Monthly Archives: May 2008




A Statement by the States of Jersey Police Force.

Read it below this post.

After the mildly entertaining diversions of the last blog post, we need to return to more serious matters.

As many of you will have seen, determined attempts to rubbish and undermine the present police investigation, and to undermine Lenny Harper in particular, have been made by the Jersey establishment and its allies in Whitehall and the UK press.

Newspapers like the Daily Mail – and an attendant small grouping of journalist child-abuse deniers – who appear to have carved-out a profitable little contrarian niche for themselves – have been attacking the investigation.

In Jersey itself the attacks have been remorseless.

Jersey’s Chief Minister, Frank Walker delivered a speech on Liberation Day – Jersey’s national holiday – in which he attacked the investigation, abuse survivors and people like me who have supported them.

Even more extraordinarily – the head of the island’s judiciary – Jersey’s chief judge – the ‘Bailiff’ Sir Philip Bailhache – made a speech on the same day.

A speech which was even more extremist, ignorant, stupid and perverse that that delivered by Frank Walker.

You think I exaggerate?

Let’s consider a couple of quotes from Phil’s speech. He said:

“Yet many journalists continue to write about the Island’s so called child abuse

So the message from this man to all Jersey child abuse survivors is – that it is merely a “so-called child abuse scandal.”

He went on to say – and you couldn’t make this up – :

“All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.”

You’re a thinking, compassionate, decent person?

Ask yourself – which is the “real” scandal – child abuse – or exposing child abuse?

One really doesn’t need to be a colossus of ethics and philosophy to arrive at the correct answer to that question.

But what is – by some margin – the most horrifying feature of Phil’s speech is that this man is the chief Judge of Jersey’s judiciary – and, crucially, the person who will appoint any other judges who may be co-opted into hearing any of the cases – civil or criminal.

Tell me – just how long ago was it that most respectable, democratic societies realised – and ensured – that the judiciary had to be a completely impartial arbiter of facts and interpreter of laws?

Quite a long time ago I think you’ll find.

The judiciary – the courts – are supposed to be the crucial check and balance on executive power. Yet here in Jersey we have both a prosecution service and a judiciary so crazed with megalomania and arrogance – that they will intervene politically in a matter as profoundly disgusting as the Jersey child abuse disaster in a clear attempt to defend the Jersey oligarchy.

And this attitude – this politicisation – this naked bias – this unlawful hi-jacking of the good name of the Crown – would have been crushed in the UK a hundred years ago – had any of the judiciary – even then – had the sheer stupidity and ignorance to have conducted themselves in this way.

And in case you’re not aware of this fact – the UK authorities in London do – oh yes they do – have legal, constitutional and foreign policy locus standi and power – and are actually obliged – to directly intervene in such a breakdown in the good administration of justice – as we are seeing in well-documented form in Jersey now.

Now – what response, do you think, we’re getting from “New Labour”?

From the politician with the above-described duties and powers – Jack Straw MP?

We are getting nothing but pro-Jersey oligarchy obstructions and interferences from Straw’s minions.

It is as though they actually like our collection of shysters and spivs – and actively want to support them.

But thinking about it – what can we expect of a government that has engaged in a manifestly illegal – un-winnable – and murderous war against the people of Iraq?

Jack Straw voted in favour of that madness – so we can’t really be surprised that he would want to assist and support the Jersey oligarchy in its desperate efforts to carry on concealing appalling child abuse.

It’s pretty much what we would expect from this Labour government.

Straw’s position really is literally incredible. It is not as though my constituents are seeking anything radical, revolutionary or extreme.

All they – and I on their behalf – are seeking is a completely non-conflicted, de-politicised and neutral prosecution service – and an equally objective judiciary.

One which could be relied upon to come to objective decisions – without giving a damn how those decisions may look for the government.

France and America had such effective checks and balances in place over 200 years ago – yet here in Jersey, those of us who seek similar safeguards are labelled “political extremists”.

Let us hope the Jersey victims can get support to take Straw to Court in London to seek a judicial review of his handling of the Jersey child abuse disaster.

But returning to the Jersey authorities – as though more evidence were needed of their stupidity, culpability and ignorance – what, then, are we to make of the “confidential” e-mail written by Jimmy Perchard – Assistant Minister for Health & Social Services, with direct responsibility for child protection – to Frank Walker?

The e-mail in which he makes an astonishing attack on the States of Jersey Police and Lenny Harper, and his boss, Graham Power, in particular.

Let us have a read of Jimmy – ‘child-protection’ – Perchard’s e-mail attack on the Police investigation into child abuse.

And remember when you’re reading this – Jimmy Perchard – and his political boss, Ben Shenton – are THE politicians with responsibility for child protection in Jersey.

And, by the way, unlike me – he had a very expensive education – and he wasn’t taught by Mike Vibert – so he can have no excuse for his illiteracy; me? I’m just a victim of my environment.

But seriously – remember as you read this – this is THE politician with responsibility for child protection. And then try – though it certainly takes an un-achievable leap of the imagination – to think of any functioning, respectable society where you would find THE politicians with responsibility for child protection – pro-actively attacking an investigation into child abuse?

I know – God, do I know – what a number of the present survivors think of it.

Christ knows what any little victims of today will think of it – when they come to know of it – as they most certainly will.

E-mail from Jersey Health & Social Services Assistant Minister – with special responsibility for child protection – Jimmy Perchard to Jersey Chief Minister Frank Walker:

From: James Perchard []
Sent: 26 May 2008 06:44
To: ‘Frank Walker’
Cc:;; ‘Ben Queree’;;;; Christie Tucker; Denzil Dudley

Dear Frank,
I request that you immediately arrange for an INDERPENDANT investigation be held into my claim that either the States of Jersey Chief of Police or his Deputy knowingly misinformed me and others regarding the alleged find in late February at Haut de la Garenne of so called “human remains”?
Either the States of Jersey Police Chief or his Deputy knowingly lied to me and others – a fact that can be effortlessly confirmed by noting the dates and content of emails and correspondence from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit to the States of Jersey Police and the 5th May email sent to me from the Chief of Police.
I consider it unacceptable that the Police should make wild unsubstantiated claims and peddle untruths in an effort to deceive the people of Jersey and their elected representatives.
I trust that you will be arranging that an investigation be held immediately. An investigation which I confidently predict will prove that a senior officer from the States of Jersey Police knowing deceived me and the people of Jersey and I request that appropriate action be taken thereafter.
Senator James L Perchard

So there we have the prime concerns of the Social Services Assistant Minister – laid out in all their appalling and horrifying stupidity.

Should anyone think I’m being excessive in bringing a vote of no-confidence in this Council of Ministers – just reflect on the above statement to Big Frank from Jimmy Perchard.

Meanwhile – to regain touch with reality and decency – read the Police statement on their investigation which I reproduce below.

Statement by States of Jersey Police Force
In Respect of Current Investigation of
Historic Child Abuse at
Haut De La Garenne.

Senior Investigating Officer. Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper
Deputy Senior Investigating Officer. Detective Inspector Alison Fossey
Forensic Services Manager. Mrs Vicky Coupland
PolSA Inspector: Alan Guy
LGC Forensics Team Manager Miss Julie Roberts
Forensic Canine Search Consultant: Mr Martin Grime



In April 2006 States of Jersey Police became concerned at the number of carers who were being accused of involvement in offences concerning the abuse of children. This was particularly highlighted when the commanding officer of the Jersey Sea Cadets was arrested for downloading pornographic images including some involving sea cadets. The attitude of the Sea Cadet authorities of that time caused great concern. Accordingly, police began to examine a number of previous cases and during this review were continually referred to abuse which had allegedly taken place at Haut de La Garenne. This covert phase of the enquiry went on until November 2007 when the investigation was made public. Because of the concerns of victims about any involvement of the Jersey caring agencies it was decided to seek the assistance of the NSPCC in London. Within a week seventy victims had come forward, most detailing abuse at HDLG.

Among the victims were a few who said that children had been dragged from their beds at night screaming and had then disappeared. Two others said they had knowledge of human remains at the location but were not specific. A local advocate also came to police and said he had a client who knew there were human remains buried at the home. The collation of numerous complaints of both sexual and violent abuse of children led to the decision being made to enter the home to carry out a screening search for human remains and evidence in support of the allegations of abuse. The advice and assistance of the NPIA in the deployment of UK specialists was secured.

The abuse enquiry parameters are presently set at events that took place from the mid 1940’s to 1990.


Haut De La Garenne was built in 1866 as a privately run home and industrial school for destitute and orphaned children of the Jersey population.

In 1900 the name of the property was changed to the Jersey Home for Boys.
In 1953 the Education Committee took responsibility for the home renaming it Haut De La Garenne when it became a mixed home in 1960.

With the appointment of a Children’s Officer in 1970, the number of children in care gradually dropped in numbers and by 1983 HDLG ceased to be used for the purpose it was built.

The building and grounds were then administered by the Public Services Committee during which time it was used as the set for a BBC television series ‘ Bergerac’.
In 1970, Aviemore, a new two storey wing was built to the western part of the site which was used principally for staff accommodation. In recent times this building has been adapted to provide respite care for children.

In 1992 the Department of Property Services took over administration of the site from public services. Until 1999 the building was used to accommodate visiting groups requiring low cost accommodation.

In 2003 an extensive refurbishment of the building was completed and since that time has been administered by the Youth Hostel association as an accommodation and activity centre.

The building is of granite stone construction with four main wings, north, south, east and west which form a central courtyard. The grounds and building occupy an area of approximately 220 m X 130 m. Hedgerows bound the perimeter fields, playing fields and open areas.

The building was originally built on several levels. The north wing being two storeys, the south wing as two storeys with the west and east as two storeys except for the southernmost ends which were only one storey.

Several major renovations throughout its history included the addition of two further floor levels to the southern ends of the west and east wings.
In 1925 the east wing was converted to two main floors leaving the ground floor enclosed as ‘cellars’.

Archaeological excavation has revealed five stages of historical groundwork:

1. Victorian
2. Early 1900’s
3. 1940-1950 (Including German wartime occupation)
4. 1960-1980
5. 2003

These staged renovations have been identified from archive planning so as to prioritise areas of search and identify precise locations of relevant to this enquiry.


On 5/2/08 a briefing was held at LGC Forensics Oxford Chaired by the SIO Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper, States of Jersey Police. Mrs Vicky Coupland the SOJP Forensic Services Manager was also present.

In addition to the briefing a document was distributed which had been prepared by Karl Harrison, lead scientist LGC Forensics. This document was a desk based study of the “Haut de la Garenne grounds, and identified potential areas of interest to the investigation.

Martin Grime of The Forensic Canine Search Consultancy produced a canine deployment brief encompassing the entire site to maximise assurity. The canine assets would be deployed both in a wide area screening and detailed search capacity.

On 19 February 2008 the “Haut de la Garenne” site was visited by a reconnaissance party including States of Jersey Police SIO and Forensic Services Manager, NPIA homicide search advisors, FCSC canine search advisor and LGC Forensics staff representing forensic archaeology and anthropology.


• The search of HDLG employed numerous complementary assets that were deployed as required. The systematic approach was adapted to produce high assurity in any possible scenario including sub-surface deposition, dismemberment and destruction by fire. It must be stressed however that there was no direct evidence of homicide at that time and the search was to include the collation of evidence of both sexual and violent abuse.
• The assets were deployed in a logical and systematic manner applying best value and best practice guidelines.
• The canine assets were deployed in the first instance in a wide area screening search to contact role prior to detail targeting.
• Geophysical and Ground Penetrating Radar assets were deployed to identify anomalous areas for further investigation by other assets.
• Gridded probing techniques of identified anomalies allowed the canine assets easier access to sub surface scent.
• Forensic and archaeological assets were deployed upon the reaction of the canine assets, GPR anomaly and/or when anecdotal witness evidence applied.
• Forensic assets were deployed to secure evidence of sexual and violent abuse within crime scenes declared upon canine reaction and anecdotal witness testimony.
• The human blood search dog was deployed in a detailed close supervision search role within declared crime scenes to locate human blood deposits that may be explained at a later date as being accidental or suspicious.

The system of deployment was recorded in the Standard Operating Procedures and policy documents. The policies and procedures were applied consistently throughout the search to conclusion.


The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) ‘Eddie’ was deployed in a wide area screening capacity within the outer boundaries of the HDLG with no alert indications or behaviour changes evident. The search was recorded via GPS data logging equipment attached to the dog’s collar to ensure complete area coverage.

Geophysical anomalies identified by other assets, were probed and subjected to EVRD screening. No alert indications were forthcoming.

A large amount of animal bone historically deposited in the grounds of HDLG as refuse was ignored.

The EVRD was deployed tactically within the ground floor of the premises where a continuing alert indication of varying strength was given in the western aspect. The weakest being in the south-western corridor, the strongest and most significant being in the north-western stairwell.

The reactions of the dog are explained as scent travelling through ‘chimneys’ such as conduit, electric cable ducting, which transects from the north west stairwell along the western corridor in a southerly direction.

Anecdotal witness evidence was suggestive of juvenile human bones being recovered from the area of the north-western stairwell during recent building renovations in 2003.

Human remains deposited within the ground in that area would contaminate the ground, and any porous material within it. The dog’s reactions were therefore consistent with this scenario. The area was therefore subjected to intrusive archaeological excavation.

A fragment of what the forensic anthropologist describes as being possibly human juvenile skull was recovered from within a Victorian context of the excavation. The fragment was shipped to the U.K. for confirmation of substance, species, carbon dating and DNA testing. The laboratory conducting the analysis reported confused and conflicting findings therefore no conclusion is available at this time. Other burnt bone fragments were also recovered from the context within this area. The dating of the context is Victorian, outside the time spectrum of a homicide enquiry at this time.

The EVRD gave a number of alert indications in the eastern wing of the building. Holes were drilled through the 3 inch thick wooden / insulated clad flooring to allow the dog scent access to the voids below. He identified areas of interest which supported anecdotal witness evidence. This prompted the complete removal of the flooring in 2/3 of the east wing.

Removal of the flooring revealed the original ground floor of the building including a large brick and rendered bath, original sinks and toilet area. Renovations had enclosed the areas below the modern flooring which resembled ‘cellars’.

The EVRD was again deployed in a detailed search of these areas. Alert indications were forthcoming which, where appropriate, were confirmed using ‘Keela, the human blood search dog.

The EVRD alert indications were confirmed by intrusive archaeological excavation and sieving. A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human both macroscopically and microscopically. The remains are at the present time undergoing forensic testing including carbon dating procedures. We have received various dating indicators which require clarification.

Three indications by the human blood search dog were given in cellar one which, when subjected to presumptive testing, proved positive.

Two indications by the human blood search dog were given in the cellar entrance hall which when subjected to presumptive testing proved positive.

The EVRD provided alert indications in support of the human blood search dog.

Forensic samples were recovered and conveyed to the UK for further testing.

Other deployments of the EVRD were based upon the blind screening of soil samples and other areas from which suggestive intelligence is supported:

The EVRD was deployed to screen soil samples from certain contexts of archaeological excavation. A positive reaction was forthcoming from a context where it is reported possible human remains were uncovered and removed by builders in the area of the main electric feed in the north-western wing. There is some witness evidence to suggest that these remains were also human juvenile. Although the remains were examined by a pathologist they were not positively species identified. In fact the pathologists report lists at least one bone that was ‘UNIDENTIFIED’. Measurements of the bones would tend to suggest that they would have been consistent with being juvenile human.

It is important to note that a substantial amount of animal bone has been recovered from the site as a whole. The EVRD has ignored all such material whilst alerting to confirmed human remains. This tends to support the scenario above.

Both the EVRD and Human blood search dog are presumptive screening assets. Any alert indications must be forensically corroborated to be conclusive.


A team of archaeologists and anthropologists from LGC Forensics under the supervision of Miss Julie Roberts were deployed to excavate areas of interest identified by search assets, geophysical survey or anecdotal witness evidence.

All anomalies and areas of interest were intrusively investigated to conclusion.

The spoil from contextual hand trowel excavation, cellar floors and other anomalies was sieved by hand or with the use of mechanical device. (100 tons plus).

Comprehensive records of excavation were completed including the approximate date of context and exhibits recovered. Items of interest include;

• Fragment of possibly human juvenile skull recovered from within a Victorian context of the excavation of north-western stairwell.
• Burnt bone (pending species identification) from the context at the north-western stairwell
• Burnt fabric and toys from anomalies within the grounds.
• Lime at the base of a large hole that had been dug previously and reinstated for no apparent reason.
• Human deciduous teeth from cellars three and four (sieving)
• Human burnt bone from cellar 4.
• Human bone from cellar 3
• Human deciduous tooth from water cistern (sieving)

In addition, numerous bones were discovered within the search area both through excavation of anomalies and when investigating anecdotal accounts of previous finds by witnesses. These were identified by the resident anthropologist as being of animal origin.

Detailed archaeological analysis of the building and its structure, in conjunction with archive plans, has provided time lines for historical renovations within the building.


Police search teams under the direct supervision of a PolSA Inspector Alan Guy were tasked to search the north and east banking of the southernmost field to HDLG (boundary to search areas 4,5&7). The search was conducted with the aid of mechanical earth moving equipment.

The banking had been identified by witness testimony concerning the deposition of bones the origin of which was not known whether to be animal or human.
A large amount of bone was recovered and examined by the on site forensic anthropologist. The bone was identified as animal.

Clothing was recovered and has been retained whilst the investigation continues.
The team was also deployed to conduct a search of the attic within the confines of the building.


The States of Jersey Police forensic examiners with the aid of UK based personnel provided the following services:

• Mrs Coupland, the States of Jersey Forensic Services Manager provided day to day management of the search venue and supervision of forensic scene examination.
• Provision of multiple scene management.
• Provision of multiple scene examination.
• Provision of photographic support.
• Provision of exhibit management at HDLG.

Six crime scenes were declared in relation to the abuse enquiry and identified as cellars 1-5 and the cellar entrance hall.

All scenes were subjected to meticulous examination.

• Floor joists taped to recover hair, fibre and skin cells.
• Floor joists and floor boards subjected to chemical treatment to identify and recover fingerprints.
• Walls taped to recover hair, fibre and skin cells.
• Light source search including quasar.
• Ultra violet light search.
• Floor swept using gridding system.
• Items of interest recovered and exhibited.
• Sweepings sieved.
• Human blood search dog screening.
• Chemically treated (Luminol) to highlight areas of interest for further testing.


Gradiometer and Resistivity techniques were carried out at 7 different locations within the grounds of Haut de La Garenne in order to detect likely remains indicating clandestine burials. Two areas were chosen for control purposes (Test Pits 3 and 7) to determine the underlying responses from the soils and geology of the area. These were located in the north east corner and southernmost point on the promontory respectively of the site.

The results indicated some significant anomalies possibly representing pit-like features (F1, F2, F3, and F6-8). The majority proved to be of recent origin and associated with rose bed planting immediately to the south of the house. Other anomalies indicated modern services or features of geological/natural origin.

Ground Penetrating radar was deployed on two separate occasions within the grounds and the interior of HDLG. Detachments from HOSDB and 58 Squadron Royal Engineers identified a number of anomalies both within the grounds and the interior of the building.

The anomalies were numbered and their locations plotted on building plans and site maps. Although some could be explained as pipe trenches and known features identified by witness testimony, unexplained anomalies were subjected to screening with the EVRD and intrusive investigation by forensic archaeologists.

Finds of interest from identified anomalies are:

• Burnt bone (awaiting further examination)
• Burnt clothing
• Burnt toys
• Burnt bed sheets
• Coins (provided indication of dating of anomaly)

Of particular interest were anomalies that were identified by GPR, Geophysical survey and by witness account.

Approximately 20 years ago two large holes had been dug with the use of a mechanical digger at the request of staff at HDLG. The following day the staff caused the reinstatement of the ground without any explanation or obvious reason for the ground intrusion. These holes have since been excavated by the resident forensic archaeologists who discovered at the base of the hole hardcore and lime. Lime is a well known addition to deposition to aid the reduction of decomposition scent. Its inclusion in this scenario may be suggestive of suspicious activity although no human remains were found.


Remains identified by the resident forensic anthropologist Miss Julie Roberts as human, and items of interest to the enquiry, have been submitted for forensic analysis.

Laboratory confirmation of origin of teeth and bone as human has prompted further testing.

We are presently awaiting various test results from carbon dating and DNA analysis etc to try and confirm identity, age of victim and date of demise.

The number of victims and cause of death are not currently known but the prevailing information would suggest that the circumstances are suspicious at this time.


To date the meticulous search of Haut De La Garenne has produced supportive evidence to the abuse enquiry and suggestive evidence that the remains of at least one child are present within the structure of the building.

In the past few days there has been some controversy over the origin of one of the exhibits recovered from the north western stairwell. Despite the media suggestion to the contary, the identity of this item has not been confirmed. The item has been excluded from the enquiry as it was recovered from a Victorian context within the ground.

Several fragments of bone recovered from cellars 3 and 4 have been confirmed as being of human origin.

Other bone fragments suspected as being of human origin are yet to be examined.

Several teeth recovered from cellars 3 & 4have been confirmed as being of human origin and are in the process of forensic examination.

The SIO has stated that the results of all forensic testing will be completed prior to any release of information with regard to a homicide enquiry at this time.


Big Frank & Co –

You are the weakest link.

So, the people have spoken.

In my blog post of the 20th May I added a polling widget and asked the question ‘should Frank Walker face a vote of no-confidence?’ And notwithstanding several failed attempts to fiddle the poll – including by me, just in the interests of experimentation you understand – the Blogger poll seems to have been very robust.

So – what’s the verdict?

A total of 530 people voted.

There were 470 in favour of the proposition.

And there were 60 against.

Oh dear.

Doesn’t look too good for Frank & Co, does it?

And it is increasingly clear that the Jersey oligarchy know that the game is up.

Before going on to provide a snap-shot of the Jersey political situation, I’ll take a moment to examine our statistics.

88.68% of people voted in favour of the proposition against Frank.

That’s a pretty decisive margin – but how reliable is it?

Taking the 88.68% vote we can be 95% confident that the underlying population estimate – that being an extrapolation of opinion to the population as a whole – has a confidence interval between 86% and 91%.

Now – let us not make like politicians with our statistics. Readers of this blog expect honesty.

These poll figures could be utter crap.

There are several reasons why the figures might not be accurate. For example, it could be argued that the people who read my blog regularly would be heavily biased against Frank.

Questions could also be raised as to how many of the voters were based in Jersey?

Not that this point is of any consequence, as I – as I hope would most readers of this blog – regard myself as a citizen of the world. I would, for example, certainly use an opportunity to vote on a question posited in the USA to the effect: “Should Americans stop electing retards as Presidents?”

It could also be argued that the sample of opinion represented by the vote was ‘self-selecting’.

Nevertheless – it would be unwise to discount our poll. Not least because – as anyone even faintly familiar with the grass-roots opinions of Jersey people will tell you – 88% of the population wanting to be rid of Frank & Co. is about the right figure when assessed against word-of-mouth opinions.

So – a vote of no-confidence it is then.

I should get the report and proposition tabled sometime next week.

The procedures of the assembly – its standing orders – require that such a vote is tabled against the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers as a whole.

Although this means that one must choose one target – or the other – in practice the different wording would produce the same effect. If a no-confidence vote were to succeed against Big Frank – the whole Council of Ministers falls. And, obviously, if the vote were to be carried against the Council- it falls – along with Walker.

So which wording to choose? Ah – decisions, decisions.

Actually – it isn’t a particularly taxing question.

The vote will be targeted against the Council of Ministers as a whole.


Because pretty much all of them deserve it.

And this is an important point – the no-confidence vote will not focus only on their catastrophic handling of the Jersey child abuse disaster – although, clearly, that will be an element.

It will focus upon the generality of the performance of this Council – and on the individual performances of the specific Ministers.

Pretty much all of which have been deficient – to a lesser or greater extent.

I won’t bore you with the details of these deficiencies right now – that can wait until the debate.

But what is the general diagnosis, right now, so far as the political landscape in Jersey is concerned?

Firstly – the reputation, standing and “popularity” of the political establishment of Jersey has never been lower.

Politicians in general are never popular at the best of times. But in Jersey today the political classes are beset with woes – most of them of their own making.

Let’s consider just a few.

There is, of course, the Jersey child abuse disaster – or, to quote Phil Bailhache, the “so-called child abuse scandal”.

Got that? “So-called.” And remember – this man is head of the Jersey judiciary – the judiciary which – in theory – will be dealing with all criminal and civil legal matters arising from this episode.

The vast majority of the clear and unambiguous child abuses – and gross failings of the system are historic. But not all.

And it is the handling of this issue and the response by the Jersey authorities to it which has been so catastrophically disastrous as to be beyond parody.

But as I said – it isn’t only the child abuse disaster which has finally caught up with the Jersey oligarchy.

The consequences of at least three decades of misrule are so numerous as to require a book to itemise. But just to briefly describe some of the problems.

Jersey has a cost-base at least equal to that of central London.

Over 10% of the population live in relative poverty according to EU definitions.

This is in an island which possesses the second-highest GDP per capita in Europe. A rich community then, at first glance. But one in which wealth distribution is appallingly deficient – to an extent that would make Margaret Thatcher’s Britain appear positively socialist by comparison.

Even a majority of ordinary people above that poverty threshold struggle desperately to make ends meet here.

The cost of the average family starter-home is now – astonishingly – over £500,000.

Our economy is essentially a mono-economy – with at least 80% of our GDP arising from the off-shore finance sector. We are, therefore, immensely vulnerable to economic melt-down.

Jersey’s ‘strategic reserve’ – our equivalent to a Sovereign Wealth Fund – if one could describe it as such – is not even equivalent to one year’s public sector expenditure.

We are burdened with manifestly un-payable pension scheme debts, running to hundreds of millions of pounds.

To the anger of most of the population we are still destroying the island’s environment with over-development.

And then we come to taxation. Where to begin?

The Jersey oligarchy has introduced a range of radical changes to the islands’ tax system; this as a result of EU pressure.

But – hey! Wouldn’t you know it – the changes brought in just so happen – by remarkable co-incidence – to make tax-dodging even easier for the local rich – like most States members now I come to mention it – and are even more regressive and burdensome upon ordinary people.

The flagship component of these policies being a Goods and Services Tax.

A tax not based upon the ability to pay – essentially, a kind of poll-tax which applies at full rate – even to such essentials as basic foodstuffs.

So, in pretty much every way, the anger of the public and the mood for change has never been greater.

The first round of Jersey’s general election is a mere five months away. These elections are – inevitably – going to be a night-of-the-long-knives as far as many existing members are concerned.

Any honest assessment of Jersey politics right now would have to conclude that at least two-thirds of the existing members are vulnerable to defeat.

Now, the average States member isn’t terribly bright. But as elections approach, a discernable animal survival instinct kicks-in. This is to be observed in the sudden welter of parliamentary questions, propositions and amendments from members who have been pretty somnolent for the previous two-and-a-half years.

Members who vanished days after getting elected – as inscrutably as Lord Lucan -suddenly reappear – manifested as radical and rebellious back-benchers.

But even this approach – clearly – isn’t going to save a number of them this time around, such is the public mood at present.

Now – against this already very grim backdrop – what do you think might be the worst conceivable – the most nightmarish – the most dreadful decision – the average member could be asked to make right now?

The vote in the island’s parliament that they would most hate to be confronted with?

The decision, the making of which causes them to wake at night in cold sweats?

Yep – you got it.

Who said politics isn’t fun?

The vote of no-confidence against Frank & his Council will be won by him, decisively; my proposition will be defeated.

But – Oh dear – those poor States members. For as well as already facing a metaphorical chain-sawing in the forthcoming elections in any event – they can now enter the political abattoir freighted with the terminal, crushing burden of having recently voted to keep in post the most hated political leader Jersey has ever had.

Doesn’t the prospect just give you a nice warm glow inside?

But setting aside the entertainment value – which one has to find in politics occasionally, or you’d go mad – there is a serious reason for proceeding in this way.

The condition of the polity in Jersey is even worse than one might imagine.

Even beset with a variety of profound and intractable problems as Jersey is – even having failed so publicly in something as fundamental as child protection – things are actually worse than this.

Even at times of crisis, politicians and governments strive to maintain the appearance of control; of governance; of actually having a grip on the destiny of the society they govern. Politics – especially in democratic societies – is a ‘confidence game’.

Every political leader knows that they must assume the cloak of authority, wisdom and serenity – no matter how cataclysmic the crisis erupting behind them.

The instant that façade of control is swept aside – the very moment the politicians are revealed to be thrashing around in blind panic – they’re finished.

So for all the confidence-man projections of people like Frank & Co – in reality a roiling mass of chaos underlies the veneer of good government.

And I will provide you with a striking and profound example of that at the end of this post.

I called this blog ‘Thoughts on the Microcosm’ because Jersey can be seen as just that – a microcosm of the industrialised world. And – as we all know – that world is imperilled in so many ways – just as is Jersey.

The great poet, W. B. Yeats wrote a poem ‘The Second Coming’ – from which I select a few lines here –

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,”

And –

“Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.”

And –

“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

I’m not religious – but one doesn’t need to be.

The metaphor is striking.

“The centre cannot hold”.

It cannot hold in the industrialised world – and, with Jersey being ahead of the curve – it most certainly cannot hold here. Dispassionate observers might wish to watch Jersey – and take lessons from the errors, lack of wisdom, short-termism and hubris of its leaders.

Fascinatingly – even businessmen in Jersey can see this, to some extent, at least – and are profoundly worried.

Several of the people I know with serious business interests in Jersey have candidly said to me that Frank Walker is finished – that he should go – that he is an embarrassment to Jersey and a liability to its economy.

OK – the same people have also said to me they wouldn’t want me taking over in his place. But don’t worry boys – I wouldn’t touch it with the proverbial s**t house broom – now that all there is to assume responsibility for is a mangled heap of smoking wreckage.

But what is plain from these discussions is the degree of despair they feel when surveying the political landscape in Jersey – and trying to imagine who, from the conservative Right, could possibly take over?

They used to tremble in fear at the prospect of Phillip Ozouf becoming top-dog – a man who, in his rabid and juvenile market-fundamentalism could have been lifted straight from the Young Conservatives circa 1983.

But as is plain now – he has about as much chance of getting re-elected as Mike Vibert.

Which is to say – not a lot.

Terry Le Sueur, who will assume the mantel of Our Glorious Leader when Frank goes, is also seen as a profound liability. Deeply unpopular – and thus likely to foment even more political dissent amongst the usually quiescent Jersey population.

So who is left as possible candidates as Supreme Leader of the Jersey oligarchy?

There are the three up-and-coming Golden Boys of the Jersey establishment – Freddy Cohen, Ian Gorst and Alan MacLean.

Each three of these Jersey politicians comes with baggage – not least that when the next elections occur, they will have served only three years in office; not a great measure of experience or credibility, then.

Looking briefly at each:

Freddie Cohen has lost substantial amounts of popularity because of his decisions as Planning Minister – not to mention his predilection for Ozymandian over-development projects.

But being a shrewd operator, he is already laying the groundwork for his exit from Frank’s Council. During a TV interview just the other night, he said that if his master-plan for St. Helier’s Waterfront didn’t get approved by the States, he would resign as Minister.

Three birds with one stone.

He sheds the unpopular Planning portfolio – in order to attempt to rebuild some popularity; he gets out of a Council of Ministers which is manifestly in a state of utter chaos and disrepute – and he has an excuse to go – rather than being seen as a traitor to Frank.

Clever, no?

So what of Ian Gorst? A man palpably struggling to reconcile his supposed Christianity with his allegiance to the-devil-take-the-hindmost rabid materialism of Ozouf’s de facto political party – to which he is supposed to be loyal.

Then we have Alan – vote-for-me-for-GST-exemptions – MacLean; a man who made such a brazen betrayal of election promises as to be truly startling – even by Jersey standards. He is going to try his hand in the island-wide Senatorial election – in the hope that Jersey voters in general won’t notice his betrayal of his constituents in St. Helier number 2 district.

Perhaps, when writing his manifesto, he was gripped by a particularly severe form of the Orwellian parapraxia which seems to afflict Jersey politicians so frequently?

So there you have the Jersey establishment’s three Golden Boys.

Hardly confidence-inspiring is it?

So what, alas, do the money-men and oligarchs do to keep their show on the road?

You know – I’m really not sure there is anything to be done.

It had to happen sooner or later – after decades and decades of unopposed power – of greed – of shallow materialism – of naked self-interest – fate had to finally catch up with the Jersey oligarchy.

And so it has.

The Jersey establishment assert that my assessment of the present condition of politics here is exaggerated, over-blown and somehow extremist.

As I have so often in this blog, I invite readers to make their own assessment; come to their own conclusions.

I said earlier that I would supply you with a striking and profound example of the chaos – the dissolution – the “mere anarchy” – which Jersey politics has finally arrived at.

And I say – don’t take my word for it; think about this example – and judge for yourselves.

The Jersey Health & Social Services Minister, Senator Ben Shenton is the politician in Jersey with legal and political responsibly for child protection.

His assistant Minister, Senator Jimmy Perchard, has been given specific responsibility for Social Services – and its attendant child protection brief.

Both men have repeatedly – and pro-actively – and publicly – attacked the Police investigation into the Jersey child abuse disaster.

Now – ask yourselves a simple question:

In how many respectable democratic societies would you find THE politicians with political and legal responsibility for child protection – openly attacking a police investigation into child abuse?

You really just couldn’t make it up – tragically.

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.



The people have spoken!

Read the analysis tomorrow.

But just to be going on with – consider:

530 votes.

470 ‘yes’.

60 ‘no’.

That’s 88.68% of those voting wanting to be rid of Big Frank.

So what happens next?

Watch this space.




The rich and powerful try to smear him.

The Jersey police response to Daily Mail:

Read it below this post.

And give Mr. Harper your support.

Before going onto serious matters – remember Frank Walker. You can cast your vote in my poll. The question is just on the right here. It’s attracted over 300 votes so far.

Keep them coming.

Moving onto decidedly non-entertaining matters – you may have read in today’s Daily Mail – a Right-wing United Kingdom tabloid newspaper – an article which attempts to undermine and smear the Police Officer leading the Jersey child abuse enquiry, Lenny Harper.

In response to the publication of that article, the States of Jersey Police Force have issued a statement to all media.

I reproduce that statement in its entirety below this post.

It speaks for itself, so I won’t repeat its contents. Read it carefully – and compare and contrast it with the Daily Mail article.

Instead I would like us to have a think about why some individuals and organisations are clearly so indecently desperate to rubbish the investigation.

Jersey is, essentially, a single-party state. Imagine, if you will, a fiefdom – an extraordinarily wealthy place; an environment which serves extremely well as a piece of money-making apparatus for both its entrenched elites – and those who use Jersey.

Broadly, in fact, the kind of place which serves Daily Mail readers. The Mail, if not the most widely read national newspaper in Jersey, is certainly very close to being so.

The Mail has always been a Right-wing publication – indeed, at certain points in its history – extremely Right-wing – as I will explain later.

The Jersey establishment – for all that it’s a small grouping – is extraordinarily well-connected with the British establishment and the resultant levers of power. Indeed, the influence the Jersey oligarchy appears to wield seems – almost – inexplicable.

For example, the official representative of the United Kingdom authorities in Jersey is the “Lieutenant Governor” – ostensibly sent down here to represent the Crown – but in practice, reporting to the government in London.

Yet rather than do what they’re supposed to be doing – protecting the good name of the Crown by keeping a sceptical watching eye on the local oligarchs and shysters – they seem to arrive here as though their job description simply read: –

“To be immediately co-opted by the local spivs – and do all you can to enable and support them in maintaining their oppressions, exploitations and abuse of the great unwashed in Jersey.”

A former Lieutenant Governor, back in the 1990’s even infamously boasted of the fact, as he put it, that “Jersey has friends at Court at Whitehall.”

Of course – what he was actually saying was that the Jersey oligarchy “has friends at Court at Whitehall.”

Actually – the very opposite arrangement to the ordinary people of Jersey having such allies.

The present Lieutenant Governor – General Andrew Ridgway, CB, CBE – has been pro-actively supporting the Jersey establishment throughout the child abuse episode.

Even to the point of pro-actively attempting to smear me to third parties by saying words to the effect – “don’t have anything to do with Syvret; he’s merely emotionally abusing the victims for his own political ends.”

This is, of course, a brazen lie – but sadly the kind of thing I long grew used to in Jersey politics. But I wonder if Her Majesty knows what he and the Jersey Crown appointees are doing and saying in the name of the Crown?

You may recollect I wrote some time ago to Jack Straw, MP – the UK Justice Secretary – asking him to use his undoubted constitutional powers to require the good administration of justice in Jersey – it being as-plain-as-day that the entire Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus is hopelessly conflicted as far as the Jersey child abuse disaster is concerned.

But Ridgway & Co – and, naturally, the “Friends at Court at Whitehall” – have ridden to the rescue of the Jersey oligarchy – again – just like the 7th Cavalry. All I’ve had are absurd missives from one of Straw’s minions.

It is clear that Straw is not going to intervene – in which case the clear breakdown in the objective administration of justice in Jersey will continue unchecked.

Which is why we’re hoping to launch a legal action against him in London for a Judicial Review of his handling of the Jersey crisis. With luck we’ll get this off the ground in the next few weeks.

I don’t know – but I could hazard a pretty good guess – as to why the political authorities in the UK never dare to really get tough with the Jersey oligarchy.

No doubt more than a few senior political figures in the UK have made use of the island’s finance industry.

Let’s face it – there has to be some rational explanation as to why they would prefer to tolerate a justice system down here which is so conflicted and stagnant that a 15 year-old could point out its failings.

And of course – “New Labour” are in a little difficulty right now. And the Daily Mail has made it plain it now supports the Jersey establishment and its culture-of-concealment.

Now, the Daily Mail is not well-disposed towards the Labour party at the best of times – but with Labour in the process of crashing and burning – what chance of that party’s government taking the opposite position to such an influential newspaper?

Nil – of course.

But one has to ask – as with the Jersey Evening Post – whether the Daily Mail is worth courting – in any respectable sense?

As explained in previous posts, the JEP – or The Rag as it is colloquially known down here – spent the years of Nazi occupation during World War II churning out – extremely profitably – orders, propaganda and diktats on behalf of the Nazis.

A past it has strenuously avoided confronting.

A bit like the Daily Mail, actually.

What – we must wonder – would the approach of the Daily Mail been had Nazi forces occupied Britain?

We don’t have to wonder too hard.

The Daily ‘Heil’.

Lord Harold Rothermere, who took control of the paper when his brother died in 1922, became an enthusiastic supporter of Nazis and fascists.

Rothermere wrote an article, titled “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”, in early 1934 in support of Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.

Mosley’s fascism – apparently – displaying a “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”, according to Rothermere, who became a friend and supporter of both Hitler and Mussolini.

Rothemere even sent Hitler a telegram in October 1938 in support of Germany’s invasion of the Sudetenland in which he expressed the hope that “Adolf the Great” would become a popular figure in Britain.

The Daily Mail – or Daily ‘Heil’ as many Britains still call it – remained the only British newspaper to support Hitler and the Nazis. Quite extraordinarily – it maintained this stance right up until 1939 – only changing its allegiance when threatened with closure for treason.

These days, whilst preferring to keep silent about its embarrassing Nazi past, The Daily Heil still peddles a kind of low-grade crypto-fascism, with continuous attacks upon immigrants, gay people, gypsies and women.

Some things simply don’t require parody – the reality says it all.

In order to gauge where this paper is coming from – and just how seriously it can be taken – consider its contents.

Today’s edition of the Heil includes stories that peddle hatred against gay people who wish to reproduce, how to clone your dog – and a text-book example of the Daily Heil scare story. Did you know that women are going to simply re-produce “hybrids by the million”? And that men are to be “exterminated”?

No – I confess I hadn’t picked up on that either.

It also routinely includes a raft of undisguisedly misogynistic stories about women – including regular columns, the sole purpose of which appears to be the denigration of females – usually written by women, for appearances sake.

Turning to the article which attacks Lenny Harper, it contains a raft of inaccuracies.

Insofar as they concern Mr. Harper and the States of Jersey Police Force – I’ll let the Police statement below speak for itself.

But just to take a couple of the other inaccuracies. The article implies that people in Jersey are all pretty well-off, given that it has the second highest GDP per capita in Europe. What is not said is that distribution of this wealth is appalling, with 10% of the resident population living in relative poverty according to EU definitions.

The article goes on to say that the effect of the publicity has been “devastating” for the island’s economy. Err – no it hasn’t. There may have been some, very slight, impact on tourism – but the fact is that at least 80% of the island’s GDP comes from finance sector related activities. Not that the Jersey establishment will admit this degree of dependency.

The article, by Andrew Malone, is cleverly written. In fairness to the author – he does, at several points, emphasise that – even setting aside the possibility of murders – it is pretty clear that Jersey is, indeed, facing a child abuse scandal of profound seriousness and scale.

He correctly reports some of the details of the abuse disaster.

But there is no escaping from the fact that the over-arching purpose of the article – and certainly the manner in which it was sub-edited and headlined – was to expressly attempt to undermine Lenny Harper.

And knowing just how well-connected the Jersey establishment is – I don’t think we need wonder too long as to why the Daily Heil should have adopted this approach.

Let me explain the truth; the reason why the Jersey establishment and its UK allies have decided they have to attempt to bring down Harper.

As I have written in previous posts, I had concluded early last year – through my own investigations – that Jersey was concealing a catastrophic cultural failure in its child protection systems. No suggestions of child deaths had been made to me – but, frankly, they didn’t need to be.

It was plain, on the evidence, that the abuse disaster was horrifying enough in itself.

The ordinary people of Jersey form a very good community. It is a beautiful island, and – in the main – a good place to live. But we must not be blinded to the defects which the Jersey child abuse disaster has exposed.

I am a Jerseyman of very ancient pedigree. I know this island extremely well. I know what is good about it – but I also know what is not good about it.

What is not good is the near-total stagnation of the upper-reaches of public administration in the island; the profoundly unhealthy overlap between the legislature and the judiciary; the monopoly of power held by the local oligarchy – and the near-complete breakdown of effective checks and balances.

How bad is that breakdown?

It pains me to say this, being a Jerseyman, but the clear – and awful truth is this:

None of these investigations would be taking place if the present leadership of the Jersey police force was ‘indigenous’.

As the Mail article itself acknowledges – there have been decades of concealment of the most foul and monstrous child abuses.

Do we really need to pose the questions: “why have those atrocities been concealed for that huge period of time? Why are they being exposed only now – in the 21st century?”

If the Jersey establishment were capable of properly regulating itself – it would have done so – a long time ago.

Instead – it has taken brave men like Lenny Harper – men from outside of Jersey – to expose the truth.

The Jersey oligarchy knows this.

This is why they have to attempt to destroy him.

Anyone concerned with the welfare and protection of children – and exposing the abuses of the past – should fight back against these attacks.

Mr Harper deserves our support and gratitude.


Statement Issued by the States of Jersey Police Force.

“Lenny Harper, the Deputy Chief Officer of this force and the Senior Investigating Officer of the Historical Abuse Enquiry, does not want to enter into any exchange of allegations and counter allegations which would deflect attention from the investigation he is currently focused on and which involves allegations of horrific abuse against children in Jersey. It should also be emphasised that the enquiry is looking at much more that just Haut de la Garenne. However, the article by Andrew Malone in the Daily Mail of 24th May 2008 is so inaccurate, and misleading, even to the extent here it contains a number of alleged quotes which were simply never made by Mr Harper, that there is a need to respond.

The writer was given the full outline of what the police were told but has chosen not to use it. That information is summarised below and it will be for the public to make their minds up as to why the author of the report has ignored it and why he has included quotes from Mr Harper which were never made. The States of Jersey Police Press Officer made a full contemporaneous transcript of what Mr Harper said during the interview, (although not of Malone), and this is available for examination for anyone who wishes to check the accuracy of the quotes attributed to the DCO by Mr Malone.

The Anthropologist working with the enquiry team looked at the item when it was found on site and made a preliminary identification of it as a piece of a child’s skull. It was then sent to the Laboratory concerned and they took possession of it on 6th March.

On 14th March they informed the SOJP of their test results, and in particular the result of their test for nitrogen. It had 0.6% they said, whereas the cut-off for dating a bone was 0.76. They then reported, “This tells us something about the potential age of the specimen of bone since if it was very recent (50 Years) we ought to see a better degree of preservation.” They went on to say, “The fact that preservation is so poor leads us to conclude that there is a high probability that the bone is much older than it is suspected to be, perhaps much older than a century or two. That said, it is also possible (although the probability is much lower) that the bone is recent but simply very poorly preserved due to the depositional environment within which it has lain since interment. We cannot exclude this as a possible explanation.” They went on to say that there was not enough collagen to date the bone. (Collagen is a protein only found in mammals including humans, but not in wood etc.)

As can be seen – there is absolutely no indication despite laboratory tests that they disagreed with our Anthropologist. In fact they seemed to support what we were being told by experts with us that the fragment was in a context which placed it outside our enquiry.

On 20th March the lab contacted the SOJP again. They said they had made an error and that the collagen level was actually better than originally thought. There was enough to date it – in fact there was 1.6% and only 1% was needed. Remember, this substance is found in mammals including human but not in wood etc.

On the 28th March they contacted the SOJP again and said, “Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone.” They then described the nature of the acid wash they had given and said “The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all which suggested that preservation was poor.” She went on to confirm that they had originally told us it was unlikely they could date it and that they had revised this when they found the levels of collagen described above. Now, she said, they were reverting to their original position that they could not date it because they now thought that it could not be collagen “unless it is extremely degraded.” She added, “So any date we get might not be an accurate date for the skull itself.” As can be seen, there was still no indication to contradict our information and indeed it corroborated what the archaeologists were telling us. As a result of the information about the Archaeological context, we had now eliminated the item from the investigation.

On 31 March they rang again. They now, for the first time, said they had some concern about what the item was “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.” Over the next few days they continued to say that “we do not think this is bone unless it is very old bone.”

On Saturday 17th May they were asked if they were now saying it was definitively not bone. They said that they did not believe it to be bone but if we wanted a definitive answer then we should have it re-examined. To date, although the opinion is now less conclusive, the SOJ Police have not had a definitive contradiction of the original belief.

In respect of the article itself, there are a number of total inaccuracies, too many to contradict them all. Here however, are those which could be said to be the most significant.

The item found which is the subject of the controversy, is not “a smooth white object” as described by Mr Malone. That description could not be further from the truth.

Mr Harper has never, and all responsible media have acknowledged that he has not, said that six more bodies might be found. He described six areas of interest which had to be explored and which included the cellars now the focus of this aspect of the enquiry.

Mr Harper never moved to quell suggestions that shackles and a bath had been found in the cellar because quite simply, they had been. Furthermore, their find corroborated the evidence of a number of victims. The SOJ Police have never confirmed until now that shackles were found. We do now, and also for the first time, confirm that a second pair of what appear to be “home made” restraints were also discovered.

A number of other items were found which corroborated the stories of the victims. Again, whilst we do not want to elaborate, some of these items corroborate the fact that sexual activity took place in the area of interest. Further tests have obtained a DNA profile from one of these items, and enquiries have dated at least one of the articles as originating from the time of the enquiry.

Mr Harper has never, in spite of Mr Malone’s claims, “admitted” that he knew the fragment was a coconut shell. This is clearly because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to say that. Furthermore, the DCO never said he had made a mistake. He acknowledged that “some people think I got the decision wrong – it is something I can’t reverse now. Would my answer have been different? The honest answer is I really don’t know.”

Mr Harper has NEVER said “We don’t now think it is bone or skull.” He did not say it to Mr Malone or anyone else. As stated above, the transcript of exactly what Mr Harper said in this interview is available for anyone who would like to see it.

Mr Harper has NEVER said to Mr Malone at any time during the interview that he wanted “maximum publicity so that people here could not cover up what went on at this children’s home.” In fact, he did state that the people of Jersey had been “fantastic.” This comment by Mr Malone is a slur on all of those members of the public in Jersey who have encouraged the enquiry team and whose overwhelming support has meant so much.

The claim that Mr Harper has agreed to write a book and is actively engaged in that process is nonsense. This rumour was being spread by at least one politician in Jersey this week who stated that a deal had already been signed with publishers. This has led to one Jersey media outlet contacting what they described as a publisher this week and asking for details on the pretence that they wished to serialise the book. The position is simple. Mr Harper has been asked by a number of persons, journalists included, if he would be interested in writing a book on his career including the present. His answer has been the same to all. At this moment in time he is fully focussed and committed to the enquiry. He retires in September and will not even consider such a matter until then. He would also point out that it is not unusual for Police Officers and other public servants be approached in this fashion. Mr Harper has not instigated any contact of this type.

Mr Harper was not “forced to admit” that the fragments might be 500 years old. In any event he never said that. Examination of the media release will show that he said there was conflicting evidence from experts – some information was showing one of the fragments to be at the most recent end of the enquiry’s parameters, whilst other evidence was pointing to well before the enquiry began. We have always said we do not have evidence of murder.

From the perspective of the Enquiry Team the most disappointing aspect of this article is the total disregard for the welfare of the victims of the abuse. This week has seen them being labelled by certain politicians in Jersey as “people with criminal records.” Additionally, the article contains interesting similarities to the words used by some of those publicly trying to discredit the enquiry. The focus of the SOJ Police has always been, and will remain to be, those victims who have placed their trust in the force to try and obtain justice for them. These increasing inaccurate attacks will not deflect the investigation.

Mr Harper has drawn the attention of the editor of the Daily Mail to the inaccuracies and has mad a formal complaint to the Independent Press Complaints Commission.

States of Jersey Police
24th May 2008”




Let your views be known by voting on my newly added poll feature.

Hate Jersey’s present government?

Here is your opportunity to say so.

Should Big Frank face a vote of no-confidence for his disastrous leadership?

Should the collection of passive non-entities who comprise most of our parliament be forced to nail their colours to the mast – with only five months to go before the first round of Jersey’s general election?

Just so the public can see whose side they’re on?

I’d really rather not be wasting my time on such exercises, when I could be working on my novel instead (expressions of interest from agents or publishers welcome) but as I explain below – it is actually a serious matter.

And someone has to do it.

There are a number of quite entertaining pros & cons in taking forward a vote of no-confidence – a few of which I will explore below.

But before going onto them – let us refresh our memory as to the seriousness of the cabinet failure we are considering.

So – Jersey – presently facing up to a child abuse disaster which has been described as unprecedented in scale for such a small geographic area.

Additionally still, at time of writing – and contrary to the impressions given by certain media reports – facing the possibility of child murders having been committed. Let us hope not – but we are still left with the abuse disaster.

The island’s oligarchy making the right noises about supporting the police – but in reality making fundamental attacks upon the investigation – as Frank Walker and Phil Bailhache did when hi-jacking Jersey’s national holiday, Liberation Day, to make partisan political speeches to attack the investigation, the national media and, by imputation, people like me who have fought for the survivors of abuse.

A Chief Minister and Council of Ministers which – last July, basically decided to have me sacked for giving an honest answer in the island’s parliament – when I said I had no faith in the child protection apparatus of Jersey. Apparently “publicly criticising” the child “protection” system in this way was – “undermining staff moral”.

And, of course, “undermining staff moral” – as we all know – is a far more profound and heinous offence than those staff exhibiting gross multi-agency failure to save a child from 18 months of appaling abuse at the hands of two paedophiles.

And publicly criticising the service – for not preventing the institutional abuse of children in custody by subjecting them to lengthy periods of punitive and coercive solitary confinement – is obviously of far greater concern than keeping a self-harming child with severe emotional difficulties in solitary confinement for two months.

Of course – the real events I describe in the above three paragraphs are all appaling, grotesque – and completely unacceptable by any civilised standard of child protection.

But – not, apparently, as far as Frank, his Council of Ministers, their carefully selected ‘expert’ advisers (advisers who are so ‘expert’ they have no grasp of the principle of ‘in loco parentis’), senior civil servants and the great majority of States members are concerned.

The evidence for a range of profound failings on the part of Jersey’s child protection apparatus was – contrary to the assertions the oligarchy made at the time – there to be seen and absorbed – ten months ago.

Yet Senator Walker and his council of Ministers and most members of the States chose to side with a clique of manifestly corrupt, incompetent, idle, dishonest and over-paid senior civil servants.

The above-described catalogue of misjudgement, stupidity, ignorance, irresponsibility – and cynical political opportunism on the part of all these clowns unfolded before they, or I, knew of the covert Police investigation.

I had reached my own – accurate – conclusions quite independently. I did this on the basis of clear evidence, and of personal testimony provided to me by whistle-blowers, witnesses and victims.

Much of this evidence was available to the Jersey establishment back then – but they simply were not interested in the facts; even to the point of “fast-tracking” a Council of Ministers’ meeting to decide to seek my dismissal – precisely to make sure I had minimal opportunity and time to accumulate further evidence.

As events have shown – I was right.

They were wrong.

But – let us be extraordinarily charitable and assume that the well-documented ignorance and stupidity of the Jersey establishment led them astray.

So – let us bring the narrative forward to late November – when the States of Jersey Police Force first publicly announced they had been conducting a covert investigation into systemic and historic child abuse.

Surely – it became clear, that instant, that the Jersey oligarchy had “backed the wrong horse”?

Surely – one would imagine – a little contrition, at least, from the Council of Ministers and from those States members who voted with them?

But, no – there has been expressed not one iota of recognition that they had, essentially, sided with a corrupted, disastrous and catastrophically failed child “protection” system.

But did they – in the coming weeks and months – at least have the common sense and decency to remain silent on the subject?

Not a bit of it.

In what was the lowest, most foul, despicable and disgusting event in the entire history of the States assembly – I was shouted down, stopped from speaking and had my microphone switched off – whilst I was attempting to give, as Father of the House, a speech of recognition and empathy to abuse survivors.

My speech being the very first occasion – ever – that a member of the States had stood to acknowledge the suffering of the victims.

But the assembly proceeded to disgrace itself – utterly.

But that episode was, in many respects, symbolic of what the States of Jersey has become. It was appalling enough – but of less concern than the practical considerations insofar as child protection is concerned.

And it is in this respect that Frank Walker and his Council of Ministers – and I include Senator Ben Shenton and his Assistant Minister, Senator Jimmy Perchard in this analyses – are still exhibiting a disastrous and dangerous incompetence.

As has been explored on this blog and elsewhere on numerous occasions – there are a variety of well-evidenced examples of dishonest, manipulative, professionally negligent and dangerous conduct on the part of a number of senior civil servants.

This evidence is well-known to Frank, Ben, Jimmy & Co.

Yet they have chosen to side with these failed – and very expensive – senior civil servants – rather than with the public interest.

Even to the point of exculpating Joe Kennedy – the boss of the Greenfields secure unit – who they have allowed to return to work.

Let us remind ourselves of what the evidence concerning Mr. Kennedy is:

He designed and ran a regime in the child secure unit which was barbaric, harmful – and clearly unlawful – no matter what Frank’s poodles, like Mr Williamson, may say.

This so-called “Grand Prix” regime included such practices as automatic strip-searches, compulsory showers, initial 24 hours in solitary confinement for all admissions – regardless of need, the use of extended periods of solitary confinement – on a punitive and coercive basis – frequently for three days – but with some victims being kept in such isolation for two months – to the point of mental breakdown.

Kennedy bullied and oppressed staff.

He lied to politicians and the media concerning his Grand Prix regime.

He quite improperly gave a post to a candidate he was having an affair with – rather than the better candidate (Kennedy being a notorious womaniser, though married).

He placed his employers – the States of Jersey – in a position in which they were hours away from taking the stand at Simon Bellwood’s employment tribunal – on the basis of a raft of perjured evidence – much of which Kennedy was responsible for. (This, incidentally, is why the management case collapsed.)

The Jersey civil service – and their poodle-politicians – set up a supposed enquiry into Mr. Kennedy’s conduct. The terms of reference – which Mr. Bellwood and I objected to at the out-set – were clearly designed to exculpate Kennedy.

They were so rigged because – if Kennedy had been found to be culpable – on similar grounds so would Phil Dennett, Linda Dodds, Marnie Baudians, Madeleine Davies, Mike Pollard, Mario Lundy and Bill Ogley himself.

This because the chain of failure in this case spread so far upwards.

So Jersey’s finest politicians – such as its Ministers – including Ben Shenton and his Assistant, Jimmy Perchard – have exhibited themselves utterly incapable of enforcing anything remotely approaching accountability on the island’s senior civil servants.

They have allowed Jersey’s so-called child “protection” apparatus to remain in the hands of a clique of defective senior officers – many of whom have been on-the-scene during the various episodes of appalling child abuse over the last couple of decades.

People who – at best – failed to stop the abuse.

Therefore – this is not a Council of Ministers which is taking child protection seriously. For all that they will assert the contrary – talk is cheap when it comes to child protection; everyone – indeed, even un-exposed paedophiles if asked – would claim to strongly support child protection.

So we cannot judge people – especially politicians – on the basis of mere assertion.

We must judge them on their actions.

And on this basis – this Council of Ministers must go.

Senator Ben Shenton has proven to be hopeless – to my great disappointment. I used to have some confidence that this man could be an effective politician – a more centrist counter-weight to the far-right market-fundamentalism of people like Walker, Ozouf and Le Sueur.

Instead – not only is he incapable of suspending a few civil servants who have demonstrably lied, schemed, manipulated and been dangerously incompetent. He has also denigrated the Police investigation – making insulting and disparaging remarks about Lenny Harper.

And this is the politician who carries legal and public responsibility for child protection in Jersey.

Christ help us.

As somebody famous once remarked – ‘people never cease to disappoint me’. I plough through the festering midden that is politics for 18 years – hoping – very occasionally – I’ve met someone of the same kind of strength and integrity I attempt to exhibit.

And so rare are such encounters, one often – out of sheer desperation – takes them at face value – only to always be let down; always disappointed.

So it was with Ben Shenton.

But what of his new-found political ally, friend and boss, Senator Frank Walker?

For there is no prospect of acceptable performance from Frank Walker.

For all his, rough, tough, hard-man of financial rigour and efficiency image, Senator Frank Walker always was, ultimately, a week, spineless and pathetic little man – witness his inability to even assert enough authority to deal properly with Joe Kennedy. Walker is utterly lost – without some senior civil servant to hold his hand and steer him. I strongly suspect this dependency of his may well explain his simple inability to ever stand up to the Jersey civil service and in doing so, defend the public good.

Think I’m too harsh?

Frank Walker has played an absolutely central role in both public sector finances and employment policies and practices pretty much from the year he was first elected nearly 18 years ago.

The result?

A public sector which has a bloated, inefficient, out-of-control and wholly unaccountable senior civil service.

A public sector spend in excess of half-a-billion pounds per annum.

And terrifyingly vast public sector pension scheme debts.

This particular emperor is naked.

But what, then, are we to make of the response of the average member of the States?

Given that in any respectable democracy the Government would have fallen over such a catastrophic catalogue of misjudgements – where have our back-benchers been?

Where are the demands for the resignation of Walker & Co?

Where has been the vote of no-confidence, which would have been tabled months ago in any respectable legislature?

Nowhere – of course.

Just as there has not been so much as one, single public apology or recantation from any of those members who, effectively, chose to side with child abusers and those who would conceal child abuse.

So – all-in-all – the polity of Jersey is in its most wretched state ever.

And not only because of the Jersey child abuse disaster.

There are a variety of other woes which beset this community right now – in addition to a range of profoundly problematic issues in which this community will reap what its Glorious Leaders have sown during the last three decades.

And believe me – the prospect of that particular ‘harvest’ does not make for pleasant contemplation.

I won’t bore you now with the all these other reasons why the current regime have failed disastrously. If you want an idea of what I’m referring to – check out my post called “The Horsfall/Walker Years”, posted on the 22nd February.

But being politically realistic – let us reflect upon one or two of the pros & cons of bringing a vote of no-confidence against Frank & Co; these being pretty obvious, but you might want to consider them before casting your vote on my poll.

Actually – thinking about it – some of them are both pros & cons. For example:

The proposition has precisely zero chance of being carried. I might get five, or seven votes at a stretch – out of an assembly of 53 elected members.

So – this could be seen as a negative. This outcome will be promoted, and perceived by the more gullible – as a resounding vote of confidence in Frank & Co. Me and the other reprobate scum will be depicted as marginal and irrelevant.

But it could also be seen as a pro. For even though we know a victory for Frank is guaranteed – it forces the elected representatives of the Jersey people – all those States members – to openly align with one side or the other.

And as we approach Jersey’s general election – what better guidance could the average voter wish for – than seeing which sitting members are pro-establishment Walkerites?

Now, the forthcoming elections are going to be a ‘night of the long knives’ in any event – quite without the prospect of sitting members being seen to have supported Walker. To those familiar with Jersey politics – it’s clear and obvious that at least two thirds of the present members must be regarded as at risk of defeat anyway.

Add to this scenario members having supported the most unpopular political leader Jersey has ever had – and one could quite easily imagine only about ten or twelve of the present members being returned to office.

Turning to one of the negatives – I will be accused of political opportunism; of “using” the situation for political purposes.

To which I say three things –

Firstly – I couldn’t give a monkey’s.

Secondly – the Jersey oligarchy is already pro-actively running such a smear campaign against me – and has done so from the very day the Police first went public with their investigation; so nothing new in that respect.

Thirdly – it, apparently, doesn’t occur to Frank, his Council and the average States member that they all used the situation politically – quite cynically – to get rid of me.

Back when they thought – in typical Jersey culture-of-concealment mode – “get rid of Syvret – problem solved”.

At a time when we were not aware of the Police investigation.

But – turning to another positive; such a vote has to be tabled. It would have happened months ago in any respectable legislature; and I have waited in vain for another member to take it forward. But none has.

It therefore falls – un-avoidably – to me to bring the no-confidence motion; and I say un-avoidably – because the public interest requires that there be such a vote.

So, there are just a few of the considerations relevant to the bringing a vote of no-confidence against Frank Walker and his crew.

Should we do it?

Yes or no?

And remember – the victory of Walker in the vote could be the historic catalyst for finally breaking the oligarchy’s monopoly of power.

Who knows what effect the outcome of the vote could have on Jersey politics?

Possibly a credible, organised opposition?


Watch this space.

In the mean time, cast your vote in my new poll feature at the head of the blog.

I promise I will take your views just as seriously as Frank & Co and most of the rest of the States did with the 19,000 signature petition which sought a delay in the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax.






Just a brief post which I thought my readers might find entertaining.

A group of Jersey citizens – representing a broad-cross section of our community – recently gathered at an event organised by a new group, Time4Change. This Sunday gathering elicited some very interesting discussions; observations and ideas driven by the present unprecedented wretched state of the Jersey polity.

Naturally, the gathering attracted the predictable de minimus coverage from The Rag – you know the kind of thing – as little as they thought it could get away with.

The piece was buried in the in the paper and used a photograph of one of the organisers briefly speaking with me about the timing of contributions to the discussion – but framed and used in a way quite calculatedly to appear as though we were discussing some foul, conspiratorial plot.

You know, I remarked in a recent post how the Jersey Evening Post happily – and very profitably – churned out Nazi propaganda and diktats when the island was under Nazi occupation during World War II. I also suggested that it was during this period The Rag learnt all its Nazi-like propaganda skills.

And I wasn’t joking.

A few of my commenters have submitted pieces concerning the occupation – and the money-raking, Nazi-arse-kissing habits of the Guiton Groups finest – owners of the JEP – back in those dark days.

I’m including those submissions in this post below my refused letter which I am posting – and would invite any other such submissions; they make fascinating reading, don’t they?

I’ve read a great deal about spin, propaganda and the calculated manipulation of public opinion by the rich and powerful. So I spot the tricks quite easily.

For example – the coverage The Nazi Rag gave to the Time4Chang meeting ticked many of the boxes on the Joseph Goebbels propaganda check-list.

Minimise the relevance of the gathering?


Minimise the public exposure of the event?


Calculated use of photographs to make people look conspiratorial and evil?


Focus the article on the peripheral and irrelevant?


Ignore the real issues that were being discussed?


Convey the impression, obliquely, that the organisers are some kind of dark and dangerous “enemy within”?


Indirectly and obliquely link the meeting with “the enemy without” – in this case the national media?


And refuse to print letters from the organisers, attendees and supporters?


The Jersey Evening Post uses this methodology time and time again whenever an anti-establishment story emerges. And it is the very methodology as used by the Nazis.

For example – whilst some Nazi propaganda was simply out-right crude statements of hate – people like Goebbels realised that to be really effective – propaganda had to be faintly credible; that it had to subtly massage people’s already extant prejudices.

The Rag has this approach off-to-a-T.

It doesn’t do anything so crude as to state “Syvret and Tadier Will Eat Your Grannies”.

Or, “All the International Media are in League With Syvret!”

No; what they do instead is simply imply a few subtle key “messages” – lies, in effect – deliberately designed to work with and upon peoples fears.

For example – it is hinted and imputed that people like me are simply dangerous trouble-makers whose only wish is to destroy the economy – thus implying “and all you decent people will be bankrupted if these people are not crushed.”

Or, as the coverage of the Time4Change gathering demonstrates, the message is: “these are just a tiny minority of disaffected and bitter trouble-makers. Really – 90% of people in Jersey actually love the island’s government.”

I suppose one of the things I’ve always found so puzzling is why the average Jersey Journalist should be so spineless, so devoid of ethics, so morally decayed, so weak, so fearful, so ignorant and so cowardly as to just not stand up to their bosses.

I mean – you’d think there might be one or two?

But no.

For example – why – when Denzil Dudley, Roger Barra, Mathew Price and John Uphoff decided that BBC Jersey was going to calculatedly and wilfully do all it possibly could to minimise publicity for the first BBC regional documentary program on the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, in order to support their establishment friends – did not the other staffers at BBC Jersey say: “this marginalising of the up-coming broadcast is bloody appalling – it’s disgusting pro-establishment bias – and we won’t put up with it!”?

But no – I guess as long as the pay-checks keep rolling in, it’s a case of just keeping your heads down and not upsetting the bosses.

The Jersey climate of fear – on open display amongst its journalist – in the year 2008.

Likewise at The Rag – most of the journos and sub-editors there exhibit about as much journalistic integrity – actually, about as much human decency – as a mob embarking upon a pogrom.

There are one or two honourable exceptions.

But, sadly Ben Queree isn’t one of them. He quite shamelessly does whatever is the bidding of his pay-masters; tries to entrap and stitch-up anti-establishment people – and writes the kind of crap described above in the report on the Time4Change meeting.

What is it with these people? If I worked there – or anywhere so devoid of ethics and of human decency – I’d tell them to shove their job.

I’d take my chances elsewhere – actually – as I have done with the cess-pit which is politics.

But not people like Ben. Maybe he hopes that if he plays his cards right in the service of his bosses he too will be able to settle in a retirement cottage on Sark?

You know – in a strange kind of way, I really hope these people are just being ‘bribed’ with huge ‘performance bonuses’.

It would be pretty disturbing if they were exhibiting such ethical betrayal of this community – and kissing their bosses arses – just because that’s what they wanted to do.

Anyway, returning to Queree’s article, in writing it he deliberately ignored most of what I had to say – but made a point of reporting my comment to the effect that ‘most States members were a bunch of idiots’.

So – all one can really do is just laugh at these clowns – Jersey journos and politicians alike.

Here is the letter I submitted to The Rag – which they didn’t print.

And below my letter, check out the very interesting submissions from readers of this blog on the ‘performance’ of the Jersey oligarchy and its Rag in the service of the occupying Nazis.

I know from my family some very interesting things concerning the Nazi Occupation.

Here’s just one little item: The Bailiff of Jersey during the occupation was one Alexander Coutanche – made a ‘Lord’ no-less – this in order to propagandise the angry population into thinking these Nazi-supporting and profiteering shysters were actually good leaders. The Jersey oligarchy propaganda surrounding this despicable clown is that he was some kind of towering beacon of wisdom – guiding this community through these difficult times.

Indeed – a simply vast portrait of him hangs in Jersey’s Royal Court.

This supposed heroic leader was, in fact, viewed with contempt and loathing by the average person in Jersey, especially the working-classes – to whom he was simply known as “The Ja, Ja-man.”

The man who always just said ‘yes, yes’ to the Nazis.

Please keep similar submissions concerning the Occupation coming.



Senator Stuart Syvret
6 Ralegh Court
Ralegh Avenue
St. Helier

Tel: + 44 1534 610833

28th April 2008

Letters to the Editor
Jersey Evening Post
Five Oaks
St. Saviour.


I note that Ben Queree in his report of the Time4Change meeting quoted me as describing the vast majority of States members as ‘idiots’.

I am disappointed he should have chosen this quote to include in the article.

Personally, I thought my description of the States as “largely a collection of gangsters and half-wits” was far more representative of my comments.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Stuart Syvret.

The Jersey Oligarchy and its Rag, the Jersey Evening Post:

In The Service of The Nazis.

From Anonymous:

Ad in Jersey Evening Post July 1941


A reward of £25 will be given to the person who first gives to the inspector of Police information leading to the conviction of anyone (not already discovered) for the offence of making on any gate, wall or other place whatsoever visible to the public the letter “V” or any other sign or any word or words calculated to offend the German Authorities or soldiers.

This 8th July 1941.

Victor G Carey


From Anonymous:

who will buckle first – the politicians or the JEP

I would suggest the politicians…but only at the behest of the electorate….

A number will simply not stand others will feel the electorate’s wrath

But it’s the JEP we need to sort out

One hundred years of telling people what to think and who to vote for is a hard act to give up.

We must help them look in the mirror.

Admit their failings (such as its role in the Nazi occupation, its condemnation of the resistance movement and its historical role in protecting the elite against the masses.

We are many they are few…..

From Anonymous:

What mention of the BRAVE Jersey resistance movement to the Nazi’s on Liberation Day?

What mention in the JEP of its role during the occupation and its role in allowing the Collaborators to escape justice (not one person convicted)?

Yet nearly every Jewish person on the Island sent to concentration camps…many to die in the final solution?

Our resistance movement should be national heroes as in the rest of Europe

Europe got de-Nazification

Jersey still hides from the truth

Justice must come…..soon…

From TonyB.

Confronting the Past” is a good theme for liberation, if one considers (a) how brave ordinary islanders helped Russian slave workers and Jews to hide (b) how Clifford Orange, Aliens Officer, and Duret-Aubin, Attorney-General simply followed the line of least resistance in obeying the German authorities regarding the registration of Jews, and the passing on of information about radio sets. Just doing their jobs!

Perhaps Sir Philip should read “British Channel Islands Under German Occupation 1940-45” by Paul Sanders on “The Parameters of Collaboration” which detail these matters, and consider how he might have behaved. His current conduct does not appear promising as an indicator.

From Anonymous:

“All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.” so says…..Phil Bailhache

Reminds me so much of the JEP after Liberation…..

Collaboration during the occupation was scandalous but the Jersey Liberation Movement denigration of the Jersey government during the war is the real scandal


The scandal was that hundreds of people died in slave labour camps on our islands, that Channel Island Jews were forced to wear the star of David (Guernsey) and sent to concentration camps, many to die and our freedoms curtailed by the Nazis

It’s a scandal the JEP attacked the Liberation movement

And now it’s a scandal that the JEP in 2008 still backs the elite, scared of losing its control and patronage.

It’s a scandal that young children were abused.

Confronting the Past

Winning the future.

From Anonymous:

When mainland reporters tried to get onto the Island just after Liberation from the Nazi’s in 1945 to investigate growing anger against the war-time leadership focused on a petition signed by thousands of islanders, the Jersey authorities delayed permission for them to land.

Below is a report by Sam Russell dated 8th April 1945 (St Helier, Jersey)

The Angry Island – Out with the States

I have arrived here two months after the liberation on the only parts of the British Isles ever occupied by Germans, to find the Island seething with discontent.

For five years the people of Jersey looked forward to the day when they would be rid of the Germans. They hoped that with the British troops would come men from Britain who would inquire closely into the actions of those who were in charge of the Government of the Island during the occupation, and particularly into the action of
the States—the Government of the Island.

Two months has gone by and nothing has happened.

The men whose slogan during the occupation was “don’t do any-thing to annoy the Germans” are still holding the same positions and high office. They are the same men who discouraged even such minor manifestations of resistance as the showing of the V sign, the cutting of telephone wires and the keeping of radio sets. They are the same men who assisted the Germans in their mobilisation of the Island’s manpower and who used all their police forces to round up the English inhabitants of the Island for deportation to Germany.

Recruitment for the Germans was encouraged, I was told, by the States by methods such as these:

A man applying for employment was told, for example, that the only work available was “gardening.” When he went to the job he discovered that this “gardening” consisted of cutting and relaying turf to camouflage German strong points and gun positions.

When in early 1942 the Germans ordered the Island to surrender their radio sets, one man with a few courageous companions issued a leaflet calling upon the people of Jersey to resist the order and hold on to their sets by any means.

The Germans retaliated by taking a dozen hostages. Instead of helping the men who had shown such courage or at least shielding them, the Island officials conducted a whispering campaign which finally forced the leader of the group to give himself up to Germans.

He was immediately sent to the concentration camp in Germany, where he is still recovering from the terrible effect of his imprisonment.

But this man, together with many others, will be coming back to the island. Many have already returned, although there is great indignation at the slowness of the repatriation.

The boat bringing people from the mainland regularly comes to the Island more than half empty. Jersey men who have been prisoners of war in Germany have had to wait as much as six weeks before getting a permit from the Home Office to go home.

Wherever I have gone I have found the people here determined to deal with the injustices of all sorts that abound in this Island with its out of date constitution. That is why the Jersey Democratic Movement, an organisation formed illegally during the occupation, is getting widespread support. Headed by a baker, a doctor and a teacher, this organisation is strongly supported by the working people of the Island.

In the two months since liberation it has reached a membership of nearly 2,000. Its meetings are always packed no matter in “which part of the Island they are held”. And this has been achieved in spite of the most blatant and vicious intimidation by-the-powers-that-be.

There is only one newspaper on this Island (The Jersey Evening Post) and it has refused to give any publicity at all to the movement. Not that it needs any, for wherever I go I see chalked on the walls the slogan, “Out with the States.”

Before I came to Jersey the Daily Worker received a letter from a woman whose father is a member of the Jersey Democratic Movement and enclosing a letter from him. “Should his name or mine be printed,” she wrote,” he would be liable to be beaten up and my sister would lose her job in the Education Office.”

“I am asking for this letter to be posted in England,” wrote the father. “I should not like a letter addressed to the Daily Worker to be posted here.”

From what I have seen since my arrival I have no doubt that the States are using their position here to intimidate supporters of the Jersey Democratic Movement.

A young woman teacher of the Jersey Democratic Movement Committee was told that if she continues her activity she would be deprived of her post, so she resigned.

The Secretary, Mr. A. L. Robson, also a teacher, resigned before he was threatened, to devote himself entirely to the growing needs of the organisation.

The British soldiers on the Island are amongst the most indignant at what is going on.
“The great majority of us Tommies of the Liberation Army,” wrote one soldier to me,” are wondering when justice is going to assert her rights, and bring to these despicable informers, collaborationists and ‘ Jerry-bags ‘ their just deserts.

“These traitors,” he continued, “knew the type of bestial race they were helping. They also knew to what horrors they were sending patriotic Jersey people when their informing caused these citizens to be deported to Germany.

“There is no reason whatever why these traitors should not be brought to trial and punished now.

“After meeting the people who have done so much during the occupation to help escaped Russian prisoners and who had their own little resistance movement, it makes me wild to see the traitors enjoying the fruits of liberation and living easily on the money of their German masters.

“Can’t these traitors,” he asked,” be dealt with now, in the same way as in Holland, Denmark and other countries? “

And this is the question that is being asked by the overwhelming majority of the people of Jersey.

Sam Russell 8th April 1945


Apparently – it’s OK for Bailhache & Walker to be Political –

But not anyone who happens to have a different opinion to theirs.

You know, I wouldn’t have thought it feasible, but nevertheless, my estimation of Phil Bailhache’s I.Q diminishes on an almost daily basis.

I guess it’s a bit like the Jersey oligarchy’s explorations of ethics; you think they just can’t get any lower – yet they do.

I’d like us to have a look at an e-mail from Phil Bailhache, which I reproduce below this post, and to undertake some fairly rudimentary deconstruction.

If you’ve read my previous post – or have been following the Jersey media – you will know that both Phil, and Jersey’s Chief Minister, Frank Walker, chose to use the island’s national holiday – Liberation Day – to make political speeches which, essentially, attacked and denigrated the abuse survivors, the national and international media, those, like me, campaigning on survivors’ behalves and the Police investigation.

All, it seems, some foul and unholy fusion of tabloid muck-raking, anarcho-commie agit-prop and police scheming to bring down the government.

The fact that we have around 150 credible child abuse victims of all ages; people who have undergone torment and ruined lives as a result of decades of a sustained culture of concealment on the part of Jersey’s public administration – apparently is a matter of an entirely second order when compared to damage to the island’s “image”.

Remember – according to these people, I’m “just trying to shaft Jersey internationally”. (F. Walker)

You think I exaggerate?

Check out this quote from Phil’s speech:

“All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.”

Yes – you read that correctly.

It is conceded by Sir Philip Bailhache that child abuse is scandalous – but less-so than criticising the Jersey oligarchy.

And I refer to the ‘oligarchy’ quite deliberately; I do so because I have not read, nor heard, in any of the media coverage “a remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people.”

What I have read and heard might well be described as serious criticisms of Jersey’s public administration, the inherent failure of checks & balances; a reporting of the climate of fear which prevents people from speaking out; and of the overweening and stagnant invulnerability of an establishment which has permitted all these things to happen.

But that isn’t an attack upon ‘Jersey and her people’.

What it is, is an attack upon Frank & Phil’s oligarchy.

An important difference – one from which we should not be diverted by the Jersey establishment’s propaganda.

Jersey is a broadly conservative society; it takes a lot to get people angry and worked-up down here.

Yet that, in another PR master-stroke, is what Frank & Phil have done.

Decidedly non-radical pensioners and many thousands of others have been appalled and outraged at the hi-jacking of Liberation Day for some wholly unworthy partisan political purpose.

If you pay tax in Jersey – remember – Frank & Co spend about £300,000 per annum on a team of spin-doctors. A waste of our money in any event – but to add insult to injury – they’re actually all bloody useless.

Look, Frank & Phil – I’ll give you a pointer – OK? Absolutely free of charge.

You do not need to be a key member in the international elite team from Burson-Marsteller to, you know, just maybe, kind of work out – that attempting to use Liberation Day to invoke that last refuge of the scoundrel – ‘patriotism’ – in an attempt to protect yourselves – might just be a bit risky; a bit contentious.

You know? Maybe just a bit?

In the e-mail I reproduce below, Phil Bailhache responds to an e-mail of protest sent to him by a Jersey politician, Deputy Gerard Baudains.

The Deputy – like most people in Jersey, and like me – was appalled that Bailhache should hi-jack Liberation Day – Jersey’s national holiday – to, essentially, deliver a partisan political diatribe against anti-child abuse campaigners, the national and international media and the Police investigation.

Phil was joined in this stunt by Jersey’s Chief Minister, Frank Walker, who made very similar remarks during the short States assembly meeting.

So let’s turn to Bailhache’s e-mail.

Interestingly, I actually agree with the general thrust of Phil’s comments as re-produced below – insofar as they concern inviting representatives of different parts of this community to take part in the ceremonies. I don’t believe Liberation Day is an event only for indigenous islanders.

If Liberation – from the Nazis – means anything – it must surely be about harmony between peoples and cultures; unity around civilised values; freedom.

So far – so good.

But after that first paragraph of his e-mail – disaster resumes.

Where his locomotive of reasoning leaps from the tracks to become a burnt and shattered train-wreck is when he makes a particularly cretinous – and actually quite pathetically pity-inducing – attempt to rationalise why it was OK for him and the rest of the mobsters to stop my Christmas speech – but similar reasoning does not, apparently, prevent him or Frank Walker from using the deeply symbolic Liberation Day to attack those fighting against the concealed child abuse.

Look – this man is a supposedly very learned lawyer; civic head of Jersey’s establishment – chief judge and speaker of our parliament. Oxbridge educated.

For these supposed attributes – tax-payers fork-out over £300,000 per annum just in his salary & pension alone.

I – by way of contrast, am a semi-literate scummy prole from St. Helier’s slums, who left school at the age of 15 with no academic qualifications whatsoever (courtesy of Mike Vibert), have zero pension scheme from the States, and not even legal social security treatment.

So – by pretty much every means of judging people – sadly common throughout British society – such as class, education, wealth, profession, power and social standing – I’m lower than a worm’s genitals – and Phil Bailhache is King of the Hill.

Now – I’m not especially knowledgeable, and nor do I claim any great intelligence.

But yet the arguments put forward by Bailhache in his e-mail, reproduced below, are so hollow – so flawed – so feeble – so tragic in many ways, that it actually gives some credence to those who ask ‘were we ever actually liberated?’

So Bailhache – and, no doubt Walker and most of the halfwits who represent us – believe there to be some clear and profound difference between their political speeches delivered on Liberation Day – and my speech, delivered in the States assembly before Christmas – which they shouted-down and unlawfully halted.

Let’s distil the key features from Phil’s argument, as stated in his e-mail below
Phil believes that some undefined and subjective measure of “context” determines what can – and what cannot – be said in a speech.

Even when there is no specific proposition before the assembly – apparently this magical notion of “context” confers upon him – unelected, unaccountable public functionary – the right to stop the speech of a democratically elected member.

Phil goes on to state that he had agreed with Walker that the “theme” of this year’s Liberation Day would be “confronting the past”.

He, therefore, believed that Frank Walker’s speech – in which he too attacked the anti-child abuse campaign – was ‘in context’ and ‘appropriate’.

By way of contrast – Bailhache considers my attempt to express recognition and empathy to child abuse survivors as a Christmas message to be “inappropriate” and “out of context”.

So – let’s get this straight – at an open-air public celebration of Liberation Day – it’s OK and in context for Phil to attack the anti-child abuse campaign.

And, by the same reasoning, it’s OK for Walker to use the States meeting on Liberation Day to express similar views.

But – at an ordinary States meeting – the last one before Christmas – it is quite unacceptable for me – as Father of the House – to express, as we approach Christ’s birthday – some compassion and contrition on behalf of the States for what abuse victims have endured?

The first time ever a States member had acknowledged the suffering of the victims.

Like I said – this man costs you over £300,000 per annum.

Yet he is incapable of mustering an argument which would withstand scrutiny by 15 year-old students.

The defects in his argument are so manifest as to make one almost embarrassed for him.

Let’s explain it to him, shall we?

Firstly, the standing orders of the assembly do not provide any guidance, analysis or working definitions of what is “relevant” or “in context”. Such generalisations being deeply unspecific.

What, then, do you, dear reader, think should be our approach – our yardstick – by which we measure what is acceptable to say in a speech – and what is not?

Presumably – provided you are a democrat – provided you actually support such concepts as “freedom” – as opposed to such words merely being spin – you would say that the rule – the backstop – must be that people are allowed to express themselves freely – other than in the most extreme of circumstances – for example, hate speech, which incites violence against people.

One either believes in freedom of speech – or one doesn’t. Once cannot – with any intellectual credibility claim ‘I believe in freedom of speech – err – until, that is, someone says something I don’t like or disagree with.’

“But” – Frank & Phil say, “you can say what you want – but only in the correct “context””.

This argument too is intellectually bankrupt – really – astonishingly so. How any man who professes to be a lawyer – let alone a supporter of “freedom” can adduce such arguments is almost as mystifying as why George ‘Dubya’ Bush got elected.

Perhaps people just like the folksiness of down-home cretinism?

Freedom to express opinions is often only of value within the timing and context of those who wish to express those opinions.

When authoritarian figures like Bailhache say “you can have freedom of speech – but only in a time and place of my choosing” – they are actually saying – in reality – you don’t have freedom of speech.

A “freedom” which depends upon the whim of the bosses, is no freedom at all.

And, frankly – only a total bloody fool would attempt to argue otherwise.

As it happens – I do not accept his and Big Frank’s assertion in any event.

By December last year – it was plain that this community was facing a catastrophic child abuse disaster; a disaster which had been largely concealed for generations – and concealed because of gross failures in public administration.

Many, many people had had their lives wrecked by such abuse.

It seemed to me – as it did to about 100 people who contacted me – that, actually, Christmas was an entirely apposite time at which to express some recognition and empathy towards the victims.

Jesus said “Suffer the little children to come unto me”.

Now – I admit I’m no theologian – and I may well be way off-beam with this – given the Dean of Jersey, head of the Anglican Church in the island, agreed with Bailhache and Walker that it was OK for my speech to be stopped – but it seems to me that an expression of empathy for children who have suffered – often appallingly – is, in fact, entirely appropriate for Christmas?

Though the Dean, Bob Key, did come around to this view a few months later – after the story had gone national and had, effectively, become ‘fashionable’. Indeed – he even used the same biblical quotes as me in the service for the victims.

Well – better late than never, I guess.

There is another intrinsic difference between my attempted speech at Christmas and Bailhache’s hi-jacking of Liberation Day.

I attempted to deliver my speech, in the States assembly, on an ordinary States day. It was the last meeting of the assembly before Christmas – but held no particular public significance.

The occasion of Christmas speeches at the end of the last meeting is merely an internal, States assembly, round of mutual congratulations upon how wonderful and marvellous we all are.

So breaking with that convention – and speaking of the suffering of the victims – did not impinge upon any broader, established community celebration.

Indeed – had my speech not been interrupted and halted, it would probably have passed with little or no public attention.

Bailhache goes onto make another, quite revealing, assertion. He claims that I was ‘speaking for the 12 Senators’.

There are two, obvious flaws with this argument, one less important – but one which is more disturbing.

Firstly, it is by convention that the senior Senator, the senior Constable and the senior Deputy each make a speech at the end of the final meeting before Christmas. And – true enough – convention has it that such speeches are usually self-congratulatory, smug, posturing banalities.

However – as it is merely ‘by convention’ that it should be so – no rule, standing order or any other stipulation says that the Christmas speeches have to conform to this template.

Therefore, in stopping my speech, Bailhache was – as he is wont to do – just making up rules as the whim takes him – any old rubbish as he goes along.

Just as he did recently in interfering with and attempting to sabotage the timing of, a public demonstration in Jersey’s Royal Square against the Goods & Services Tax.

Secondly, he asserts that, as my speech did not meet with the approval of certain of the other 12 Senators – that conferred upon him a right to oppress my freedom to speak on behalf of abuse survivors. As already remarked, actually – whether the other 11 Senators liked or disliked my speech was, frankly, immaterial. No rule says they have to all agree.

But more significantly – how could Bailhache – in the heat of the moment – actually know what the opinion of the other 11 Senators was? Without a debate – and a vote – who could say his assessment was correct?

He could be profoundly wrong in his assertion that all the other Senators disagreed with my speech. True enough, I remember clearly three of them interjecting, barracking and trying to stop me – they being Terry Le Main, Mike Vibert and Frank Walker.

And it could well be the case that most of the Senators agreed with Bailhache – but at that moment – he was in no position to know the definitive answer to that question.

For all he knew – possibly a majority may have supported my right to express my self – even if they didn’t agree with what I was saying. There might have been four against me – and eight in support of my right to free expression.

Now – let’s get realistic; this is the States of Jersey we are considering – so it’s entirely feasible that most of the Senators did want me stopped.

But two considerations arise from that: firstly – whether a majority of the Senators supported my right to speak – or whether they did not – was simply unknown to Bailhache at that time. Therefore – if he was a democrat – he should have supported my right to speak.

Instead – in what is difficult to ascribe to anything other then self-interest – he seized upon a few expressions of disproval – and joined in with the mob.

But – far more importantly – even if I was in a minority of one – and the other eleven Senators profoundly disagreed with my speech – so what?

Nobody says they had to agree – I would quite cheerfully have been in a minority of one.

But I had a right to speak.

Again we come back to the fundamental point – something that clearly eludes Bailhache in his really quite startling ignorance – people have a right to free speech – and equally – no one else is obliged to agree with them, at least in free societies.

But even if an opinion is in a minority of one – that one has a right to be expressed. In all but the rarest circumstances, for example, inciting hatred, violence and murder against others.

I believe there is a clear distinction between the very broad spectrum of public expression – and that ‘speech’ which seeks to oppress and destroy others.

But I think we can take it that neither my Christmas speech, nor Bailhache & Walker’s Liberation Day speech’s were in that category of hate-speech.

But my speech got halted – and theirs did not.

But even now – in his e-mail below – Bailhache evinces not the faintest grasp of the intellectual absurdity of his position. We all make mistakes; but the average person learns lessons from their errors – we attempt to not repeat them.

Yet Bailhache – in his neo-Victorian paternalism – simply cannot rid himself of the Jersey establishment philosophy – ‘black is white, black is white, black is white’ – if you simply carry on asserting a falsehood for long enough – you will, like some form of wordy alchemist – transform lies into truth – merely by repeating them a sufficient number of times.

And as I have argued that my Christmas speech was in context and appropriate – I have to say the speeches of Bailhache & Walker were not. As already described, the context of my Christmas speech was a mundane event – of no broader significance to the community.

However – and by way of contrast – their speeches were expressly written for, and delivered upon, Liberation Day – Jersey’s national holiday upon which we celebrate liberation from the occupying Nazis.

As a national holiday – celebrating liberation and freedom – it both holds a particular symbolism – and it belongs to the entire community.

It was, therefore, wholly inappropriate to hi-jack this day of communal celebration in the cause of any particular or specific partisan political cause.

As I said in my last post – such misappropriation of national symbols – in the name of ‘patriotism’ – is the path to arbitrary and tyrannical government.

And – in case you consider that my feelings are misplaced, as I said earlier – a very substantial proportion of a broadly conservative population share my bitter and sad view of Liberation Day being hi-jacked for partisan political purposes.

The above arguments demonstrate the position of Bailhache & Walker to be literally incredible.

However – there is another argument – which on its own – setting aside the above points – demonstrates the utter incompatibility of the views of Bailhache & Walker with democracy and freedom.

I think their speeches were inappropriate and out of context – they apparently think that of mine.

Who’s to Judge? For in the final analysis, such conclusions can only ever be subjective – can only ever be ‘value judgments’ – most certainly not demonstrable on the basis of either pure logic or procedural grounds.

So I didn’t like their use of Liberation Day – and they didn’t like my use of the last States meeting before Christmas.

That’ – I’m cheerfully happy to state – is simply tough upon both parties. We may profoundly disagree with what each other said – and disagree with the context in which we said it – but the means of dealing with that in any respectable democracy is to have subsequent debates and arguments about it.

What you do not do – what you cannot do – at least, if you are a democrat – is simply stop people from expressing their views.

It’s called “f-r-e-e-d-o-m” – Phil.

So here – in the final analysis – is what fundamentally distinguishes my position from that of Phil & Frank.

I may have profoundly disagreed with much of what each man said – and most certainly profoundly disagreed with the context.

But I didn’t try and stop them from saying it.

Indeed – had anyone tried to stop them speaking – I would have said ‘let them get on with it’.

An important point, that.

Don’t you think?

One either believes in freedom of speech – or one doesn’t.

Aren’t such freedoms actually what our liberators were fighting for?

I – was stopped from speaking – Walker & Bailhache were able to proceed – uninterrupted.

This is not freedom.

I realise it’s difficult – given his intrinsic stupidity – but there must be someone out there who can explain these basic conditions of democracy & freedom to Phil?


From: Bailiff of Jersey
Sent: 12 May 2008 17:23
To: Gerard Baudains
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: Your email

Dear Deputy,

I hope that I qualify as a “colleague” but your e-mail was sent to me amongst others, and it raises important questions which deserve an answer from the perspective of the presiding officer.

The President of Madeira was not invited as one of my “chums”. He was invited because his presence was important to many of the 8000 or more Islanders of Portuguese descent. Liberation Day is obviously very important for those who were here on 9th May 1945. But if Liberation Day is to continue to be celebrated in the future, it must be made relevant to the remainder of the population. That is why Liberation Day is becoming, if it has not already become, our “National Day”. It is an occasion for celebrating not only the freedom restored in 1945 but also the liberties and privileges that we enjoy today. All parts of the community have contributed to that success. Liberation Day is for all Islanders, whether they have names like yours and mine, or whether they have an English, French, Scottish, Portuguese or some other ancestry. That is why the President of Madeira was a welcome guest at our celebrations.

As to the Chief Minister’s speech, all speeches in the Assembly are expected to be in context. Where there is a proposition, that is the context and Standing Orders require Members to speak to it. But even where there is no proposition, context remains important. Before the law changed in 2005 the Budget was presented without a proposition but Members were nonetheless expected to speak to the general financial policy of the Finance and Economics Committee. When a special meeting takes place, for example to welcome the Secretary of State, the Chief Minister would be expected in his speech to speak generally about relations with the United Kingdom. He might illustrate that by speaking about some contemporary issue, but he would not be expected to devote his entire speech, for example, to the desirability of building a new incinerator.

It is not for me to respond on behalf of the Chief Minister, but as he is away from the Island for a week, I think that Members should know that it had been agreed that a sub-theme for this year’s Liberation Day celebrations would be “Confronting the Past”. Having regard to that sub-theme, I did not, for my part, consider the Chief Minister’s references to Haut de la Garenne to be inappropriate or out of context for the occasion. In contrast, I did not believe that Senator Syvret’s Christmas intervention was in context. His speech would have been entirely appropriate (and in order) in the context of a debate on child abuse. But on that occasion he was speaking for Senators to express seasonal good wishes to the Chair and to Officers and others who serve the Assembly. That is the context of the traditional exchange of Christmas Greetings. It was not the occasion to berate the States and parts of the public administration for alleged past failures. I believe that that is why Members thought that the intervention was inappropriate and not in context, and in my view they were right.

These are of course my personal views, and I am very happy to discuss them privately with you or any other Member. I do not think that I should, however, become involved in any further e-mail exchanges.

Philip Bailhache
Bailiff of Jersey



The Jersey Establishment Hi-Jack Liberation Day.

Child Abuse Survivors and those campaigning for them –

Denigrated and Insulted on Jersey’s Day of Freedom.

Today the community of Jersey celebrates its liberation, on May 9th 1945, from the occupying Nazis.

This annual celebration of freedom usually passes pleasantly and unremarkably.

At this point I might be tempted to ask ‘what do you think, then, distinguishes today’s events from a normal celebration of Liberation Day?’

But somehow – I get the impression such questions are increasingly redundant.

Today – as you will have guessed by now – we saw the nauseating spectacle of the Jersey oligarchy wrapping itself in the flag and, essentially, denouncing child abuse survivors and those fighting for the truth – all in the name of “patriotism”.

You know – I frequently arrive at the conclusion that the Jersey oligarchy cannot – surely – sink any lower? But, somehow, they always manage to plumb new depths of utter moral bankruptcy. And so it was today.

The Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, and the island’s Chief Minister, Frank Walker, hi-jacked the island’s national holiday – Liberation Day – to attack the investigations of child abuse in Jersey.

Those who denounce, expose and challenge the clear and appalling systemic failures by Jersey’s public administration – failures which have led to the concealment of decades of child abuse – are, apparently, engaging in the “unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey”; this, according to the Queen’s personal appointee and direct agent Sir Philip Bailhache.

Phil Bailhache being the man, let us remember, who was a member of the Board of Governors at Victoria College when child abuse was being concealed at that school; and the man who, when Attorney General, failed to challenge the appointment of a known and convicted paedophile to the post of an honorary police officer. A criminal who went on to commit further crimes against children.

But – apparently – anyone who states these facts is being “unpatriotic” – and ‘an enemy of Jersey’.

At this point, I would like to invite you to consider some famous and very perspicacious remarks concerning “patriotism”.

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

Edward Abbey.

“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”

Samuel Johnson.

“If patriotism is “the last refuge of a scoundrel,” it is not merely because evil deeds may be performed in the name of patriotism, but because patriotic fervour can obliterate moral distinctions altogether”

Ralph B. Perry.

“If you want a symbolic gesture, don’t burn the flag; wash it.”

Norman Thomas.

“The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy.”

David Hume.

“Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.”

George Jean Nathan.

I actually doubt very much that the above-quoted wise words are known to the average Jersey shyster and spiv – err – sorry – Elder Statesman and Glorious Leader. Especially the George Nathan quote – which could have been written with the Jersey establishment in mind.

Which is why, I imagine, they can so shamelessly promote their own interests in the name of “patriotism” – and likewise, denigrate those who oppose establishment interests.

For many decades after World War II, Liberation was a day of private reflection and celebration for the people of Jersey.

But in recent years, this day has been hi-jacked for propaganda purposes by the Jersey oligarchy. There is now a brief meeting of the States assembly, the island’s parliament, after which we process a short distance to Liberation Square where members of the public – many who remember the occupation years – are confronted with the wretched spectacle of serried ranks of politicians.

And after the self-serving propaganda of a speech from the Bailiff, Phil Bailhache and a service led by the profoundly confused head of Jersey’s Anglican Church, Bob Key, the assembled pensioners are insulted by States members joining in with the singing of patriotic war-time songs – the irony apparently lost on the politicians that as they promote themselves in this way to these voters – they have agreed to introduce a sales tax which will be charged upon the bread, fruit, milk and meat on these poor people’s tables.

I would normally join with other States members in going down to Liberation Square – even though I have always been greatly discomforted by the political hi-jacking of Liberation by the oligarchy.

However, after listening to Frank Walker’s speech – and predicting – correctly – a similar disgusting display of self-interest and of calculated insults to the victims from Bailhache, I had had enough. When the meeting of the assembly ended, I left and returned to my home.

So I didn’t take part in the procession to Liberation Square. I left proceedings in protest at the self-interested hi-jacking of our national celebration of freedom.

When I began to write this post, I was seated at my desk listening on the radio to people like Phil Bailhache, who – in an approach both profoundly cynical and ignorant – used the emotive themes of ‘liberation’, ‘freedom’, ‘pride’ and ‘patriotism’ to – ?

Yep – you’ve got it:

Denigrate and insult those who have fought to root-out the decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey.

Actually – the kind of child abuse he was involved in concealing back in the early 1990’s.

And during the short States meeting before walking down to Liberation Square, the assembly and listening members of the public were treated to a speech by Jersey’s Chief Minister, Frank Walker – in which he too, in addition to the Bailiff, used the opportunity to attack the campaigners against the child abuse cover-ups and the national and international media who have reported the saga.

This afternoon I have had telephone conversations with abuse survivors who were in tears having heard these two speeches broadcast on BBC Jersey. People who were shocked and disgusted at Walker and Bailhache’s cynical misappropriation of a day of freedom.

In essence, both men were proclaiming that anyone who took a critical view of the political establishment which had permitted all these dreadful things to happen was – “denigrating Jersey and her people.”

This approach being, of course, one of the most well-known and contemptible devices of propaganda.

You’re part of the ruling elite?

Your deficiencies are under attack?

Therefore denounce your critics as attacking the community and wrap yourselves in the flag.

So tired and, frankly absurd, is this type of spin, that, really, only a group of halfwits could use it in the West, in the year 2008, and expect to attract anything other than utter derision.

The speeches of these two men, Bailhache & Walker, were absolutely brilliant – albeit in an unintentional fashion. Truly – you just couldn’t make it up.

I re-produce Bailhache’s speech below, for you to judge.

As soon as Walker’s is available, I will re-produce it too on this blog – with a commentary – just to make sure you can grasp the entire, disgusting, magnitude of the self-serving sophistry of these two contemptible creatures.

Walker’s speech in particular was absolutely fantastic; I mean real, laugh-out-loud stuff. I was sat at my desk in the chamber, trying to write a letter on behalf of an abuse survivor, and it was all could do to not just throw back my head – and roar with laughter.

Just wait until it appears on the Jersey Hansard and I post it here. You’re just going to love it.

Some people – the impression I get is of a very rapidly diminishing number – think I’m too harsh in my condemnations of the Jersey oligarchy. I expect another great wave of converts to the truth after today’s disgusting hi-jacking of Liberation from the Nazis by an establishment merely desperate to carry on concealing its malfeasances, dishonesty and incompetence.

To illustrate just what I mean, let me invite you to cast your minds back to the public rally which took place a while ago in St. Helier. About three hundred people turned out to express support and solidarity with abuse survivors, and to demand change.

Indeed – many abuse survivors were present at that rally.

Now – let us remind ourselves what the reaction of Walker and the rest of the Jersey establishment was to that grass-roots protest?

Walker actually issued a press release which denigrated the organisers, mocked the numbers of people who had come along, and insulted and dismissed the abuse survivors who were attending.

He accused these people of “using the child abuse disaster for political purposes”.

Now – you think I’m too harsh when I describe people like Walker as simply thick?

Well, this is his approach:

‘Oh-no – we can’t possibly have members of the public speaking of the Jersey child abuse disaster at a public gathering called for that sole purpose’

But –

Apparently – it’s OK for him and his ally Bailhache to politically abuse Liberation Day in order to denigrate and insult abuse survivors and people like me who are campaigning for them?

Truly – you just couldn’t make it up.

Some people ask me not to give up politics. But – really – when confronted with such cretinous, stinking, decadence – can you blame me?

These days, pretty much no States meeting occurs without me feeling an overwhelming need to go and have a shower afterwards.

As I sat in the States assembly this morning, I looked around at the assembled worthies. And what creatures there were to behold!

Let’s have a look at some of the terribly, terribly important people who were to be seen this morning – either in the chamber – or in the public galleries.

The Bailiff, Phil Bailhache – one of the people who failed to report and stop child abuse at Victoria College; the man who failed to challenge a convicted paedophile who had become an honorary Police officer; the same man who had illegally blocked the publication of my official comments in response to the dismissal debate; the self-same man who joined in with mob-rule and unlawfully halted the Christmas speech I was attempting to deliver on behalf of abuse survivors.

The Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – the man who, when Attorney General, failed to prosecute those who had concealed child abuse at Victoria College; the man who abandoned the prosecution of the Maguires; the man who blocked Police applications for warrants to search the Sea Cadets headquarters, where abuse was known to have taken place.

The Chief Minister, Frank Walker – the man who has consistently fought on behalf of the corrupt and dangerous civil servants to help them suppress concerns about child abuse; the man who considers criticising institutional child abuse and in so doing “undermining staff moral” to be a worse offence than lying about the battery, torture and rape of orphans; the man who gets more worked-up if anyone is rude to his precious senior civil servants than he does about paedophiles being allowed to resign, rather than be sacked; the man who can slag-off a genuine public rally for abuse survivors as being “political” – yet then, without apparent embarrassment – hi-jack Liberation Day for his political purpose of attacking anti-child abuse campaigners.

The Attorney General, William Bailhache – brother of the Bailiff – and the man who wilfully obstructed me and my old Health & Social Services Committee when we were attempting to carry out post-Bichard reviews of child abuse cases in Jersey; the man who has ventriloquised the Jersey Data Protection Office into waging an oppressive campaign against whistle-blowers; the very ‘clubbable chap’ who has gone out of his way to wilfully obstruct the current States of Jersey Police investigation into historic child abuse – this by obstructing charges and prosecutions, and attempting to interpose one of his Crown Advocates into the Police enquiry team;

And – quite fascinatingly – in 1998, the then Senior Partner in the law firm – Bailhache LaBesse (now Appleby Global) – which was representing the victims of the Maguires – when those victims were betrayed by the system and conned into believing the charges against the Maguires had to be dropped.

One Francis Hamon – presently a judge in Jersey’s Royal Court, formerly Deputy Bailiff – and the man who told the headmaster of Victoria College – whilst they were playing a game of squash – to do nothing about the complaints of child abuse.

Indeed – one of the men who should have been jailed for Perverting the Course of Justice for his actions as a Governor of Victoria College; but who wasn’t even prosecuted by his friend, then Attorney General Michael Birt.

Also in the gallery, one Charles Woodrow – ADC to Jersey’s Lieutenant Governor – and all-round fixer for the island’s oligarchy. Linchpin of communication with the infamous “Friends at Court at Whitehall”, the protections of which seem to confer utter immunity upon the collection of crooks and morons who run this place.

And, naturally, the Lieutenant Governor himself, one Andrew Ridgway – the official representative of Her Majesty in Jersey – and a man who insulted me and treated me with contempt when I went to see him last year with my concerns over the child abuse disaster.

The self-same representative of the powers-that-be in the UK, who has worked tirelessly in recent months to persuade Whitehall that  I and the victims I’m representing are all just a load of trouble-making scum-bags – and, ‘really there’s nothing wrong with Jersey’s establishment’. ‘All fine chaps – so don’t take any notice of these muck-raking maggots’.

The very man who has been participating in a pro-establishment smear-campaign against me – and who was an enthusiastic supporter of their latest bonkers spin strategy – which was to accuse me of “emotionally abusing” the survivors.

You know – I really wonder if Her Majesty knows what these clowns get up to when they’re sent down here. They invariably become instantly co-opted by the very oligarchy they should be overseeing in order to protect the good name of the Crown.

Indeed, one of Ridgway’s predecessors – Sir Michael Wilkes – performed a very similar service for the Jersey oligarchy when assisting them to oppress me in order to cover-up the corrupt actions of Reg Jeune.

He was – within weeks of leaving office – rewarded with a very lucrative seat on the board of one of Jersey’s major businesses.

Perhaps Ridgway is hoping for similar reward for services rendered?

Oh dear – there goes the ‘gong’. Bugger.

Jurat, Sally Harrison Le Brocq – along with her halfwit husband, Pip – the man who believes in ‘politeness’ over the truth; she being a multi-millionaire scion of the Guiton Group – the company which used to own the island’s only newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post – you know? The one that made a very tidy profit indeed by churning out Nazi propaganda during World War II.

Cousin of Frank Harrison Walker – Jersey’s Chief Minister, and another multi-millionaire scion of the Guiton Group.

In fact – whilst I’m on the subject – I wonder if The Rag would care to subject itself to some independently appointed forensic accounting – just so that we can all gain a clear understanding of just how much money it made when the island was under Nazi occupation?

Whatever the amount – it was certainly enough to buy the proprietors – and their descendants – a few very expensive gin palaces.

Jurat John Le Breton – I confess I didn’t actually see him, thank God or the urge to vomit might have been overwhelming. But he was probably present. He being the man who, along with the then headmaster of Victoria College, attempted to humiliate and intimidate certain of the victims of child abuse into withdrawing their complaints.

So – sat there – gazing dazedly around this gathering of living, breathing decadence – thinking of the victims – and struggling to coin a new word that goes beyond Kafkaesque – I looked at most of the creatures I name above – and occasionally caught them staring at me with an undisguised mixture of fear and loathing.

Michael Birt, William Bailhache – both men who, notwithstanding their age, are probably experiencing for the very first time in their lives a serious challenge to their casual abuses of power.

Pip Le Brocq – with a strange amalgam of smile and hate painted upon his features.

Charles Woodrow, the ADC – who I caught looking at me in an unguarded moment, and I could read his features as he was thinking, –  “what are we going to do with this bastard?”

And his boss, Ridgway – clearly a man all-at-sea and lost when faced with an uppity prole who has the temerity to challenge his pseudo-credible authority and defy the natural order of things by disrespecting a social superior.

Indeed, so confused and frightened did this particular clown look I thought ‘it’s hardly surprising Britain has lost most of its wars since 1945.’

Ah – the British Establishment – in all its ‘glory’: thick, ignorant yet arrogant, in-bread, incompetent – and still – in the 21st century, waging Class War against the scummy lower orders.

Especially in regimes which are essentially governed as colonialist, banana republic back-waters – as Jersey is.

You think I exaggerate?

Look – tell me where else in the democratic world ( apart from Guernsey – obviously) dozens of child abuse survivors would be having to fight for an impartial, non-conflicted prosecution service and a neutral judiciary; one which was only interested in the Rule of Law – and didn’t give a monkeys about how that might make the government look?

In the year 2008?

Instead – we have the comically stupid spectacle of the chief judge of Jersey – making yet another nakedly political speech.

And, like, we’re supposed to take the Jersey judicial apparatus seriously?

Well, we have to imagine that Ridgway must have some particularly brilliant and novel arguments to use with the “Friends at Court at Whitehall” – arguments of such brilliance they can overturn over two centuries of the established acceptance of the need for a separation of powers.

But, I really must return to the subject of Phil Bailhache and his crypto-fascist speech, which I reproduce below.

These observations are so bleeding obvious, that you probably won’t need them explaining – but for my Jersey establishment readers here is a nice simple account of several clear defects in Bailhache’s speech.

Firstly – several of the assertions he makes in his speech are simply lies.

For example – he claims “it all started with the discovery of a fragment of a child’s skull.”

Err – no it didn’t. Long before there was any suggestion of human remains – of possibly murdered children – we were still facing an apocalyptically bad sustained child abuse disaster.

The Police knew this from late 2006. I knew it, through my own researches, from February/March 2007.

The scandal had attracted national media coverage last summer – again without any suggestion of possible child killings. Community Care Magazine broke the story, which was picked up by The Times and The Guardian.

This also led Andrew Brown of the BBC to take an interest in the whole situation. His first regional TV piece was broadcast before any suggestion of a search for human remains.

And it is these facts which reveal the true colours of the Jersey establishment.

Bailhache and Walker were content to hi-jack Liberation Day to crow about the possibility there may have been no killings – yet shamefully ignoring the awful fact that even in the hopeful circumstances of no child deaths – we are still facing a child abuse disaster of world-scale.

And it simply isn’t true for Bailhache to assert that “there is no evidence of cover-ups by government.”

Yes – there is. Look, Phil – I suggested a while ago that you were so out of your depth it would be better for you to just retire- not to mention it being better for the rest of us as well.

But, Phil – there is evidence of government cover-ups. You are a part of those cover-ups.

How else would you describe your blocking of the publication of my defence Comments in response to the dismissal debate?

Do you not think your quite unconstitutional and anti-democratic halting of my Christmas speech was an example of cover-up?

Still not persuaded?

How about the concealment of the Sharp report?

Or the wilful – and most likely criminal – concealing of the Dylan Southern report from the H & SS Committee in 1999?

Or senior civil servants – and establishment politicians – getting together to oppress and silence people like Simon Bellwood and me – this in order to try and keep hidden the simple illegality of the regime of coercive and punitive solitary confinement as used against children in Les Chennes and Greenfield’s.

Or how about the very well-evidenced cover-up of the abuses carried out by the Maguires – as reported on BBC Panorama?

Or maybe the perversions of the course of justice that saw the victims conned into believing the prosecution had to be abandoned – and this being cheerfully announced in court by your now Deputy Bailiff Michael Birt when he stood to withdraw the charges?

And perhaps the ethical and professional betrayal of the victims by their legal representatives – Bailhache Labesse (now Appleby Global) – the senior partner of which firm was your brother – now Attorney General, William Bailhache?

And so it goes on.

You know, it’s quite bad enough being ruled by ethically bankrupt shysters – but the fact that they’re simply so thick adds insult to injury.

In this speech, Bailhache refers to “freedom” – and, indeed, “the flame of freedom”.

Well – I’d like to invite Phil to answer a few questions.

Tell me, Phil, would this be the kind of “freedom” that saw you – quite illegally, and in an open assault upon democracy – have me suspended from the States for six months because I had caught your friend Reg Jeune engaging in a straightforward act of brazen corruption?

Was attacking my 15,000 voters by excluding me from the assembly your idea of supporting their “freedom”?

Was your unprecedented, illegal – and deeply personally conflicted – decision to prevent the official publication of my Comments in response to Walker’s dismissal action against me supportive, do you think, of the principles of “freedom”?

You think – do you – given the two acts of oppression described above – that denying a man an opportunity to defend himself from the oppressions of the powerful is compatible with “freedom”?

Perhaps you consider – and if so, I’d be most interested in hearing your reasoning – that siding with mob-rule and unlawfully halting the Christmas speech I was attempting to give on behalf of abuse survivors was somehow conducive to “freedom”?

We won’t get answers to these questions, of course, because Phil is a weak and snivelling little coward; a text-book example of the bully who is ready to abuse his power over the less powerful, oppress them; tyrannise them – but runs away just as soon as someone stands up to him.

You know, taxpayers fork-out something in excess of £300,000 per annum in salary and pension to this disgusting little maggot.

If you live in Jersey – if you’re a poor pensioner – perhaps someone who survived the occupation – think of that money.

Think of it as you pay tax on your bread and apples.

And ask yourself did you endure the war – and work hard in the following decades – just to be taxed on your food – so the States can employ – at vast cost – stupid and immoral little worms like Bailhache?

Last September, when I was facing the dismissal debate which had been engineered against me by a corrupt and self-serving civil service who wanted to carry on with the culture of concealment, I produced a substantial dossier of evidence in response to the “91 page dossier” Walker & Ogley produced against me. As I said above, Bailhache blocked publication of my document.

He did so for two, clear reasons.

Had my comments been officially published, they would have attracted parliamentary privilege – which means the whole world could have read them with impunity.

And – a significant part of my evidence related to the Victoria College child abuse scandal – and was thus deeply damning of Bailhache himself.

When I received word of his utterly unprecedented blocking of the publication of my defence comments, I responded to him in an e-mail.

After today’s disgusting spectacle, I think a few of the choice phrases I used will serve to conclude with.

The tragedy for this community is – all these remarks are true.

And remember – the unlawful blocking of my comments was carried out by a man who – without apparent shame – stands on Jersey’s Liberation Day – and speaks of “freedom”.


Select Quotes From my E-Mail to Bailhache in Response to his Blocking the Publication of My Defence Dossier.

“When I think that my grandfather fought the Nazis at Dunkirque, I know he would be spinning in his grave to see such a contemptible, disgusting, corrupt, self -interested perversion of the level playing field of democracy.”

“You are anti-democratic – a gangster – and a spiv. But perhaps more fundamentally than this – you are simply thick.”

“You are a disgusting and silly little man – with the ethics of a Bangkok pimp – and a grasp of democracy that wouldn’t be out of place in Zimbabwe.”

Have a nice day, Phil.


Sir Philip Bailhache’s Speech

9TH May 2008

“I am sure that many of those who were here in May 1945 will remember
the old saying that one of the first casualties of war is the truth. This year
we have learnt that even in peacetime, once a media bandwagon starts
rolling, it is difficult to distinguish what is true from what is fictitious.

“Liberation Day is as good a time as any to take stock and to shake
ourselves free of the misinformation to which the child abuse inquiry has
given rise. It is extraordinary how quickly it all happened. It all started
with the discovery of a fragment of a child’s skull and a sniffer dog who
showed interest in six different sites. Within days newspapers and
broadcasters had converted that information into stories of finding six or
more bodies of children, and within two weeks those stories had crossed
the world feeding a frenzy of righteous indignation and further wild
speculation. A cover-up by government was suggested, and there was
incredulity that local people had not noticed these sinister events.

“Unjustified smears about wholesale collaboration during the occupation
led to suggestions that the Island was full of dark secrets and that ours
was a community that cared nothing for vulnerable children.
Now we know that the fragment of skull is at least 60 years old and
possibly very much older than that. There are as yet no bodies, no
evidence of any murder, and no evidence of cover-ups by government.
Hardly any of this has been beamed across the world. Yet many
journalists continue to write about the Island’s so called child abuse

“All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the
unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is
the real scandal. The truth is that we do not yet know what happened at
Haut de la Garenne or in other places. What we do know is that a rigorous
investigation is taking place and, in due course, a balanced judgement
will be possible. A brave writer in the Guardian earlier this week was the
first journalist in a national newspaper, so far as I know, to confront this

“Confronting the past, which is one aspect of confronting the truth, is of
course not always easy. After all, it took us some time to confront the
uncomfortable truths about the occupation; to acknowledge publicly the
elements of collaboration and profiteering that took place; and to
remember the suffering of the slave workers and the hardships of the
deportees. It also took time to acknowledge the heroism of those who
rebelled against the occupiers in ways large and small, and the courage of
those who sheltered escaped prisoners at great risk to themselves. It was
easier to try to forget the painful memories of enemy occupation. But we
have now confronted the gremlins, and this annual celebration of
Liberation Day is a means of remembering the lessons of the past. Of
course, it is also the opportunity for those who were in Jersey on 9th May
1945 to recall the jubilation and intoxicating excitement that people felt
when the nightmare was over and freedom was restored. This celebration
is also the chance for younger people to learn more about the occupation,
and its significance in the story of our Island race, and to honour the
perseverance and courage of their elders.

“Confronting difficult situations is sometimes no easier than confronting
the past. I was struck recently by a letter in the Jersey Evening Post from
someone who was comparing her own experience in the Island with the
appalling report of a man in the north of England who collapsed and was
dying by the roadside, and who was ignored by numerous motorists
including one who drove over the poor man’s leg and broke it. Our letter
writer had also come across an injured man sitting on the side of a
country lane and had watched as a driver in front of her carefully
negotiated his car around the man and drove off. She stopped and called
an ambulance, but was lamenting that such callousness could happen in
Jersey. Sadly, such stories are as old as the hills. If only one person drove
around the injured man, we are in fact doing rather better than the men in
the biblical story where both the priest and the Levite passed by the
injured traveller on the other side of the road before the Good Samaritan
came along. The letter writer set a fine example. Confronting the
situation and showing personal responsibility for one’s actions are
qualities to which we can all aspire.

“I do not believe that Jersey is an uncaring society. On the contrary, there
is a strong political will to protect the poor and vulnerable in the
community and to correct any mistakes of the past. Of course Jersey is
not Utopia, and there are many problems to resolve. But equally we have
much for which to be grateful.

“Today our guest of honour is His Excellency Dr Alberto Jardim, the
President of Madeira and I extend a very warm welcome to him and to
Mrs Jardim. Our own Musical Original singers have just returned from
Funchal where they were royally received. I am delighted to say that we
have a group of young visiting musicians from Madeira in Liberation
Square today. I hope that the President’s visit will lead to many more
cultural exchanges of this kind between two Island communities which
have more in common than one might think.

“I also extend a warm welcome to Colonel Alexey Korkach, Air Attaché
from the Russian embassy and to Señor Alveraz Gamido, First Secretary
to the Spanish Embassy, who will both be at Westmount this afternoon
but who are also in the Square for our celebration this morning. And
finally may I thank all the senior citizens from the parishes who have
made this annual pilgrimage to Liberation Square. Whether you were one
of those in occupied Jersey or one of those evacuated to the UK, you
collectively kept alive the flame of freedom and worked to create out of
the ruins of 1945 the vibrant and successful community we now have.”

Phil Bailhache.



Jersey Evening Post, Thursday 1st May, 2008.

The above quote is taken from a headline in Jersey’s only “newspaper”, The Jersey Evening Post, commonly known as The Rag.

Throughout its 118 year history it has been the unfailing house-journal and mouth-piece of the island’s oligarchy. It is, frankly, an enemy of this community.

So much so that, rather than smashing their presses, they spent most of World War II cheerfully churning out diktats and propaganda on behalf of the occupying Nazis whilst some islanders were deported to internment camps in Germany, and in some cases their land & property descended upon by the remaining Jersey oligarchy like a pack of vultures.

No doubt it was during this episode that The Rag developed its immense propaganda skills to such a high degree. Given its performance from 1945 to the present, Goebbels would have been proud of them.

OK – so the quote I attribute to The Rag above – “Its All Syvret’s Fault!” – is not entirely accurate, and something of an exaggeration – but only a very little bit.

And in reporting it this way I’m merely borrowing a technique from the JEP.

Their story concerned a brief “oral” report given to the old Health & Social Services Committee – back in May, 1999.

Nine years ago.

I was a member of that Committee, and present when this “oral” report was given by the then Chief Executive, one Graham Jennings.

The significance of it being an “oral” report lays in the fact that no supporting paperwork or written reports were provided to the Committee.

I had forgotten about this “oral” report. Hardly surprising given that it was 9 years – and many hundreds of meetings ago – and will have taken all of a few minutes to hear. But someone in the Jersey establishment clearly did remember – and enthusiastically produced the minute of the meeting for the Jersey Evening Post.

So what is the significance of this issue, you ask?

The “oral” report given to the Committee by Jennings was to inform us of the fact that a disciplinary hearing into the conduct of a certain Jane Maguire had concluded that she should be dismissed – but that she had already resigned.

I reproduce the relevant Committee minute below this post.

Maguire and her husband “Big Al”, being the couple who ran the Blanche Pierre Group Home for much of the 1980’s – throughout which period they tortured and abused the children in their “care” in the most appalling ways – until “moved on” in 1990.

After 1990, the psychopathic atrocities of the Maguires lay concealed for the next eight years – until, through pure happenstance, their reign of abuse against vulnerable children came to the knowledge of the Jersey police, leading to some narrow charges, which were themselves abandoned in 1998.

Back in 1999 – post-abandonment of the prosecution – no actual decision was put to the Committee. The “oral” report merely asked the Committee to “note” that the disciplinary hearing had already occurred – and Maguire had already resigned. We were simply informed of this – post-fact.

So – according to the JEP – the fact that I had forgotten about this, brief “oral” report from 9 years ago means that I am to blame for the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. Well, OK – they haven’t been quite able to pin culpability on me just yet for child protection failures prior to 1965 – as I wasn’t born then – but it’s surely only a matter of time? Perhaps I forged my birth certificate – and I’m really 75 years old?

The Jersey establishment – having alighted upon this Committee minute from 1999 – thought, ‘eureka! – This is great material to use against Syvret.’

I have often said that one of the absolutely fundamental defining characteristics of the Jersey oligarchs was the sheer stupidity they so frequently exhibit.

And, yes – they’ve done it again.

So thick are they that they rushed into using this minute – without pausing for a moment to reflect upon what it actually demonstrates.

And what it demonstrates is – most certainly – not good for the Jersey establishment’s position – as we will examine, below.

The minute – far from being some kind of cudgel with which they can assault me and the other Committee members present – is actually an unusually powerful piece of hard evidence for Jersey polity corruption.

Evidence which greatly reinforces the increasingly inescapable conclusion that the senior levels of Jersey’s civil service are self-interested, corrupted, mutually supporting, dishonest and simply out of control in a welter of incompetence and concealment.

So – it isn’t often I will do this, so make the most of it; I’d like to say a big thank you to The Rag for uncovering the minute and drawing it to my attention.

The very day they furnished me with it, I wrote an explanation of its significance, and forwarded it to the States of Jersey Police Force so that it may go as further evidence towards the complaints of criminal conduct made against a variety of senior Jersey civil servants – past and present.

It is most certainly important evidence which adds to the case against Anton Skinner.

And it also – for the very first time – brings the then Health & Social Services Chief Executive, Graham Jennings into ‘the frame’. I had always suspected that he too must have played a role in the culture of concealment – but I never said so, because I never had any evidence.

That is – until Thursday.

Before dealing with the 1999 minute, some explanation of the chronology of events is needed.

For much of the 1980’s Jane and Alan Maguire ran the Blanche Pierre Group Home; a group-home being a kind of extended family-scale small orphanage provided by the Jersey government.

The Maguires lived in the home, and had in their “care” a number of children who lived with them over the years.

I won’t go into details – if you want an indication of the nature of the appalling abuses engaged in by the Maguires – watch the BBC Panorama documentary of March 31st 2008, on the Jersey child abuse disaster: –

These abuses were permitted to carry on unchallenged for most of the 1980’s.

But – very disturbingly – not entirely unchallenged.

In fact, visiting, part-time members of staff had repeatedly noted in diary records and log-books deeply concerning examples of cruelty and dysfunction. And notwithstanding these recorded concerns – no appropriate action was taken.

The children continued to suffer – and the complaints steadily accumulated – until 1990 – when one Anton Skinner of the Children’s Service was finally forced to investigate the complaints when they became too significant to ignore anymore.

In his “investigation” he was assisted by one Geoff Spencer, the acting Homes Manager.

Remember that name – Geoff Spencer – for future reference.

So in 1990 – several years too late – Skinner & his friend Spencer investigated the accumulated complaints.

Contrary to assertions by Skinner – and even the present Social Services boss, Marnie Baudains – there was, at that time, more than sufficient evidence to immediately suspend and dismiss the Maguires.

Indeed – more than sufficient evidence to inform the Police Force.

But – Skinner didn’t do this. Let us be charitable – and assume his reasons for concealing the abuses were simply related to keeping his job and his pension. Because had he gone to the Police in 1990 – what would have been a significant consequence of that action?

Skinner himself would have been asked “What the bloody hell were you doing, receiving these complaints from staff of cruelty and abuse being committed by the Maguires – for several years – and you failing to take the appropriate action?”

So Skinner wrote a report for the then Education Committee, which had responsibility for child “protection” back in those days, when it was led by one Iris Le Feuvre.

I have read that report – along with the other evidence – in October last year (2007), after having it drawn to my attention by whistle-blowers.

I alerted the Police to this evidence – all of which is now in their possession.

I paraphrase, but, in essence, what Skinner’s report, written in the year 1990, said was: “Well, yes, the conduct of the Maguires has been unacceptable. Not of a standard appropriate for this day and age. But by way of mitigation, it’s a stressful job. But, hey – no problem. Mrs. Maguire has agreed to voluntarily retire from running the group-home – and, instead she will come and work in our Family Development Centre”.

As I said to the Police last year, ‘did that involve taking her bottle of Dettol with her?’

So not only did Skinner fail to sack the Maguires in 1990 – and not only did he fail to inform the Police of their behaviour – he even let Mrs. Maguire carry on working in a social services environment – that is, with direct access to vulnerable people & children.

You couldn’t make that up.

But – it gets worse.

One of the younger children, a female, was left in the Maguires’ “care” by Skinner & his team for a further two years – during which she continued to suffer – appallingly.

Remember – the Police were not informed of the Maguires’ conduct in 1990.

Now – after eight years of the Jersey culture-of-concealment – our narrative moves forward to 1998.

One of the profoundly damaged victims of the Maguires, during an episode of great personal turmoil, threw a brick with an abusive note wrapped around it through the window of the place where the Maguire’s were then living. Remember, this is in 1998.

The Maguires – exhibiting all of the arrogance and stupidity we’ve come to associate with the Jersey system – took the note to the Police, said they thought they knew who had thrown it – and wanted the person prosecuted.

The Police, looking at the note, thought ‘hmmm – there’s more to this than meets the eye.’

They interviewed the person who had thrown the brick – and in that interview – the full horrors of what had occurred to the children came into the knowledge of the Police for the first time.

To cut a long story short, the Maguires were arrested, charged, and brought to court.

There was one committal hearing in the Jersey magistrates’ court.

Then things become even more despicable.

Many of the victims were called to an utterly bizarre evening meeting at the Social Services’ headquarters – where they were confronted, as they describe it – “with a table full of adults”.

This assemblage of Social Services finest was led by one Danny Wherry.

Remember that name for future reference as well – Danny Wherry.

At this meeting the young victims present were told that the case against the Maguires was having to be dropped for “lack of evidence”, and that “the trial would be too stressful for the victims to endure.”

This was, of course, a total and despicable pack of lies.

A pack of lies, the motivation for which was concealing a scandal – and protecting senior civil servants from some hard questions as to how the abuse was able to continue unchecked for so many years – and why the abusers hadn’t been charged eight years earlier.

And had these young victims had even remotely competent – and even faintly ethical – legal representation, they would have been told it was lies, and that they could – and should – insist on the case against the Maguires continuing.

But they were not told this. They were not correctly advised.

Instead they were utterly & cynically betrayed by their “own” lawyers.

Now – I’m going to ask you a question, and when answering, remember – we are dealing with “The Jersey Way”.

Which law firm was representing these young victims back then? Back in 1998?

An outfit by the name of Bailhache Labesse. (These days going under the name Appleby Global; remember that City of London syndicate’s name  – for future reference, too.)

Now – can we guess who was the Senior Partner at that time, and as listed on that firm’s stationery?

Yes, that’s right – one William Bailhache.

Brother of the Bailiff, Philip Bailhache – and presently (2008) the Jersey Attorney General, the sole prosecuting authority in Jersey.

And guess what?

In a legislative change driven forward by William Bailhache and the Solicitor General – they, as Crown Officers – were recently excluded from the complaints and disciplinary procedures of the Jersey Law Society.

Perhaps one of m’learned friends could let us know whether this law change applies retrospectively?

If so – it would be quite unusual, would it not? Retrospective legislation?

If not – then when time permits I’m sure Mr Bailhache can dream up a disciplinary defence for himself for this gross and ethically bankrupt betrayal committed by his then law firm.

Obviously, only after all of the other – err – “interesting” questions he’s going to have to answer.

Perhaps even one or two concerning conflicts of interest?

And just how, precisely, avoiding them is merely, “a state of mind”? (W. Bailhache.)

Isn’t it just amazing – how all these coincidences stack-up?

Obviously – there are higher priorities right now – but eventually this gross, professional betrayal by Bailhache’s law firm – the staggering betrayal of the victims of the Maguires – will be examined – very closely indeed.

It isn’t difficult – is it – to see now just why Lenny Harper’s team have faced so much obstruction from this Attorney General?

And we mustn’t pass over this point without reminding ourselves just who the Attorney General (the sole prosecutor in Jersey) was in 1998?

The then Attorney General who improperly abandoned the prosecution of the Maguires?

One Michael Birt – now Deputy Bailiff.

The same Attorney General who failed to prosecute a number of people for concealing the child abuse at Victoria College.

And the same man who – towards the end of last year – actually turned down applications by Lenny Harper’s Police team for a warrant to search, and remove evidence from the headquarters of the Jersey Sea Cadets; the Sea Cadets being a major focus of the historic child abuse enquiry.

So, naturally – one turn’s down Police warrant applications under such circumstances. Right?

In 1998 – at the time of the attempt by the Police to bring the Maguires to justice – Birt – after the victims had been conned and deceived into the abandonment of the prosecution – stood in Jersey’s Royal Court – and informed the Court that the charges were being dropped “for lack of evidence”.

This is what the Court record says:

November 1998 Criminal proceedings Against the Maguires.

The Act of Court records that the prosecution was abandoned 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”.

When the whole episode and the case files were drawn to my attention in August 2007 by whistle-blowers, I sat in the H & SS office and read through two very substantial lever-arch files, and one smaller ring-binder, of evidence.

Having read this horrifying catalogue of foulness – so sicking I had to repeatedly take breaks from reading it, so as to recompose myself – take it from me, the claims by the Jersey oligarchy that there was “insufficient evidence” are about as credible as their reputation now is.

So, returning to the chronology, and the moment at the beginning of 1999.

As far as the public knew, a prosecution had been attempted against the Maguires – and the case never even got off the ground in 1998 for lack of evidence – let alone there being a trial and them having been acquitted.

It was round this time, and in the wake of the perverse prosecution abandonment, that Graham Jennings, then Chief Executive of H & SS, commissioned Dylan Southern to review the whole Maguire episode.

And – believe it or not – Mrs. Maguire was still employed by Social Services at this point, – notwithstanding everything which was on-the-record against her.

Mr. Southern, being a man of professionalism and integrity, examined all the evidence, and wrote a clear and succinct report to Jennings.

He unambiguously concluded that Jane Maguire should be sacked.

And he also wrote a number of other things; deeply disturbing things, in his report.

Things I will touch upon later. And explain the relevance of.

Mr. Southern’s report was sent to Jennings, dated 23rd February, 1999.

Mrs Maguire resigned rather than be sacked – and this resignation was accepted by Jennings.

On 5th May 1999 – about two-and-a-half months after he received the Southern report – Jennings raised the Maguire episode with the then Health & Social Services Committee, of which I was a member.

No decision by the Committee was required; we were merely asked to note that a disciplinary hearing had taken place, Maguire’s dismissal had been recommended, but she had resigned already instead.

As you can see from the minute, in addition to explaining these brief facts, Jennings’ ‘oral’ report went on to defend Anton Skinner; essentially claiming that ‘well – Skinner took the appropriate action back in 1990 – given the extent of his knowledge at that time. So no blame could be attached to him.’

So, let us summarise the state of the Committee’s knowledge at this moment in May 1999.

The vast majority of facts concerning the conduct of the Maguires were not known to the Committee or the public – they were merely two low-grade employees against who a criminal allegation had been made – but which allegation must have been baseless because it had been thrown out of court before a full trial had even commenced. An attempted prosecution of the Maguires had not even got beyond committal stage, this for “lack of evidence” – according to no-less an authority than Jersey’s then Attorney General. So they were, as far as the public and the Committee knew, innocent of any criminal charge.

There had been a disciplinary hearing which had concluded that Mrs. Maguire should still be sacked. She had resigned before this action could take place and her resignation had been accepted by Jennings.

And, according to Jennings, no possible blame could be attached to Anton Skinner for failing to take the necessary action back in 1990, as he didn’t then know of the true nature of the McGuires conduct.

Now we get into the really interesting parts of this episode.

I mentioned earlier why the Committee minute re-produced below was so important.

Allow me a little digression.

British readers of this blog will be familiar with the TV comedy series “Yes, Minister”. It was, essentially, a parody which depicted just how the relevant politicians in government were kept in the dark and heavily manipulated by the senior civil servants “advising” them.

But that program just didn’t go far enough. In reality – the truth is beyond parody. And far darker.

And the episode I describe above proves this point.

I have learnt that civil servants are always meticulous in covering their tracks. Making sure that no record of any malfeasance, incompetence or lie on their part can be found ‘on-the-record’ to politicians.

Indeed – so ruthlessly do civil servants pursue this particular “insurance policy”, I personally have never been able identify direct lies to politicians in an official written record – even though I’m aware – and would attest to – being fed maybe hundreds of lies during twenty years in politics.

No written record, that is – until now.

To back-track a little; let us remember that Jennings had commissioned Dylan Southern to produce a report into the whole Maguire episode.

Southern duly produced his report, dated 23rd February 1999.

Two-and-a-half months later – Jennings finally got around to mentioning the Maguire case to the then Committee – merely for it to note, as everything was done and dusted by this point – or so the Committee was led to believe.

But the true chain of events – as revealed in the Southern Report – was profoundly disturbing and of far greater seriousness than that indicated in the ‘oral’ report to the Committee by Jennings.

Remember this – because it is a rock-solid, evidenced example of the Jersey ‘Culture of Concealment’.

The then Committee were not supplied with the Southern report.

Indeed, the Committee were not even told of the existence of the Southern report.

Jennings deliberately concealed the truth from the Committee in order to protect friends and colleagues – and himself – and to avoid a scandal – and generally seek to protect the “image” of the Jersey establishment.

Sound familiar?

To explain the situation in plain English:

The Committee was the relevant political authority of the day back in 1999.

Yet the Committee was conned and manipulated in two, profoundly disturbing, ways.

Firstly – the Committee was misled by omission. The wilful concealing of the Southern report from the Committee by Jennings was to mislead by omission.

Secondly – Jennings actually lied to the Committee. His ‘oral’ assertions which exculpated Skinner for his failure to act in 1990 were simply untrue.

How do we now know Jennings’ claim was untrue?

The hitherto concealed Dylan Southern report proves it.

Let me quote what the dissembling ‘oral’ report of Jennings said, as described in the Committee minute reproduced below.

And remember this point – as we will be comparing and contrasting it with what the Dylan Southern report says.

According to Jennings’ ‘oral’ report:

“The Committee was advised that Mr. and Mrs Maguire had been Investigated by the department in 1990. The situation in 1990 arose from complaints made by staff, and the action taken by Mr. A. Skinner at that time was to move Mr. and Mrs. Maguire out of the residential home on the basis of the complaints received. The evidence available in 1999 was different to that which had been heard by Mr. Skinner at a hearing in 1990, as more information had become available over time as the children who had been resident in the home reached adulthood and made information available. (emphasis added.)End of minute.

So, let’s understand fully what the Committee were being told here.

And it was – and remains – appaling sophistry; not quite brazen lies – but dishonest dissembling.

It is first claimed that “more information had become available” than that which was available to Skinner in 1990.

Essentially, the Committee are led to believe that merely some minor issues concerning the Maguires’ conduct were known to Skinner back in 1990. Who knows? – Perhaps just having an ‘old-fashioned attitude’?

Because – if all that had occurred was the acceptance of the voluntary retirement of Mrs. Maguire from running the group-home – and for her to be re-deployed elsewhere in the organisation – continuing to be employed in a social services environment – what conclusion would be reached – other than that merely some very trivial issues had arisen back then in 1990?

But – what was Skinner’s true state of knowledge back in 1990?

The evidenced answer to that question is to be found in the Dylan Southern report.

The report which was withheld from the Committee in 1999; indeed, the report that the Committee were not even told existed.

The Committee minute records Jennings as stating that, more information had “become available” since 1999 – and thus, by implication – no blame could be attached to Skinner for not acting appropriately in 1990.

So – that is what the Committee were told.

What – by way of contrast – does the concealed Dylan Southern report in fact say of Skinner’s state of knowledge?

Let me quote a few key passages:

“Paragraph 4.5:

Having received Mrs Ingles’ report Mr. A Skinner and Mr. Geoff Spencer arranged to see both Mrs Doyle and Ms. O’Hara. This meeting occurred on the 27th April 1990. The record of the meeting between Ms. O’Hara, Mrs’ Doyle, Mr. G. Spencer and Mr. A. Skinner is enclosed as appendix 4.

“Paragraph 4.6:

In summary this record matches the report made by Ms. Dorothy Ingles and outlines instances of psychological and physical abuse to named and unnamed children.”

The Dylan Southern report goes on to inform us, when speaking of abuses which involved ramming soap into children’s’ mouths and making them drink Dettol:

“Paragraph 4.9, sub-paragraphs (b) and (c):

(b) The Maguires admitted it had been employed by them to Mr. Skinner (appendix 5). (emphasis added).

(c) Mrs Doyle and Ms. O’Hara reported this kind of punishment to Mr. Skinner and Mr. Spencer. (appendix 4).” (emphasis added)

So, to distil the essential features of this episode.

The Maguires were abusing children in a variety of appaling ways throughout much of the 1980’s.

Skinner and Spencer – eventually – investigated the complaints. This after having failed to act for some years.

They failed to report the conduct to the police.

They even failed to take any appropriate disciplinary action.

Most sickeningly and unforgivably – they allowed a young, vulnerable child to remain in the “care” of the Maguires for a further two years after 1990.

Skinner & Spencer committed this gross dereliction of duty – notwithstanding the factual evidence which was known to them at the time of 1990 – as the above quotes from the Southern report show.

Notwithstanding the efforts of Skinner, Spencer and the rest of the senior management of Social Services to bury the issue – the Police get hold of it – by accident – 8 years later.

The Jersey establishment – exhibiting its customary distaste for a scandal – made sure that the efforts of the Police in 1998 came to nought.

The Southern Report is commissioned by the then Chief Executive of Health & Social Services (probably expecting the “expected” whitewash; unfortunately for him, the report states some of the key facts.)

He then withholds the existence of that report from the Committee, instead delivering a perfunctory ‘oral’ report – two-and-a-half months later.

At a meeting at which Skinner is present.

As was one James Le Feuvre – Director of General and Acute Services – and son of one Iris Le Feuvre who, in 1990, was the President of the then Education Committee, the public authority for child-protection at that time – and in 2007 – until I sacked her – Chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee. I sacked her when I discovered the truth of the conduct of Jane and Alan Maguire  – and read in the files of Iris Le Feuvre’s 1990 cover-up, and  disgusting letter of “thanks” to the Maguires.

And in 1999, Jennings lies to the Committee concerning the state of Skinner’s knowledge back in 1990.

As I said – a particularly powerful and highly relevant example of the Jersey “culture of concealment” – displayed in all its nauseating immorality and sophistry.

The withholding of crucial information, dissembling – and out-right lies.

But – you ask – did all this horrifying ethical bankruptcy, moral turpitude and decadence within the senior reaches of Social Services end in 1999?

Sadly, no.

In following up the story concerning the Committee minute last Friday evening, Channel Television – passively and without challenge – quoted Jersey Social Services as asserting the same lie – namely that Skinner’s failure to act in 1990 was “justifiable given the then state of knowledge”.

We know from the Southern report that such assertions are yet more of the shameless lies churned out by Social Services and people like Marnie Baudians.

Such practices are not – as the Jersey establishment would have you believe – some distant relict of the past.

Instead – they are displayed in all their revolting horror as recently as last Friday.

So – what actions will the two relevant politicians take?

They being Senator Ben Sheton, the Minister, and his Assistant Minister, Jimmy Perchard.

Will they – having had the great advantage of having the issues investigated and explained for them – take the necessary action?

Will they – in May 2008 – knowing what we all know now – be content to allow the culture of concealment to continue – as it did last Friday?

Let us see.

The time has come for these two men to decide whose side they are on.

The people of this community?

Or an entrenched claque of self-serving, over-paid, lying, incompetent and dangerous civil servants?

Watch this space.


Health & Social Services Committee Minute, May 1999.

AHH/TN/134 536.


(18th Meeting)

5th May 1999.

All members were present, with the exception of the President,
from whom apologies had been received.

In attendance –

G.E. Jennings, Chief Executive
A. Skinner, Director of Community and Social Services
Dr. C.R. Grainger, Medical Officer of Health
Mrs. A. Homer, Director of Finance and Information
Mrs. A.H. Harris, Committee Clerk.

Present for a time –

M. Le Fèvre, Director of Estates
R. Bass, Personnel Manager
M. Entwistle, Strategic Planning and Legislation Manager
J. Le Feuvre, Director of General and Acute Services.

Minutes 1. The Minutes of the Meetings held on 27th January, 3rd
March, and 7th and 13th April 1999, having been previously
circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

ITEM 13.

Strictly Confidential. 13.


Staff: Disciplinary Hearing.

The Committee received an oral report from the Chief
Executive Officer regarding the findings of a discplinary
hearing to consider the position of a Residential Child Care
Officer, Mrs. J. Maguire.

The Committee noted that the complaints against Mr. A. and
Mrs J. Maguire had been the subject of a police investigation.

1 however, the Attorney General had decided not to proceed with a Royal Court case as this was not in the public interest. The Committee then instigated an investigation into Mrs. J. Maguire (Mr. A. Maguire followed his own occupation) in
relation to events in a residential home.

The Committee noted that it been found that there was a case to answer, and Mrs. Maguire had been called before a disciplinary hearing, where she was accompanied by her lawyer. The hearing found that Mrs. Maguire’s behaviour amounted to gross professional misconduct and it was accordingly decided that the department no longer had confidence in Mrs. Maguire and would recommend to the Committee that she be dismissed. The Committee noted, however, that in the meantime Mrs. Maguire had tendered her resignation.

The Committee was advised that Mr. and Mrs Maguire had been investigated by the department in 1990. The situation in 1990 arose from complaints made by staff, and the action taken by Mr. A. Skinner at that time was to move Mr. and Mrs. Maguire out of the residential home on the basis of the complaints received. The evidence available in 1999 was different to that which had been heard by Mr. Skinner at a hearing in 1990, as more information had become available over time as the children who had been resident in the home reached adulthood and made information available.

The Committee noted the position.”

End of relevant minute.


Jersey Story in the Sunday Times Magazine.

Just a brief post to advise people to get a copy of today’s Sunday Times. The magazine has an article by David James-Smith which deals with the Jersey child abuse disaster.


This is the web address for the article.

(Sorry, it won’t all fit on one line.)


I’m going to do a much fuller post later today, in which I will explain the relevance of the Committee minute from 1999, which the Jersey Evening Post were so very pleased with.

God, they never learn.

As evidence, it actually doesn’t work in the Jersey establishment’s favour.

On the contrary.

You know, being an uppity scum-bag prole with no education has always had a curious advantage for me in my battles in Jersey. These people always underestimate me, just like they would any working-class person.

They assume that because you can’t say ‘backside’ in Latin – or that your spelling & grammar are crap – this shows you to be unintelligent, and thus easily messed around.

Well – that prejudice suites my purposes just fine.

Check out my post later today.