailiff Michael Birt – both as fatally conflicted as he is.

And that announcement of the promotion of William Bailhache – and the timing – when in fact he and the rest of the Crown Officers should all be suspended and an external apparatus put in place to enable a fear-free public inquiry to take place without witness intimidation, is a clear demonstration that the public inquiry is simply dead-in-the-water as a credible exercise.

Dead-in-the water – even if it had wanted to do the job properly.

When the directly conflicted and corrupted power-apparatus you are, unavoidably, inquiring into has just succeeded in starkly intimidating perhaps dozens of your potentially key witnesses – then the inquiry you’re heading has just crashed-and burned – before it’s even left the ground.

But, take heart in the internet – in our archived evidence – in bloggers – in grass-roots validation of experience – in our ability to write and remember a real narrative – and our ability to not be silenced.

What we’re engaged in here has no precedent in modern British history; the entire local Fourth Estate resiled from its duties so bloggers filled the vacuum; the entire local polity is corrupted, devoid of any functioning check or balance, and is fearful, oppressive & sleazy; and from the grass-roots up, we’ve trumped any official public inquiry and challenged them with an evidenced narrative.

Although the Jersey establishment tried to hide their perversions of justice – and strove, secretly and in corrupt fear, to ban questions like these -

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/37-questions-for-officers-warcup-gradwell/

they failed – and those questions – and many others – will remain – unanswered – and vehement – like the telephone ringing in the dark.

Stuart Syvret

THE CROWN JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN JERSEY – ON FIRE

The End was always going to look like this.

To get a good understanding of the latest attempts by Jersey’s corrupt establishment to shut-down free-speech using embezzled public money, watch the exclusive interview I gave to Voice for Children, one of Jersey’s leading independent media:


Clik here for my original  exclusive video interview on the Voice for Children site.  

I recorded the interview with Jersey citizen media site, Voice for Children, on Wednesday 16th, and wasn’t aware that the “judge” hearing this “case” was Julian Clyde-Smith.

It’s quite marvellous really – funny, in the manner of the blackest of farces – that Julian Clyde-Smith – and his equally conflicted friends, such as Philip Bailhache, William Bailhache, and the man who chose and appointed him to hear this case – Michael Birt – think Clyde-Smith can be used as a judge in any matter concerning me without inflicting greater damage and discredit on themselves.
It’s especially foolhardy of them – in one of those ways which pushes London’s protection of them well beyond any semblance of legal credibility – given that Julian Clyde-Smith is actually subject of detailed and most serious complaints of judicial corruption, of which London are aware.
Still, ours is not to reason why. Instead, let’s take full advantage of this display of stupidity to amplify yet further – and provide further evidence – of the points I make in the video interview with VFC – by considering the hopeless – the frankly illegal – position of Julian Clyde-Smith.
There’s nothing complex about the situation; all reasonably well-informed people know perfectly well the basic legal requirements for the good administration of justice. For example – ‘not only must justice be done – it must be seen to be done’. Which means that a court and the judges who sit in it, cannot have any kind of pre-existing involvement in the cases which come before them; they can’t have any kind of association with the parties to the case; they can’t have conflicts of interest; they can’t have a direct – express – personal interest themselves in the outcome of a case.
That is the established law on judicial processes and the good administration of justice. It was settled, uncontroversial English law, long before there even was a European Convention on Human Rights.
It’s simply common sense, that courts and judicial processes have to be pure – and beyond any kind of contamination.
None of the Jersey court proceedings involving me meet that test. Indeed – they don’t even get close. But for the moment, let’s just focus upon the involvement of Julian Clyde-Smith – and the legal business “The Ogier Group” – which now – in addition to having dramatic, de facto control over the Crown prosecution and Crown judicial functions in Jersey – were recently given similar control by the Home Affairs Minister – over the Crown policing function in Jersey.
The Ogier Group – through people such as Michael Birt, Tim Le Cocq, Jonathan White and Julian Clyde-Smith – control the “law” in Jersey. I’ve written about this in more detail previously; I’ve put the link below this posting.
But let’s just quickly consider the fatal position of Julian Clyde-Smith – when his involvement at all – in any matter concerning me – is tested against that settled law on the need for judicial purity and objectivity.
Late in 2006, early 2007 – with the assistance of survivors and whistleblowers, I became the first ever States member – the first ever public official of any kind in Jersey – to seriously investigate, discover, and speak-out against decades of concealed child-abuse and cover-ups. For example, the Blanche Pierre Group Home and the years of monstrous abuse conducted by Jane and Alan Maguire. But in addition to that case, there were many others – such as the illegal and grossly abusive long-term solitary confinement regimes used against children with mental health issues in Greenfields – and the regime of savage violence that had been used for years against children in Les Chennes.
In addition to those many evidenced crimes of child-abuse – I was also exposing the ‘system’ in Jersey – such as the policing, prosecution and judicial systems which had permitted and covered-up all of that abuse.
As is well-documented  this led to the Jersey establishment uniting and doing absolutely all it could to obstruct, damage, abuse, intimidate, harass and oppress me. A campaign of unlawful suppression which continues to this day.  This even involved a grossly illegal, anti-democratic conspiracy by senior civil servants with the support of Crown Officers, to engineer my removal as Health & Social Services Minister. This was witnessed by the Police Chief Graham Power, who opposed it, and wrote a file-note in July 2007, in which he says: -
“BO and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”

That plot was a criminal conspiracy – not only against me – but against the vulnerable children and victims I was seeking to help.

Even though I was removed from office as H & SS Minister in the illegal coup, I carried on strongly fighting for the interests of vulnerable children and against the cover-ups as a back-bench member of the Jersey parliament.
So – referring again to the established judicial law – which requires – without exception – non-contaminated, objective judges, it is a clear legal fact that – given that activity I was engaged in – seeking to uncover and expose and prevent child-protection failures – any judge who had in any way been involved in any such child-protection failures or who was friends and allies of those who had – cannot then be a lawfully objective judge in any matter concerning me.
That is simply the established law.
Julian Clyde-Smith is close – long-term – personal friends with various public officials with a known and evidenced involvement in efforts to prevent the child-protection failures being exposed.
For example – Anton Skinner, Philip Bailhache, Tim Le Cocq, William Bailhache – and Michael Birt.
So – here we have a judge – Julian Clyde-Smith – with very close professional and personal associations with an extensive range of people who have a dramatic personal interest in continuing to bury their own many past failures as public officials; these are people who have a serious interest in obstructing, damaging, discrediting and oppressing people like Graham Power and me – who were striving to expose those failures.
But notwithstanding that gross and multifaceted conflict of interest – Julian Clyde Smith has heard cases involving me – and quiet extraordinarily – continues to do so – as we learn today.
When he heard my first judicial review application on the 27th September 2010 – at 7.00 a.m on a Monday morning – I asked Clyde-Smith to declare all of his conflicts of interest (an entirely proper and reasonable thing to do.) Clyde-Smith simply flatly refused to do so.
He then proceeded to run the Attorney General’s case for him, because the Solicitor General who was representing the AG in court was so incompetent, he didn’t understand that executive actions can be challenged via judicial review.
That hearing – because of Julian Clyde-Smith’s refusal to declare his conflicts of interest and the overt unlawful bias he displayed towards those involved in child-abuse cover-ups  – was simply a manifestly corrupt process.
But – things get worse than that.
A lot worse.
As most people recognise – because let’s face it, it’s obvious and you’d be a fool not to see it – a real reason for the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power was to sabotage the child-abuse investigations. That the suspension of the Police Chief was an illegal conspiracy is now well-established on the evidence, as published by bloggers; it needn’t detain us now.
What is far less well known is that there were other corrupt motivations for the illegal suspension of the Police Chief.
One reason – in particular – was the most pressing – over all others.
It is this:
The Police were a matter of weeks, perhaps a couple of months away – from submitting to Attorney General William Bailhache rape charges against an immensely powerful Jersey establishment figure.
Had the file gone in – and the man been charged – he would have brought them all down with him.
The rape investigation had to be sabotaged. Hence the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.
The rapist was legally represented.
He was represented by The Ogier Group – and Julian Clyde-Smith.
After the illegal suspension of Graham Power, the Police Chief attempted to judicially review the plainly unlawful actions against him.
When his case came to court – it was heard and thrown-out by Julian Clyde-Smith.
Julian Clyde-Smith did not declare the conflict of interests – that he was involved in representing the rapist.
So – the Police Chief who had been illegally suspended – mainly so as to protect a rapist from being charged with the crimes – finds himself before a court – presided over by a part-time judge – who is involved in legally representing the same rapist the police Chief had been unlawfully suspended so as to protect.
This is simply naked judicial corruption.
Julian Clyde-Smith is a criminal.
The position get’s worse.
After the Police Chief’s illegal suspension – I was approached by a constituent – a victim  of the rapist. They were profoundly demoralised – fearing – rightly as it turned out – that the Police Chief’s illegal suspension meant the case against their attacker would be sabotaged. I listened, and pledged to do what I could to help as a Senator, and I began asking questions, investigating the issues and trying to draw-out more information.
Within months of taking up the interests and protections of these rape victims, I too  - like Graham Power – had been illegally crushed by Jersey’s corrupt, self-protecting establishment.
When I attempted to judicially review the illegal actions taken against me, I too – like Police Chief Graham Power – found myself appearing before Julian Clyde-Smith. And like Graham Power – one of the key – perhaps the key – motivations for the oppression conducted against me, was the protection of the rapist. For by that time – I was the last public figure the victims had fighting for them.
And like Graham Power – when I attempted to judicially review the obviously unlawful actions taken against me – I find myself appearing before the judge – Julian Clyde-Smith – who is involved in legally representing the rapist I was trying to get justice against on behalf of my constituents.

Julian Clyde-Smith refused to declare that conflict of interests. I only discovered it a long time afterwards.
This is simply stark judicial corruption.
Judicial corruption – of the most serious kind.
Julian Clyde-Smith knows, now – that I know.
He knows – because I put the matter to him in e-mail correspondence when I learnt of it – in 2012. Clyde-Smith couldn’t deny it.
Julian Clyde-Smith is a criminal.
To those in the island who have been – and continue to be victims of the powerful and the wealthy – to victims of child-abuse – and to the victims of the rapist – take courage and lift your spirits; we’re going to get there.
It was never going to be easy; the death-throes of a wholly corrupt feudal mafia grown decadent through centuries of being the “law” in Jersey, was always going to look like this.
Corrupt judges – concealing conflicts of interest – oppressing people who try to help the weak – oppressing victims – driving out of office political opponents – shutting down free-speech – imprisoning dissidents.
Panicking corrupt oligarchs – who have run out of ideas – and no-where left to turn – struggling down in the gutter, trying desperately to grasp “A Bigger Stick” in an attempt to beat-away the inevitable consequences of their maddened actions.
The Crown judicial function in Jersey – on fire.
The End was always going to look like this.
Stuart Syvret 

The Ogier Group – policing, prosecution and judiciary services 

The Crown and Newspeak “Justice” – Part 1

THE BBC: ITS HATE-CAMPAIGNING AND TROLLING IN JERSEY:

Fatal Consequences Reported in Mail on Sunday.

“BBC man’s Twitter campaign helped kill my boy:”

The BBC – the bloated British-state media organisation which harboured, enabled, furnished victims for, and then covered-up child-rapist and necrophiliac Jimmy Savile – for at least four decades – continues to disgrace itself.

In a tragic story concerning the death of a good & well-intentioned man, the Mail on Sunday reports that a sustained campaign of cyber-bullying by a BBC presenter in Jersey led to the death of Simon Abbot.

The blog campaigning to expose the truth of what happened to Simon Abbot can be read here:

In the Mail on Sunday it is reported that BBC presenter Murray Norton pursued a “vicious and unrelenting cyber-bullying campaign” against Mr. Abbot.

I reproduce with full acknowledgments, the Mail on Sunday article below this posting.

I’m not – very sadly – in the least surprised at the story.

Those of us who hold different views to Jersey’s entrenched oligarchy can recount volumes of examples of obstruction, lies, bias, defamations, abuse, trolling, exclusions and marginalisations by the BBC in Jersey.

The BBC complaints procedure – even at regional, national and trust level – is so extraordinarily bad – essentially non-functioning – as to be beyond parody. It is a process – a complaints-structure – of the kind which might have been created in an Eastern-Bloc state; a process which exists to (a) give a false-impression of accountability; (b) provide a large bureaucracy in which favored apparatchiks be provided with work, and – most significantly – (c) to work primarily as an actual shield for the BBC, in a kind of Orwellian Newspeak inversion of its declared purpose of delivering “accountability”.

I’m aware of extremely diligent, detailed formal complaints pursued through the BBC process – complaints which covered, amongst closely related matters, the illegal suspension of Jersey’s Police Chief Graham Power – and the jaw-dropping refusal of the BBC to report vital public-interest stories arising from a wholly damning 94 page statement by Mr. Power.

I know that the BBC were supplied with a copy of the statement – because I was their source.

I e-mailed it to BBC Jersey boss Jon Gripton – and from that day to this – the BBC has refused to report the dramatic public-interest maters revealed in the Police Chief’s statement. That failure cannot be put down to the hick-town failure of the BBC’s ‘gone-native’ Jersey operation – as I’ve also supplied the document to the BBC at a national level.

The BBC’s child-abuser, Jimmy Savile – who spent a great deal of time in Jersey – and was very closely connected to BBC staff and associates in the island – featured in the child-abuse investigation being led by Police Chief Graham Power.

Simon Abbot is a tragic victim of a wholly decadent BBC culture. And sadly, he is not the only victim of cyber-bullying and the promotion of hate-sites by the BBC and its staff in Jersey.

Deputies Trevor & Shona Pitman are Jersey politicians – amongst the very few members of the island’s legislature – who have opposed the child-abuse cover-ups in the island; cover-ups which include crimes committed by Savile.

Both Deputies have been subjected to sustained, hate-filled campaigns of anonymous abuse, attacks from web ‘sock-puppets’, and organised astro-turfing. Nothing so surprising, really; comes with the territory – especially if you are opposing the entrenched and very powerful – who have a lot to lose.

But for such hate-sites – and the trolling they contain – to be pro-actively – and approvingly – referred to – and peddled – by the BBC?

THE BBC?

The organization was even more startlingly overtly corrupt, in joining in with – and promoting and supporting – a transparent astro-turfing campaign against a respected published USA author and investigative journalist Leah McGrath Goodman.

That was the BBC – pro-actively attacking – one of the few journalists seriously investigating decades of concealed child-abuse and the governance-failures which harbored and concealed that abuse.

BBC presenters in Jersey could scarcely move fast enough to join-in with and promote – a swarm of trolling, and organised astro-turfing plainly being co-ordinated and sock-puppeted by paid spin-doctors.

The conduct of the BBC in Jersey has long been utterly disgraceful.

Some analysis by me of the history of BBC behavior in, and towards Jersey, can be read here:

In the mean-time, I recommend the Mail on Sunday article, the original can be read here:-

Let us remember Simon Abbot – and ask just what the BBC imagines itself to be doing – down in the trolling gutter?

Stuart Syvret
 
‘BBC man’s Twitter campaign helped kill my boy’: Devastated father claims offensive comments contributed to son’s heart attack

By the Mail on Sunday

  • BBC presenter was allegedly involved in a ‘cyber-bullying campaign’

  • He is accused of suggesting a man siphoned-off charity donations

  • Broadcaster Murray Norton strongly denies making the comments

  • The corporation say they are investigating the claims

The BBC is investigating allegations that one of its presenters was involved in a ‘vicious and unrelenting cyber-bullying campaign’ that contributed to the death of a 47-year-old man.

Murray Norton, who has been a BBC broadcaster for nearly 30 years, strongly denies making offensive comments on social networking sites about Simon Abbott, a computer software developer who died of a heart attack earlier this year.

Mr. Norton is said to have posted messages on Facebook and Twitter suggesting Mr. Abbott was a conman, siphoning off charity donations for his own use.

The alleged abuse encouraged dozens of ‘internet trolls’ to join in the harassment, some allegedly claiming they were taking their cue from Mr. Norton because of his status as a BBC broadcaster.

Police have said they were not aware of any evidence Mr. Abbott was misappropriating funds.

His father believes the alleged bullying hastened his son’s death.

And last night The Mail on Sunday discovered that the extent to which stress may have contributed to Mr. Abbott’s heart attack will be considered at the forthcoming inquest.

In his spare time Mr. Abbott ran a charitable foundation he set up in memory of his sister Samantha, who committed suicide in 2009 while suffering from post-natal depression.

Before his death in June, he had begun libel proceedings against Mr. Norton and other people whose false allegations, he claimed, had destroyed his reputation and turned him into a recluse, unable to work and frightened to leave his house.  A defense was lodged denying all  the claims.

However, his father, Jon Abbott, believes the alleged comments were posted by Mr. Norton and others and is demanding to know why BBC bosses apparently made no attempt to stop Mr. Norton spreading unfounded rumours about his son.

The retired journalist, who lives in South Africa, said: ‘Simon’s schemes failed to raise any money, partly due to his own shortcomings as a charity organiser and partly because it was an impossible task to make a success of any project that kept being slated on the internet.

‘The takings (for the trust) appear to have been pitiful. When he died, there was little money in his  bank account and the trust was £1,400 in the red. That doesn’t make him a conman.

‘It is deplorable for the BBC to stand on the sidelines. Norton was working for a national institution funded by the British taxpayer and was very much in the public eye.’

A BBC spokesman said: ‘We offer our sincere condolences to Mr. Abbott but strongly assert the BBC has treated the complaints in question seriously. No evidence of cyber-bullying was found and the complaint was not upheld.’

One of the online messages, purportedly written by the radio host, allegedly said: ‘Simon, if you are reading this – which, my friends, he might be – give it up, come clean on the finances of the trust, put the items you claim to have from the famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some people in real need instead of false events that help no one.’

One of Mr. Abbott’s tormentors, a woman from Cornwall, was questioned by police after he complained about her behaviour in November 2011. She was ‘given advice’ by officers but not charged with any offence.

But when Mr. Abbott’s father wrote to the BBC after his son’s death, the managing editor of BBC Radio Jersey, Jon Gripton, said that since  Mr. Norton was a ‘freelance artist’, the corporation had no responsibility for his off-air activities.

Mr. Norton’s links with the BBC, however, are long-established and he hosts a three-hour show on Radio Jersey every weekday morning.

Simon Abbott said in a court statement relating to his libel action: ‘People think I am a conman, dishonest, and even that I have made up the death of my sister. Because he (Norton) works for the BBC everyone follows he (sic) and joins in.’

Jon Abbott’s complaint against Mr. Norton is now being re-examined by one of the BBC’s most senior executives, David Holdsworth.

Mr. Norton combines his broadcasting career with running two restaurants in Jersey. Our calls to him went unanswered.

Mail on Sunday

THE CROWN – AND NEWSPEAK “JUSTICE” – PART 1

Tax-Payers Money – to Protect Criminals

Tax-Payers Money – to Silence Investigative Journalism

Tax-Payers Money – to Fund Cover-Ups for Corrupt Crown Officers

Tax-Payers Money – to Bank-Roll Bent Law-Firms

So – let’s have a look at the latest behaviour of what passes for a “judiciary” in the British Crown island of Jersey.

A “judiciary” – which consists of conflicted individuals, various evidenced crooks, and their friends and appointees.

A “judiciary” – which has taken to itself the power to make “laws” over and against the mechanisms of democracy.

A “judiciary” – which has decided that data protection laws can be applied to silence free-speech and cover-up crime – in a way that even they admit has no equivalent – in any other country –  on the face of the planet.

A “judiciary” which has decided I have to be oppressed – for having fought to protect my constituents from corruption, criminals, child-abusers, rapists and murderers.

And, well – where to start? There are so many extraordinary facts – so many public-interest issues to be addressed – in the latest attempt by Crown forces in Jersey to protect criminals, suppress journalism, embezzle public money, pervert justice, and attack democracy – I think we’ll have to have a series of postings.

And we will.

In the coming days we’ll take a look at certain distinct aspects of this latest manifestation of the corrupt conduct of Jersey’s oligarchy.

For example, the most – err – curious conduct of the judge, Michael Birt’s colleague and appointee Charles Gray, who decided to receive, and allow to influence and structure the judgment, a submission from the JEP – when he had refused – 12 months earlier – those very arguments and submissions – when made in writing – by me.

And we’ll also have to take a close and careful look at just what on earth Gray imagines himself to be doing – in accepting, and permitting to influence, and incorporating into the judgment – not one – but two – interventions made by third-parties – after all of the proceedings had ended.

Submissions which ended up forming the judgment – but which I had had zero knowledge of – until the judgment was issued.

Submissions which now form case-law – but which were wholly un-tested, un-scrutinised, un-examined and un-challenged in any court.

Still, there must be some explanation for this startlingly novel approach to the administration of justice which is not yet apparent to us mere proles.

So, what’s it all about then, eh? – this “secret” super-injunction, taken out against me – and which has been so heroically reported by the Jersey Evening Post – twelve months after it was all made public in the House of Commons by John Hemming MP?

It’s potentially a complex subject – with many dry & technical aspects – and various examples of documented evidence – but before we get into that territory in future postings,  I’m sure many readers would like a quick and easy explanation – something that provides an overview, as it were – and which enables you to grasp the subject – with clarity. So here goes.

Before you read any further, click on this link, scroll down a little, to the YouTube clip under the heading, “Another ‘Stella’ Moment to be Proud of” – and listen to the audio recording; it’s only 2 mins, 25 sec – so it won’t take long – and in so many ways, we can laugh at it now:

http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-reminder-of-jerseys-freaks.html

That was a recording of a crazed, drunken, abusive phone-call made by one Jon Haworth.

He makes many such calls – other people have other recordings. He also engages in cyber-staking, harassing women, abusive internet trolling, and threats of violence and of murder.  

He is an inadequate, loathsome worm – the kind of cowardly, solitary fantasist who might harass your daughter on social media. To get a brilliant – and very funny – understanding of the Jon Haworths of this world, take a look at the song – Thank You Hater – which captures the breed oh so perfectly; I’ve put a link at the end of this posting. The song could have been written about Haworth.

So – of what relevance is the above, to the “super-injunction” – free-speech – the Data Protection Law – the conduct of Emma Martins – and of what passes for a “judiciary” in Jersey?

Jon Haworth is one of the four individuals in whose names this super-injunction has been obtained against me.  

Nice chap, eh?

Well worth – I’m quite sure you will agree – spending £500,000s of your money – on protecting – so that he can carry on his anonymous regime of cyber-stalking, threatening women, and abusive trolling.

I first wrote about Haworth in 2008, when he was brought to my attention by a number of my constituents; for example, vulnerable single women who had rejected Haworth’s obsessive advances, and were having their health affected by his constant barrage of frightening threatening phone-calls and obnoxious internet abuse.

But even though there is not so much as one, single, solitary scrap of anything that could be described as official “data” about Haworth – not so much as one single syllable of actual “official information” concerning him – published on this blog, Emma Martins decided it would still be just fine to embezzle £100,000s of tax-payers money – your money – and bring the full authority and power of the state into play – to shield this inadequate maggot.

Why should the Jersey establishment feel a need to protect Haworth?

Because he is involved in running pro-child-abuse-concealment websites – which are used by the Jersey oligarchy to attack those of us who want the system cleaned-up. Haworth’s role in this has included receiving and publishing actually stolen data – data stolen by the spiv and low gangster Deputy Sean – “to be sure, to be sure” – Power – a blarneying crook who gives “confidence-men” a bad name.

But notwithstanding the evidenced theft, handling, supplying and publication, of private data of no public-interest disclosure merit – Emma Martins and Attorney General Tim Le Cocq flatly refused to prosecute those involved, such as Sean Power and Jon Haworth.

This is Jersey Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins – daughter of Bergerac actor John Nettles.

 

That’s John Nettles – acquaintance of child-abuser & necrophiliac and regular visitor to Jersey, Jimmy Savile. I mention Nettles, because Emma Martins has actually boasted publicly of being guided and advised by her father in her campaign of oppression directed against me ever since I began – in 2007 – my battle to expose the decades of concealed child-abuse in Jersey.

And not a lot of people know this – but before Haute de la Garenne was closed as a children’s home in 1986, the site was used by the BBC for filming Bergerac. That is – when it was still a home for vulnerable children – and where various un-vetted BBC staff were permitted to come and go and wonder around the site amongst vulnerable and impressionable kids.

Read about it here:

Alas, Emma Martins failed to recall this plainly conflicting and nullifying conflict of interests that fatally contaminates her Office – when engaging in her various efforts to silence me.

Just as she “forgot” to declare the fact that another of the four individuals she has decided to “assist” – an evidencedly corrupt police officer – is also an acquaintance of her father.

And another of the four individuals is a suspected child-abuser – and who was also involved in the corrupt concealment of other cases of child-abuse – for example, the horrifying regime of abuse conducted by Jane and Alan Maguire in the States of Jersey Blanche Pierre Group Home.

I listened to some of the victims of that man’s actions – and the experience will live with me all my life.

He won’t sue me for defamation – because he knows perfectly well I could call upon ten of his victims to speak in open court.

But, still, we can’t blame Emma for being so neglectful – so forgetful – of such piffling matters as conflicts of interest – after all, it’s precisely the same “cultural approach” adopted by her fellow Crown Officers, friends and bosses, and which has been a part of the very life-blood of “The Jersey Way” – for centuries.

I mean, just for example, consider Michael Birt – the current “Bailiff”. He “forgets” the many very serious direct conflicts of interest which contaminate him in these matters, and persists in involving himself. For example, choosing and appointing his own judges, to hear these oppressive actions against me in what purports to be a “court of law”.  Birt also persists – like his equally fatally conflicted colleague, “Deputy Bailiff” William Bailhache – in involving themselves in these matters when they come before the States assembly.

In particular – in the case of Michael Birt – we are dealing with the man who prematurely ended the 1999 investigation into the rogue male nurse – a rapist – and almost certainly a clinical serial-killer. That individual is one of the four proxies, behind whose names the Crown Offices of Jersey now seek to hide their corrupt failures to protect the public.

Your relatives could have been amongst the victims of the nurse.

So serious is the case of that one of the four individuals – it requires a separate posting.

But it isn’t as though the conduct of the remaining three proxies – and the reasons the Crown has for using them to conceal its own failures – was not serious enough.

Michael Birt must have forgotten that when the police belatedly became aware of the atrocities by the Maguires, and attempted to prosecute them in 1998 – part-way through the case, Birt corruptly abandoned it – falsely saying to the Royal Court there was “insufficient evidence”. Michael Birt also failed to obtain any medical evidence in respect of Alan Maguire’s claims to have “terminal cancer” and only months to live.

As Deputy Police Chief Lenny Harper drily observed to me  - when Alan Maguire was shown  assaulting the Panorama film crew  - ten years later – “well, I’m no clinical pathologist, but that man looked very much alive to me.”

But, you know, it’s not so surprising that Birt adopted that attitude when he was Attorney General in 1998. After all – had the Maguires been properly investigated – fully prosecuted for all their crimes – that would have had career-annihilating consequences for his predecessor as Attorney General – and his then-boss – Philip Bailhache.

You see – the horrifying catalogue of abuses – of savage crimes – committed by the Maguires had become fully known to the authorities – in 1990.

Philip Bailhache was the Attorney General then – the sole prosecuting authority in Jersey – and the legal adviser to the relevant authority responsible for permitting the regime of abuse, the then Education Committee.

Philip Bailhache colluded with the Education Department in covering-up the abuse in 1990.

The police only got to know of it by pure happenstance – in 1998.

“Well”, you may ask, “ok, so the criminal prosecution was not seen though in 1998, but surely the victims would have got civil compensation – and the proper help and support they needed?”

Err…no.

The damaged, vulnerable and angry and confused victims were assigned – as legal aid clients – a law-firm to represent their interests.

But that could have been a problem – could it not?

After all, if these vulnerable young people had good legal representation, their lawyers would be objecting to the abandonment of the prosecution of their attackers.

Their lawyers would be demanding a public inquiry into such deeply, deeply alarming questions as “why did the authorities cover-up the horrifying crimes when they were first officially recognised – in 1990?”

Questions would be asked of the then Attorney General – Philip Bailhache – as to “why on Earth the abusers – and the corruptly concealing Education Department – were not prosecuted in 1990?”

And in 1998, the victims would have belatedly received – righty so – dramatic amounts of compensation from the state – for the horrors they suffered.

If – of course – they had had competent, effective – non-corrupt – legal representation.

So – which law-firm was assigned by the powers-that-be – to “represent” the interests of the victims of the Maguires & the States in 1998?

That firm was Bailhache LaBesse – Senior Partner, at the time, one William Bailhache.

That’s William Bailhache – brother of then Bailiff Philip Bailhache – the former Attorney General who – in 1990 – was responsible for the failure to see that the Maguires and the Education Committee were charged and prosecuted then.

So, what happened to the young vulnerable victims and their interests – once they were under the tender care of Philip Bailhache’s brother’s law-firm?

They were utterly and wholly betrayed. They received zero effective representation – in any sense at all – and came away from that episode with zero justice – and actually even more damaged and angry and distressed and wrecked than they were already.

Bailhache LaBesse have morphed since then – and are now a part of Appleby Global – and legal – fiduciary – and ethical – liability for that betrayal of those young legal-aid clients continues to hang over the law-firm.

Now – a question, dear readers: -

What law-firm – do you think -  has been funded by Emma Martins – and in many ways more significantly, empowered by the imprimatur of her Crown Office – to pursue this campaign of “legal” suppression against me?

This is too easy, isn’t it?

That’s right – the law-firm – which is being given millions upon millions of pounds – of your money – to fund their oppression of me – so as to stop me exposing many crimes of child-abuse  and associated corrupt concealments such as those engaged in by Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global – is Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global.

I thought you’d like that.

Indeed – one of the four proxies that Martins, Bailhache LaBesse/Appleby and the Crown are using against me  in this war of suppression – the proxy who is also the child-abuser – was expressly and directly involved in manipulating and betraying the Maguire victims during the corrupt abandonment by Michael Birt of the prosecution of their attackers in 1998.

Of course – all of this – this deeply “problematic” issue of the Blanche Pierre child abuse episode – and the corrupt concealment of the abusers Jane and Alan Maguire became a real nightmare for the Bailhache/Birt/Bailhache syndicate – when it was reopened in 2007 and 2008 – when people like me were fighting to get the truth exposed.

It was during that period that one of the victims of the Maguires asked me to assist them in recovering their case file from Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global, because the law-firm was repeatedly refusing to hand it over. I accompanied her to the firm’s offices – where – after a failed attempt to intimidate the survivor into seeing him alone – Advocate David Benest proceeded to scream abuse at the pair of us.

During that whole recent episode, it would have been very, very useful – would it not – for the corruptly conflicted Bailhache brothers to have “sources” – bent cops who would illegally leak them information – from inside various police investigations – in direct breach of the Data Protection Law – thus assisting the Bailhache brothers in various manoeuvres to obstruct and sabotage those who were fighting to expose past misfeasances.

Low and behold! – here’s another of the four proxy individuals!

Emma Martins has used as a cover – to give millions of pounds of your tax money  - to Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global – to oppress me – to stop me exposing the corrupt conflicts of interest of Bailhache/Appleby and expose the malfeasances of the Bailhache brothers – to the bent cop.

Yes – millions of pounds of your tax-money has been illegally embezzled – to protect a bent cop – who was criminally leaking inside information – to William Bailhache – who was criminally leaking that information in turn to his brother, Philip Bailhache – who was then engaging in grossly illegal attempts to intimidate and coerce States members away from investigating corruption.

But all of those conflicts of interest – well – they’re just so easily forgotten, aren’t they?

Just the kinds of things that so easily slip the minds of so many busy lawyers, Data Protection Commissioners, Attorney Generals, Deputy Bailiffs, and Bailiffs?

So – when your tax-bill lands on the door mat – you’ll be able to console yourself with the thought that, perhaps, £8 million of it has been illegally chiselled to…err – has been spent on the really important and worthwhile task of funding a campaign of unlawful abuse, harassment  and oppression – against the one consistently fearless and honest anti-corruption politician Jersey had in the post-war years – and spent  in the protection of an alcoholic internet troll, a child-abuser and concealer, a bent cop, and psychopathic rapist and murdering nurse.

Readers will note the Jersey Evening Post – commonly known simply as “The Rag” in the island, savouring the part of the judgment that ordered costs against me – so let’s finish for the moment with a quick look at that most fascinating of subjects.

There are, essentially, four purposes – four objectives – to making these type of cost-orders in these political show-trials. Those are, (1) psychological warfare against the victim of the oppression – (2) manufacturing a power to bankrupt the target, thus preventing them from ever seeking election  – (3) to make an example of them, so as to terrify any other uppity proles who might think of opposing our gangster-state – (4) and straightforward – illegal – financial racketeering.

Everyone involved knows – perfectly well – that there is precisely zero chance of my paying over one penny piece to this criminal racket. That’s not why they make the costs order. The money – probably millions of pounds all-told – will come from public funds. That’s you – dear tax-payer.

They have to make these court-orders – because there is absolutely no public money at all – none – not even the slush-fund of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund – that can be lawfullyspent on paying large expensive private-sector law-firms – to run crypto-defamation actions in the name of proxy individuals – for the purposes of suppressing and harassing whistle-blowers and political opposition activists.

In fact – it’s even blunter than that. There is not one penny piece of public money that can be – lawfully – spent by any States department – or other public authority in Jersey – to fund the abusive misapplication of the Data Protection Law – and to fund acts of political suppression in Jersey.

It is illegal to spend, obtain, use and receive public money for purposes not agreed by the States of Jersey.

Even more starkly – it is illegal to spend public money for criminal purposes and for the furtherance and concealment of criminal acts.

But – here are a large number of immensely powerful lawyers – private-sector and public-sector (not that there is any longer a meaningful difference in Jersey between the two, the Crown authority given to the Crown Offices being little more than a kind of “licence” given to private interests to do with as they please) who need millions and millions of pounds to fund a squad of lawyers – and spin-doctors –and  London PR firms – and lobbyists  – so as to suppress those who oppose their corruption.

Therefore the financial transaction – the illegal embezzlement of public funds – requires camouflage. It has to be disguised – no matter how thinly – and – even more importantly – it needs the imprimatur of a “higher authority” – a stamp of approval – some form of “official justification” – to provide a pathway for a transaction of very substantial amounts of public money from the public coffers – into private pockets – when in the absence of such an improvised pathway – the expenditure in question would be even more starkly illegal than it already obviously is.

That is the main purpose of the court-order for costs; to provide that necessary disguise; to provide a kind of fig-leaf – behind which the fraudulent and corrupt embezzlement of public money could be hidden.

So – don’t forget who the beneficiaries of this fraud are.

The main beneficiaries are not the four despicable proxies – the real beneficiaries are the law-firm Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global, and Philip Bailhache and William Bailhache, and Michael Birt.

We’ll take a close look at the “law” and the “judgments” in these cases – and the implications – in the next posting.

In the mean time – have a listen to the song at the YouTube link below; it’s a song about Jon Haworth – who is the beneficiary of a vast amount of your tax money – courtesy of Emma Martins.

Stuart Syvret

A Funny Song About Jon Haworth: