Monthly Archives: August 2008


An expert, independent enquiry into the concealment of child abuse in Jersey – during the 1990’s.

Follow the link from the list on the right.

Just a brief post. Someone has submitted a link to a web site on which has been posted the famous Sharp report.

I have placed the link in my list on the right.

This is the address to copy and paste, if the link doesn’t work:

This report was commissioned by authorities in Jersey following the conviction of a child abuser who was a teacher at Jersey’s leading private school, Victoria College.

An enquiry was felt to be necessary because it became clear that the school had been receiving complaints of child abuse for years – and had simply ignored them.

At the time of the commissioning, the Jersey authorities said the report would be published – warts and all.

The Jersey oligarchy are real experts at employing the “right” ‘independent expert’ – whenever they need to spin in order to make themselves look like a responsible administration by holding an “investigation” into something which has gone wrong.

98% of the time, they’re very clever at choosing the ‘independent experts’ who will say exactly what they want him or her to say – quite regardless of the facts. Witness the Andrew Williamson report for example – a report which so embodies the he-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune syndrome as to actually be fall-about comical in its absurdity.

However – the law of averages dictates that the Jersey oligarchy will sometimes get it wrong.

Very occasionally – they’ll make the profound mistake of employing a person of high quality; real professionals – people with good ethics.

People who tell the truth – and tell it like it is.

An example of this being Kathy Bull – who – to the outrage, anger and fury of the senior Jersey civil service spivs – produced a report which was comprehensive, detailed – and utterly damning – from cover to cover.

That report too, would have been kept secret had I not given it – to the fury of my “esteemed” political colleagues – to Anthony Lewis of the Jersey Evening Post. The resultant reporting was one of about three occasions I can recollect the JEP doing a real, journalistic job on a really important matter.

Tony has had some health problems. Tony, if you’re reading this, or someone who knows you does, take our best wishes.

But, what of the report by Mr. Stephen Sharp?

Mr Sharp – to the perpetual nightmares of the Jersey establishment – was also a real professional – a man of immense integrity and high ethics.

The report he produced was accurate, succinct, very well researched, informed by his own great expertise – and apocalyptically damning.

When the Jersey authorities received his report, they took one look at it and ran screaming into the distance.

Upon reading it – they saw – immediately just how atrociously damning the report was to the whole Jersey oligarchy – at the highest levels; all the sleazy back-scratching, cover-ups and mutual protections which comprise “The Jersey Way”.

Suddenly, they decided that the report would not now be published after all. Their attempted justification for this was the simple lie that the report identified victims. It does not – but obviously they needed some excuse to keep it under wraps.

Follow the link – the report isn’t that long – have a good read of it.

There is much in the report, the significance of which may not be immediately apparent to people not familiar with the Jersey oligarchy, it’s monopoly of power – and how it runs this rock according to “The Jersey Way”.

But don’t worry – now we have the report posted – for my next post I’ll provide a lay-persons guide to the report, what it says, what it means, who’s who – and the damning implications of it all.

Watch this space.





Jersey’s Attorney General refuses to prosecute.

Read just what the Police Officer leading the investigation thought.

Any decent, thinking person who has followed this blog will understand just how corrupt, stagnant and deficient the administration of justice in Jersey is.

Well, on Tuesday, we have yet more evidence to that fact.

Jersey’s Attorney General – the brother of the Bailiff, ‘Phil – “the real scandal is the bad publicity” – Bailhache’, – and member of the same golf club as Danny Wherry, another suspect – has decided to not prosecute the two suspects who were arrested a while ago.

You will recollect the immense controversy this caused given that the police had been clearly advised that the evidence to charge was present.

This Tuesday – the Attorney General has issued a press-release in which he attempts to justify his actions.

I have read that press-release – and to describe its assertions as profoundly defective would be an understatement.

It will now follow – as surely as night follows day – that the other well-known and well-evidenced suspects will not now face trial.

Oh sure – a few token scumbags – people from the “lower social orders” will be tried; the kind of people not well-connected – and not able to sing like the proverbial canary.

The Jersey oligarchy obviously needs two or three token culprits – for appearance’s sake.

But in this case, Jersey’s Attorney General has let off the hook another “pillar of society” catholic couple – Mr and Mrs Bonner – whose “devout” and “Godly” philosophy involved battering children in their care – with cricket bats.

Apparently the “evidential” test was not met – because – get this – Mr and Mrs Bonner’s natural children said they were of good character.

Oh well – that’s all right then. No need for a court. No need for the weighing of witness testimony – of the assessing of quality against quantity. The Attorney General can determine guilt or innocence – without all that tiresome “trial” business – on the basis that the accuseds’ relatives say they’re really fine people. Innocent, therefore – I mean, just obviously; if your family members say so.

It’s difficult to know what to make of this madness anymore.

But don’t take my word for that.

Just read below the report written by tough, straight cop Lenny Harper in response to the perversions of justice being engaged in by William Bailhache and his agents.

Which cliché to use? You couldn’t make it up? Read it and weep?

Read Lenny Harper’s confidential memo in full.

Christ – I’m just not paid anything like enough for doing this job.




Submitted by: DCO L. Harper

Submitted to: Chief Officer (For onward transmission to Attorney General.)
MIR Office Manager (For Registration and filing on HOLMES System.)

Chief Officer:

The Attorney General has requested a report into the circumstances and reasons for the issue of the Media Statement following the release from Custody of Mr and Mrs Bonner who were arrested by the Historical Abuse Team for three Grave and Criminal Assaults. The reasons for the release however, do not start with the arrest of the Bonners and are outlined in full below.

On 9th April 2008 I met with the AG in the presence of yourself. This meeting was to discuss the provision of Legal Assistance to the Historical Abuse Enquiry. The Attorney General was keen to appoint an independent lawyer to assist the enquiry “in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage.” There was some discussion over his wish to have the lawyer placed within the Incident Room. I, ACPO, and others saw this as a highly unusual step, and objected to that situation.

Eventually a compromise was reached and Mr Simon Thomas was appointed and given an office in Police Headquarters. Agreement was reached with him, Cyril Whelan, and Stephen Baker that, in a departure from normal practice, we would not arrest suspects whom we hoped to charge until we had submitted a file of evidence to the lawyers and they would then guide us on what charges could be preferred. This was to prevent us from having to arrest a string of suspects and release them whilst the report was being considered. We were reassured that the turnaround in the files would be very quick in order not to delay the process of arrest and charge.

The service that we have received from the legal team has not been as we were led to believe it would be. Since his arrival in mid April we have given Mr Thomas six files. The file for the Bonner case, which was a straight-forward file containing only a small number of statements was handed to him in early June. There followed a number of meetings between himself, the Deputy SIO, the Detective Sergeant Team Leader, and the two investigators in charge of that particular enquiry. During these meetings the evidence was discussed and on Friday 20th June 2008 the Detective Sergeant and the two investigators met with Mr Thomas. It was agreed that the Bonners should be arrested and charged with three crimes of Grave and Criminal Assault. As always, it was accepted that this was subject to any significant changes in the evidence against them following interview or the arrest process. All three officers are certain of the instructions given to them by Mr Thomas and recall clearly the discussions about the difference between the different types of assault and the directions given in relation to charging.

The Bonners were arrested on Tuesday 24th June 2007. Mr Bonner was interviewed first. He denied the offences but offered nothing which changed the evidence against him or his wife. Mrs Bonner feigned illness but was declared fit by the Doctor.

At 5pm Simon Thomas declared to the investigators that he had revised his view and said he did not want the couple charged. The officers were extremely surprised and not a little frustrated. I spoke to Simon who, it transpired, was between trains and on a railway station platform somewhere in the North of England. Indeed, as we spoke the conversation was frequently interrupted by passing trains. He said he had revised his opinion because of new evidence that had emerged during the day. I asked what that evidence was and he gave me three “developments.”

1. Mrs Bonner was unwell. I explained the situation in respect of her and that the Police Doctor thought she was feigning. I explained that she was obtaining the woman’s medical notes and would further advise at 6.30pm. In the event, the Doctor declared the suspect fit for detention and interview. I questioned however, whether this could be said to be new evidence which affected the decision to charge.
2. Simon then told me that a witness called Drake had rung the Custody Officer and said we had made a mistake, and that we had the wrong people in custody. I pointed out that Drake had made a witness statement which Simon had seen and which he had taken into account when recommending which charges should be preferred. Drake had not added any new evidence to what was in his statement.

3. The Bonners’ children had telephoned and said their parents were good people and that they (the children) were now flying to Jersey. I asked Simon how that was new evidence as opposed to character evidence, and he said that they might have evidence relevant to the allegations as they lived in the same house. I pointed out that he knew that previously and also that they lived in a different part of the house.

Simon then said he needed to speak to Cyril Whelan and Stephen Baker who were in Jersey. He did so and telephoned back. He said they agreed with him and wanted to see the interviews before charging. I pointed out that this made the arrangement we had pretty worthless – what was the point of us sending him the file before arrest if he still had to wait to see the interview notes? The idea was that he told us the charges before we released suspects. He then said that he could not do that as things might change during the interview. He said we arrested on suspicion and then interviewed and he decided on charges afterwards. I made the point that we had all agreed that we would not arrest until we had given him the papers and this was to allow us to be given suitable charges to prevent the process of arrest and release. He said that things could always arise during interview. I accepted that occasionally that could happen but that in the absence of anything dramatic, the agreed charges would normally still be relevant. I pointed out that he had met the officers in this case and the Deputy SIO on several occasions and that just before arrest there had been discussion on the charges and he had agreed three G&C assault charges. He said that was not correct. All four of our staff, DI Fossey, DS Smith, and the two UK detectives were frustrated at this development as their recollection was he had clearly agreed with them this course of action. I told Simon that if these two were not charged I was not having the Enquiry Team officers blamed for it. He finished by saying that operationally he could not tell me whether to charge or not.

In view of that comment, I told the officers to get the Centenier in to PHQ to charge. They did so. Danny Scaife came in, Andy Smith gave him the full facts including the discussion with the lawyer, and Danny went off to read the evidence. He did so for well over an hour and then declared that although there was enough evidence to charge, he was not going to.

At that stage I told Louise Nibbs to put the Press Release out. It avoided comment and stuck to the facts. In answer to the Attorney General’s question, the following are the reasons I put it out.

Simon Thomas commented this week that he was anxious there should be no perception that the decisions to charge or not to charge suspects were being made under improper influence of factors other than evidence. I made the point to him, and make it again, that he and others do not seem able to grasp the fact that this perception is already there among the victims. They feel that the decisions are, and have been made in the past, on many factors other than the evidence. It is the need to avoid this perception that was uppermost in my mind in releasing the factual Media statement that evening.

One of the most heartening features of this enquiry has been the trust placed in the officers by very vulnerable victims and witnesses. This is despite them being on many occasions very badly let down by a number of agencies when they have previously tried to report crimes against them. This trust has been based on a foundation of openness and transparency together with an obvious determination to get to the truth. It is in marked contrast to the total contempt that the victims hold the Attorney General and his office in. So suspicious of that office are they, that many victims remain sceptical about the possibility of ever bringing the people who abused them to justice. The need to overcome the doubts victims had about the States of Jersey Police was one of the reasons why we agreed the policy of not arresting anyone until we had submitted the file to the lawyer working with us. In this way we avoided the scenario, seen so often in the UK, of a succession of suspects being brought into custody and then released without charge.
Such a scenario in this case would have damaged the credibility of the investigation and risked us being placed in the same category as those agencies the victims do not trust. This is illustrated by a briefing I have had from the NSPCC Counsellor working alongside us. He has received a text message from a victim (which he has showed me) to say “It is a joke. Another two walk away. No wonder no one will come forward.” Here is an illustration of the need for us to maintain our distance and our independence from the office of the Attorney General, and a stark reason for the release.

However, the agreement mentioned above has not worked as planned or indeed promised. Files have been submitted, some of them not very complex and indeed, no more complicated than the normal type file dealt with on a daily basis by the PPU. The time to turn them around by the legal team has been frustratingly long. There is no intention to criticise the ability of the “dedicated” lawyer here, but it is obvious that he has a number of commitments in the UK which makes it difficult for him to be here. The debacle over the Bonner case is one example. As stated above, the officers concerned are adamant that they were given the go ahead to charge; subject to the usual conditions that nothing significant occurred during the arrest process or interviews. If this had not been the case, no arrest would have been made. The actions of the UK lawyer himself hardly seem to corroborate the picture of someone giving serious consideration to an evolving investigation with prisoners in custody. Some UK and even Jersey law practitioners may find it rather bizarre that a lawyer found it acceptable to carry out such work on the platform of a busy railway station.

A further example of the poor service given to us is illustrated by the Maguire case. The importance of this case to our enquiry is obvious to all, including the media. The Deputy SIO and I have continually emphasised this to Simon Thomas.

We delivered the file to Simon on the 29th April. The investigators, the Deputy SIO, and I regularly asked him for progress reports. These were not really forthcoming even when he was in Jersey. I had to speak to a Jersey lawyer with experience of extradition to clarify one point. I then spoke to a CPS expert on Extradition to clarify something else in an attempt to speed things up. In mid June I was told by Simon that he and Cyril Whelan had almost finished the work on the charges. Then we were told that the AG had asked for full advice files on the facts and the law. We realised the need for this but were firm in seeking assurances from the lawyers that this would be done quickly. Stephen Baker, after some debate, undertook that the AG would be fully advised within seven days. That period expired last week and the investigating officers e mailed Simon Thomas in the UK and asked if it had been done. The reply from Simon Thomas was “I will answer this question next week.”

This answer to a reasonable and sensible question beggars belief, and is another example of the shoddy and unprofessional service which we are receiving. To return to the question of perception, what sort of perception would this give to the public if they knew of it? Meanwhile, the Maguires remain in France, although we are told by the lawyers that our fear of them absconding is not supported by their information. This is despite that our intelligence comes from those who found them in the first place.

In summary, I issued the Press Release to explain to the public, but mainly the victims, why these two suspects had been released. I feel, as do the investigators, that we were badly let down by the legal advice delivered from afar. The three pieces of “new evidence”, even to a police officer, were transparently no such thing. As the conversation unfurled it became obvious that even Simon Thomas did not truly believe that what he was describing to me was evidence. I could not work out, and am still unable to work out, what really did prompt the change of heart and the revision of the advice. I have refused to speculate on that but was determined that the States of Jersey Police would not be criticised for the decision. Subsequent events proved that this was a justifiable fear with the Deputy Home Affairs Minister describing to me how a number of members of the Council of Ministers were already gleefully talking about another “Police Cock Up” in bringing these suspects in and not charging them.

It is also probably pertinent to include some reference in this report to the expressed view of the Attorney General, and indeed the Minister, that the circulation list for this and other police press releases is “too wide and encourages wider comment.” These comments show a distinct lack of awareness of dealing with the media in this type of situation. The list has evolved from the early days of the enquiry because when the first media releases were made, the Press Officer was immediately deluged with media outlets demanding to know why they had not received the release and asking why we were hiding it from them. Apart from an impression of reluctance to communicate, this heavy demand led to our phone systems being blocked, (at one point the Press Officer had 128 messages waiting), and caused unnecessary stress to our staff. It was also expensive in time and cost to send out a Press Release so many times, not to mention extremely unprofessional. Several weeks ago the Press Officer contacted everyone on the list and asked if she could take them off. Only three agreed and they are now removed.

Another aspect and implication of the Attorney General’s comment which he might like to reflect on is what would happen if we did indeed cut our circulation list. When the inevitable questions arrived from the media all over the world and we told them that we had removed them from out list, they would without doubt ask why. When we gave the truthful answer that the AG thought it a good idea to curtail circulation and a wider coverage they just might, in the light of the many allegations of cover up against his office, think that they had here positive evidence of the “wilful obstruction” which he was recently accused of. No matter how unjust that might be, it would be an obvious outcome.

Submitted for onward transmission to the Attorney General.

Leonard Harper, Deputy Chief OfficerChief OfficerDocument

Reader Major Incident Room (For Registration)
29th June 2008


The Jersey Oligarchy Rages Against the Dying of the Light,

Against all respectable law and precedent.

And in so doing, batters the credibility of Jersey.

Pre-Script – Jersey’s Attorney General.

When writing this blog post this morning, I alerted readers to the fact that The Rag would be carrying a substantive interview with Jersey’s Attorney General. Sure enough – said screed of neo-Victorian paternalism duly appeared.

As you might have guessed – I plan to write a detailed post in response to the interview.

And having now read it – I can say that won’t be a difficult task.

William Bailhache’s assertions are so lame and vacuous that they almost elicit pity.

And even more crucial – and startling given the gravity of the situation – is not what is said in the interview – but that which is not said.

The core, fundamental principles of good jurisprudence. The very insurmountable obstacles he, and the system of which he is a part, just cannot overcome.

They sit ignored and unaddressed – just as the proverbial elephant in the room.

To borrow a phrase from the great Swedish poet, Tomas Transtromer, the real issues and questions remain:

“Unanswered – and vehement – like the telephone ringing in the dark.”

There is, however, one useful and revealing feature of the interview. On page 9 of The Rag, there is a photo of William Bailhache which accompanies the interview.

If you are able to get hold of a copy of The Rag – take a good, long look at that photo. Absorb that face; read what is revealed by those eyes.

It is fear. Fear, self-doubt and uncertainty.

It is the expression of a lost and frightened schoolboy.

The face of a man who is, perhaps, just beginning to grasp just how far out of his depth he is.

Read the post below – and wait for my detailed analysis of the assertions of Bill.


The Lies of The Rag.

The mouthpiece of the Jersey oligarchy is the island’s only newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post. And the “voice” which issues from said orifice is to be principally found in the leader comments – the editorial comments – that The Rag is wont to produce – usually liberally supplemented with an extensive range of fake, manufactured letters.

The JEP – AKA, The Rag – leader comments are the ‘authoritative’ representation of the objectives, ‘integrity’, ‘intelligence’ and ‘rationality’ of the Jersey establishment.

You want to gain an accurate assessment of the ethics and intellectual capacity of Jersey’s oligarchy?

Just read the JEP leader comments. For here is to be found the true voice of unopposed, entrenched power in Jersey.

Reading The Rag’s comments is, therefore, a very good gauge of just how particularly stupid and unethical the Jersey oligarchy is being at any given point. (usually, extremely.)

The editorial comment of this Friday is such a splendid example of stupidity, mendacity, ignorance, straight-forward lies and McCarthyite agitprop – that I thought I’d share it with you – along with a deconstruction, as I did in respect of the load of laughable cobblers The Rag spouted in response to the tragic garbage that was the Williamson report.

I analyse the leader comment in this post – just so you can savour the marvellous conflation of stupidity and lies which so well reflects the “opinions” and “thoughts” of our Glorious Leaders here in Jersey.

But what is any rational, honest, thinking person to make of such mendacious and harmful garbage?

Let’s take a stroll through the Hieronymus Bosch-world of the Jersey establishment, gripped as they are in some kind of final dreaming, in the darkness of which they seek to fend-off the black fact of The End.

And we can, perhaps, best do that by analysing the situation from their own perspective – on their own terms.

Imagine: you’re a younger, reasonably intelligent, supporter of the Jersey oligarchy. You work in a bank – and draw a big, fat salary; or perhaps you’re an accountant – certain to climb up the tree of advancement into a world of riches – which, of course requires this island to remain attractive and credible to Jersey’s off-shore clients.

Or maybe you’re a lawyer rolling in the riches delivered by the island’s finance industry; in fact – perhaps you’re an Advocate, maybe – very lucratively – working as a senior partner in one of the island’s many law firms.

Perhaps you’re a property speculator – dependent on continuing inward investment into Jersey – to keep your property deals going. Maybe you are a major shareholder in one of the big construction firms in Jersey?

Or a proprietor of a swanky restaurant. Maybe an owner of one of the many Jewellery shops which are found up and down St. Helier’s main shopping area.

Perhaps your livelihood depends on selling £100,000 cars? Or multi-million pound yachts?

It may happen that your family are traditional landowners, able to cash your chips – big time – by selling your family’s old farm houses to tax-exiles. Or by wangling development permission to rake in millions of pounds by developing your farm-land.

Perchance, your just one of those individuals – or Families – which own loads of very lucrative town properties, residential and commercial, from which you make an idle fortune because of the demand for your product, which is accommodation.

If you fit into one, or several, of the above-categories – you will be doing handsomely from, and with, the present status quo. Money’s rolling in – whether you ‘earn it’ by working as a lawyer or banker – or whether it just falls into your lap through happy inheritance of family real estate.

Naturally enough – you very much want the above-described commercial opportunities to continue. Business as normal. Steady-as-she-goes. No rocking of the boat.

You’re an acolyte of that famous Jersey cult – “stability”.

If you fit into the above-described categories – you want – you need – Jersey to remain respectable; credible; a modern, functioning democracy. You want the island to have a low-key, yet respectable, world image. The last thing you need is controversy – or to see the island’s reputation going down the pan and the place becoming – at best, a laughing-stock – at worst, something far grimmer.

You really need all this present very distasteful controversy to end, and for the island to re-establish some kind of respectable reputation and standing

Status-quo – business as usual. That’s what you want – that’s what you believe would be best for Jersey.

Then why – in the name of Christ – do you support the collection of dingbats, neo-Victorians, nutters, propagandists, clowns, ignoramuses and halfwits who have “led” Jersey ever-deeper into this mess – the island’s greatest ever peace-time crisis?

Because if you support and agree with the Bailhache Brothers, Big Frank & Co., The Rag, the immensely expensive – yet crap – and wholly unaccountable – Jersey senior civil service – that is what you are doing; supporting an inchoate hotchpotch of the insular, the eccentric, the ignorant.

Generally, a collective – gripped by text-book Groupthink – who support and encourage each other into ever greater acts of folly; people who are at the bottom of that proverbial hole – yet who just keep on digging.

And we have at our disposal a prime exhibit of evidence which proves the above – courtesy of Friday’s JEP leader comment.

So lets have a close, analytical look at it; a dig into the subtext – and a re-analysis of the truth. And remember this editorial Rag comment is THE VOICE of the Jersey establishment. We’ll give it a close reading – section by section – and whilst doing so we will stand back from the issues and ask ourselves, ‘who is taking the more de-stabilising, threatening, eccentric, unsustainable and dangerous approach to this island, its public administration and its reputation and standing:

Me – or our insular and ignorant establishment?

The leader comment in question is titled: “A Threat of Constitutional Disruption”, and its target is the legal action John Hemming, MP and I have initiated against UK Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.

Aside from being the customary amalgam of lies, ignorance and stupidity, the essential thrust of the comment is that Jersey is currently a qua paradise; our establishment and all their works are wondrous examples of wisdom; all the bad publicity is the foul work of an evil national media – and that people like me don’t care about this community – we just want to smash it; for reasons never quite explained.

Except, perhaps, when Erstwhile JEP boss – and Jersey Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker – blurted-out, during one of his frequent diatribes of personal abuse at me, that I was simply “trying to shaft Jersey internationally”.

The great irony of that now internationally infamous remark being that “the shafting” of Jersey’s reputation was actually being caused by people like Frank Walker, Phil Bailhache, William Bailhache, Philip Ozouf and the JEP.

So let’s make an examination of The Rag’s comment.

It begins:

“It is undeniable that the present investigation into alleged historical child abuse at Haut de la Garenne and elsewhere has cast a dark shadow over Jersey and its people.”

This spin and propaganda is so elementary it would be an embarrassment in a communist dictatorship. For in this phrase we see both those great spin ‘trigger-words’ used “Jersey” and “its people.”

Patriotism in the use of ‘Jersey’, and – plus forte – THE PEOPLE.

This phrase could just as well read as a propaganda statement from North Korea –

“It is undeniable that the present investigation into nuclear weapons casts an international slur upon the great people’s republic of North Korea and upon her enlightened and peace-loving people!”

It really is that absurd – beyond parody. So, remember – if you have a vast wealth-stream accruing from Jersey’s present status – this is the kind of stupid and insular crap which threatens your wealth by making Jersey look a laughing-stock.

But it gets worse; next we come to this:

“However, in spite of what some critics seem determined to assert neither the great majority of Islanders nor our political and legal establishments can be damned by awful events which, as far as we can tell, unfolded decades ago and clearly involved a restricted number of people.”

I mean what can you say to this? How much more comically absurd do you want your propaganda? How much more laugh-out-loud crassness and absurdity do we need for it to become one of those parodies of Pravda we read in Private Eye magazine?

“In spite of what some critics seem determined to assert neither the great majority of Islanders”?

“in spite” – “critics”! – Ooh! God preserve us from “critics”!

“The great majority of islanders”?

Did you see what they’ve done there? Clever, no?

Cast a “patriotic” Groupthink, communal identity throw of the dice.

The theory is – The Rag hopes – that Jersey people are somehow ignorant and stupid enough to buy into this; to identify with our establishment. They want people to read their shameful garbage and think, “Ooh – those dreadful “critics” are attacking me – attacking us – as Jersey people! Well – the world’s media – and campaigners of international repute – they can all be damned! We’re Jersey people and we won’t be attacked!”

Actually – one has to wonder if Frank’s spin-doctors didn’t take lessons from North Korea. The crass, ‘patriotism’ card being played for all its worth.

I mean – just look at the “skill”! See how “the great majority of islanders” become juxtaposed as a concept – right, nestled-up to – “our political and legal establishments”.

So – you’re a part of the “great majority of ordinary islanders” – and here you are – being misappropriated and used as somehow analogous to, and supportive of, Big Frank & Co. and the rest of the oligarchs.

Are you happy with that? Do think it’s OK for The Rag – with no authority whatsoever – to associate you with, and assign your support to, a manifestly incompetent and generally despised group of politicians?

The Rag isn’t quite so stupid – though close – as to imagine many people would go along with being described as Frank Walker’s and Philip Bailhache’s ‘infantry’ – which is why the play the “patriotism” card – that famous “last refuge of the scoundrel”.

But as any thinking person will see – immediately – the straightforward lies in the paragraph from The Rag comment are an insult to the intelligence; a ‘straw-man’ argument.

The JEP lies that critics are determined to assert that the great majority of islanders should be ‘damned’ for the awful events.


No critic, nor survivor, no campaigner, no politician – not even any national media – have stated that the ordinary people of Jersey are to be dammed for the awful events.

This spin – which has been used throughout this whole wretched episode by our oligarchy – is simply a lie. Far from anyone depicting the ordinary people of Jersey as being in any way condoning of, or in someway responsible for, the atrocities – it has been universally said that child abuse, sadly, happens everywhere; there is nothing unique about Jersey.

But what has been said is that our “political” and our “legal” establishments have been – and are – fundamentally flawed. Which is simply a stone-fact, of the kind that could only be denied by an idiot. How else could one view decades upon decades of concealed child abuse to be anything other than the product of a legal and political system utterly broken and stagnant? An entire apparatus of public administration which failed so disastrously to manifest even remotely effective ‘checks and balances’?

Which is why – as it’s so obvious and undeniable – the Jersey oligarchy and its Rag desperately attempt to conjoin the inescapable legal and political establishment failures – with some fictitious failure of the island’s people. It’s text-book propagandist opinion-management; try and make people identify themselves with a political establishment under attack; make them feel it’s them under attack as well – and there you have your propagandised army.

Then we come to assertions which have left the mere sphere of transparent propaganda – and have simply become outright, crude lies.

The Rag says this:

“Awful events which, as far as we can tell, unfolded decades ago and clearly involved a restricted number of people.”

This is such shameful rubbish; it’s difficult to know where to start. Well, let’s start with the two words in the phrase which are true: “awful events”.

The rest of the sentence is simply brazen lies, intended to con the average Jersey person into believing that the atrocities were (a) – committed decades ago, and (b) – only involved a “restricted number of people” – and therefore are, by implication, nothing much to get worked-up about these days.

I suppose the lesser of these two lies is the reference to ‘restricted numbers of people’. What – exactly – is this phrase supposed to mean? Maybe that there were 37 child batterers, 24 child rapist and 17 sodomists of children? You tell me?

Are we supposed to assume that these figures – or some such similar figures – reduce the atrocities to a comparatively minor and trivial event?

Maybe if there were only 15 rapists of children, that’d be OK in JEP-world?

And what, really, are we supposed to do when confronted with the phrase “restricted numbers”?

“Restricted numbers” could be the population of China. It would be restricted to the nationals of that country. That is not an attack on China – merely an illustration of the utter intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by the Jersey oligarchy in, (a) using such a meaninglessly unquantifiable phrase, and, (b) – expecting people to swallow such garbage as though they were fools.

But by far-and-away the most startling lie in the paragraph quoted is that the atrocities “happened decades ago”.

To be sure, some of them did, indeed, happen decades ago. But what the Jersey Evening Post, its editors, subs, hacks and owners would have you believe is that all the cases of abuse happened decades ago; that at some indeterminate point in the past – years ago – things changed – so we don’t have to worry about the system in recent times or presently.

Let us be clear about two things; even if this assertion by The Rag were not a demonstrable, evidenced lie; a complete and shameless fiction – and that the abuses did stop – say – 25 or 30 years ago – would that make it OK? Or would it, perhaps, at least mean it could be regarded as some trivially distant thing that we really needn’t get too bothered about?

Of course not – and only the kind of ethically bankrupt, lying, unprincipled, ignorant spivs who write The Rag editorials could possibly think otherwise.

I have come to know older survivors – I have learnt of their wrecked lives. Even if all atrocities against children had, miraculously, ceased 30 years ago – still, the suffering of those in their 60’s and 70’s would, alone, be sufficient reason for anger and a wish to see justice.

But remember now – the Jersey Evening Post is the island’s only newspaper; the only regular print media in a self-governing jurisdiction. You might imagine that power, that responsibility, would temper the partisan extremism we see in some national newspapers?

Not a bit of it.

For here we have Jersey’s only newspaper brazenly lying to it’s readership, the people of Jersey – by trying to con and mislead the people of this island into thinking that no abuses – or other crimes concerning children – have been committed in recent times; that everything in the garden is rosy today – and if anything bad did happen – it was “decades ago”.

The Jersey Evening Post knows its assertion to be a lie – because it has in its possession ample evidence of far more recent abuses. For example, the Victoria College abuses which took place for years – until the late 1990’s. I gave The Rag the Sharp report which exposed these things.

The Blanche Pierre group-home abuses thought the 1980’s; I too gave the JEP hard, impeccable, documentary evidence of this episode last September.

The use of manifestly unlawful polices such as the punitive and coercive use of lengthy periods of solitary confinement against already vulnerable children; solitary confinement which could go on for months.

The so-called “Grand Prix” policy document, which describes this solitary confinement policy, was furnished to the JEP last year by me. The punitive and coercive use of solitary confinement against children was only stopped about 2 years ago – following the efforts of Simon Bellwood.

The policy was manifestly illegal – a straightforward criminal offence – engaged in by the States of Jersey until recently – and still to this day, the JEP goes along with the lie that ‘there was no problem’ – and even suggests that the only child abuses occurred “decades ago”.

The plain and evidenced fact is that child abuse, of all descriptions, was endemic in public sector provision in Jersey for decades upon decades – and it only stopped very recently – because people like Simon and I – in the teeth of opposition from The Rag and the rest of the oligarchy – made a stand against it.

The next phase of The Rag’s editorial is truly wondrous to behold:

“It is possible that the Haut de la Garenne scandal could produce lasting effects that go beyond the scars that it will leave on the collective psyche of this Island. If Senator Stuart Syvret’s attempt to force the hand of British Justice Minister Jack Straw through a legal action calling for the intervention of English judges and prosecutors were to be successful, a constitutional precedent would be established.”

I think any decent, thinking person has got the picture by now, so I won’t labour the points; let’s just have a quick look at this garbage:

“Scars on the collective psyche of the island”?!?!

Sorry? Come again?

Doesn’t it occur to any of the senior maggots who work at The Rag that what they imagine to be “collective scars on the psyche of the island” – even if they were to exist, which I don’t accept, because as explained previously, the vast majority of ordinary islanders are not associated with the atrocities, so have absolutely nothing to feel any shame for – that such hypothetical “collective scars on the island’s psyche” would be of minute significance compared to the psychological scars of the survivors – indeed, the scars on those who didn’t survive.

Perhaps the Jersey Evening Post considers any slight embarrassment or irritation on the part of the shysters in blazers it represents to be a far graver matter than the battered wreckage of a life so shattered and in turmoil the person concerned leapt to their death from the top of Patriotic Street Car Park?

Or perhaps the scars on the psyche of Michael O’Connell who – at the age of 14 – died, through what at the time was deemed ‘suicide’, by hanging from a tree in a lane in the parish of Trinity – in 1966?

“The collective psych of the island”. Its things like this which make me wish I could embrace religion. Then I’d be able to comfort myself in some small way with the thought that these Jersey oligarchy spivs are going to burn in hell for eternity.

Returning to the merely mundanely wrong, The Rag asserts that the legal action initiated by John Hemming, MP and me, against UK justice Minister Jack Straw, would cause “a constitutional precedent to be established”.

No – it wouldn’t.

There are dozens of well-evidenced precedents for UK intervention into the internal affairs of the island. As one might expect, I have been giving these matters some research. The assertion that the UK has neither the responsibility nor the power to intervene is so manifestly fictitious as to be laughable.

Just consider what such a contemptuous and brazen lie says of Jersey’s only “newspaper”?

It must mean they regard their readers as a load of utter fools.

For if UK intervention in the name of the good administration of justice would be “unprecedented” – why, then did the authorities in London sack – strip of Office – a Jersey Deputy Bailiff as recently as 1992?

They did it because they have the responsibility – and they have the power.

And many, many islanders will remember that 1992 controversy. As I said – the Jersey Evening Post must really think its readers bloody stupid if The Rag believes such a matter has been forgotten about.

This is The Rag’s next paragraph:

“But this would be no mere formality of interest only to constitutional experts and students of an arcane area of the law. It would rock one of the foundations of a relationship with the Crown, and therefore Britain, which has stood the test of the past 800 years. That foundation is the Island’s legal independence – its right to operate a justice system that is separate and distinct from that of the UK and has its own courts, its own presiding judges and its own legal infrastructure.”

The ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty behind this assertion are almost surprising.

The relationship with the Crown has existed for over 800 years because – err – we are, like, a Crown dependency you know. We do not, in fact, have some God-given right to “operate” our own “justice system”. Indeed – we don’t operate our own justice system. Our prosecutory and judicial apparatus works under the good name of the Crown. For sure that relationship with the Crown has existed for 800 years – but the implicit notion that it has always been plain-sailing – and that the Crown – either in its own name or in more recent centuries in the name of the monarch’s government – has always agreed with the island’ oligarchy – and has not intervened – is palpably absurd.

The Rag ‘forgets’, apparently, to remind its readers that, actually, the Law officers such as the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are appointed by London – as are the senior judges, such as the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff.

The Crown – via it’s government hires these people – the Crown – via its government can fire them.

The next passage of The Rag’s editorial comment runs thus:

“This is not to say that the imposition of English judges would mark the immediate end of our status as a Crown Dependency – in fact, there are occasions when, for reasons of its own, the Royal Court calls in UK assistance in certain cases – but it would signal that the established order is not beyond challenge. It would, moreover, offer encouragement to those who can hardly contain their eagerness to challenge our political autonomy.”

“It is impossible to say how far Senator Syvret’s case, which is also pressed in conjunction with Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, will progress, although comments reportedly made by the Justice Minister’s department suggest that there will be little appetite for disturbing a status quo to which it has expressed commitment in the recent past and of which it is likely to mount its own defence.”

As is already well-exampled via a number of precedents, what The Rag refers to as the “established order” has – as a matter of demonstrable fact – frequently involved, over an historic period – Crown intervention.

The use of such intervention, when necessary, as in the present cases, is actually a part of the “established order”. At risk of repetition – we are a Crown Dependency – our administration of justice is happy to wear the cloak of the Crown – but a part of the package is ultimate Crown responsibility. It has ever been thus in our 800-plus years of semi-autonomy.

It’s truly quite startling that the Jersey Evening Post can treat its readers with such contempt as to lie to them quite so brazenly.

The Rag maybe right – who knows – as to the ultimate outcome of the legal action; but certain facts are established beyond any credible argument.

London has certain responsibilities for the Crown Dependencies – the good administration of justice being one of them.

London also has responsibility for compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights by the Crown Dependencies.

London, does, therefore, have the concomitant powers, given the responsibilities it – un-arguably – carries, to intervene if necessary.

London has so intervened in the past.

There is but one remotely plausible argument London could mount – though I’m far from convinced they will bother; unlike the JEP – I don’t see – when the chips are done – the UK government dying in a ditch just to protect the Jersey oligarchy. That argument is that – ‘OK – we could intervene – the precedents and powers are certainly there – but we don’t want to because we don’t think a threshold judicial breakdown has been reached which merits intervention.

But – for this argument to work – the government’s layers would have to overturn centuries of jurisprudence, case-law and modern ECHR convention Rights.

An implacable and immovable foundation-stone of the good administration of justice is that justice must be seen to be done. It is not sufficient for there to be a perception of a conflict of interests on the part of some judge, court-clerk, prosecutor or jurist – and to say ‘well, that just doesn’t matter, because they are fine chaps who can be relied upon to do the right thing’.

There can not even be the merest suspicion of a conflict of interests, or of bias.

These are not ideas of mine. Such established principles are the result of centuries of the good administration of justice.

So – what relevance is this core, legal principle to the present Jersey situation? Neither the prosecution service – nor the judiciary of Jersey can remotely even approach meeting that standard; of appearing to be objective and impartial.

The administration of justice – not capable of achieving something as rudimentary and fundamental as the appearance of objectivity? Ipso facto fundamental breakdown in the good administration of justice. Therefore unavoidable grounds for UK intervention.

The Rag concludes with this:

“It is, though, highly unlikely that the Senator is unaware of the possible far-reaching consequences of his foray into the English courts and of its potential for spurring a catastrophic reordering of not only the legal but also the political, social and economic life of the Island.”

As just described, seeking the intervention of the UK courts has proven to be a regrettable necessity – because of Jersey oligarchy intransigence, and the customary prevarication from London officials.

I would far prefer not to be doing this; not to be engaging in such actions. But I have no choice. It is plain that my constituents will not get, good, objective, justice if things are left to the Jersey oligarchy.

So the need for such intervention – the cause of such actions – is not some whim or wish of mine. Those who have brought us to this pass are the senior Jersey oligarchy figures, such as the Bailhache Brothers – and those who perform as uncritical cheer-leaders for them – such as The Rag.

They are the cause of this crisis – not the survivors, not the whistle-blowers, not the witnesses, not the national media and not me.

Only a fool or a liar could possible come to any conclusion other than that the Jersey oligarchy has – entirely – been the author of its own misfortune in this matter.

A little humility, a little common sense – even a vague grasp of established jurisprudence – and the legal crises need not have happened at all.

Instead – even now – we get yet more of the tragi-comic North Korea-style rabid propaganda and lies which would have us believe that the abuse survivors – seeking something as basic and fundamental as their Article 6 Rights under the ECHR – a fair determination of their civil rights before an ‘objective and impartial tribunal’ are going to cause a “catastrophic reordering” of the “economic life of the island.”

But no. It’s the island’s Half-witted oligarchs, their media, like The Rag, the abusers and the cover-up merchants who are to blame for any crises.

And when the island’s only newspaper – in the year 2008 – can still cling to such laughably transparent lies – can we really be surprised at the mess the island finds itself in?

I fear we’ll have yet more evidence of that fact this Saturday, as the JEP is carrying a substantive interview with the Attorney General, William Bailhache, the man who has prevented suspects from being charged; from being extradited – and who was the senior partner of a law firm, Bailhache LaBesse, which, in 1998, catastrophically failed to properly represent the victims of an infamous abuse episode.

The inescapable and implacably conflicted position this places him in is not credibly deniable – and has been pointed out to him – on several occasions. Yet his response is to, essentially, argue against all established jurisprudence and authority on the subject of the appearance of conflict.

He is also the brother of the Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, Jersey’s chief judge. This being the Philip Bailhache who delivered a truly extraordinary political rant on Jersey’s Liberation Day in which he attacked the investigation of child abuse and the national media.

I began this post by describing those categories of people who would very much wish Jersey to retain its customary standing and economic prosperity.

But the year is 2008 – for God’s sake. Do you seriously imagine that a jurisdiction without an independent prosecution service, without an independent judiciary, with only one “newspaper – which churns out such contemptible, dishonest, ignorant and actively damaging garbage – can remain stable and respectable, in the eyes of the modern world?

Do you not see a danger of us becoming ever more regarded as some deeply strange and concerning banana republic – with similar degrees of “credibility”?

You will read another screed of fantastical garbage from the Attorney General in this Saturday’s JEP.

If you want Jersey to prosper, to remain respectable and credible – the time has come for bankers, accountants, lawyers – to discreetly yet firmly – tell the Bailhache Brothers and Frank & Co – and The Rag, for that matter, to come to their senses.

If some – very rapid – changes can be made to see that my constituents get good, objective justice, then great. There’ll be no need for legal battles and greater controversy can be avoided.

But unless those out there who have power and influence in Jersey can make these insular, ignorant, silly little men wake up and smell the coffee – then we are guaranteed yet more spectacular black farce – and all of the collateral damage which will flow from it.




Why the Channel Islands Must Embrace Political Parties.

Check Out:

Just a brief post today.

As a commenter recently moaned – ‘don’t I get bored with churning out the same old stuff?’

Actually – no. Because it is very necessary. The very concept of “boredom” lays in some distant paradigm when compared to the importance of fighting the child protection war.

But the same commenter has submitted a near-identical “same old stuff” “circular argument” comment, in which they repeat their point.

Well, if the commenter is bored by this blog – no one is forcing them to read it. Indeed – just as I won’t be boring myself reading their repetitive and tedious comments.

So, that’s that off my chest. I’ve only been rude and obnoxious to 17 people so far today; one gets withdrawal symptoms if one doesn’t keep it up.

But – to the point of this brief post – which is on a different subject, my bored reader will be happy to know.

Quite extraordinarily, the Channel Islands have a political culture – a habit – of not engaging with party politics.

The vast majority of candidates seek election as so-called “independent” candidates – as indeed, did I.

Were I ever to be so masochistic as to seek election again – it would never be as an “independent”.

It really is quite extraordinary – that here, in a supposedly respectable, functioning democracy – in the 21st century – the oligarchies of these islands still succeed in propagandising their populations into thinking that organised politics is A-Bad-Thing.

But, in truth, the lack of political accountability inherent in the Channel Island ‘system’ of so-called “independent” politics, leads to fundamental breaches of the public good.

You’d have to be some kind of idiot not to see why the hostility to organised politics should have prevailed.

The channel islands are, essentially, single-party states – ruled by undeclared, covert de facto political parties. Obviously – this is a state of affairs which suite very well indeed the self-interests of the islands’ traditional oligarchies.

The last thing they’d want would be some kind of organised opposition.

Anyway – I have written a detailed post on this subject for the Channel Island forum, Vue des Isles. You can find it by hitting the Channel Island forum link in my links list, or going to the address, which is this:

Take a look; join the debate.



Almost certainly – yes.

Families for Justice vs. Jack Straw;

Legal Proceedings Launched Tomorrow

In London’s High Court.

Following my two, somewhat lengthy, previous posts, I’ll try and keep this one shorter.

So – we have run our opinion-poll and the results are emphatic and conclusive.

As can be seen to the right, of our 234 voters, 199 voted that the Jersey judicial apparatus could not be seen to be objective and impartial in any matter, criminal or civil, arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

Only 35 voted ‘yes’, that Jersey’s judiciary could meet the fundamental test of appearing to be objective.

That’s 85% – to 14%.

A crushing majority.

But – consider the nature of our original point; that the good administration of justice cannot permit even the faintest taint or suspicion of partiality or bias.

Let us imagine the results were reversed; that it was an 85% to 14% majority vote of confidence in the Jersey judicial apparatus?

Such is the implacable nature of the requirements for the good administration of justice – such as the requirement, which trumps all, for there to be no suspicion of bias in judicial proceedings – that even a figure of 14% would still damn the Jersey system as not capable of being able to appear to administer justice objectively.

If we extrapolate our hypothetical, reversed results to the whole population of the island, and said that 14% of people who live here had no confidence in the ability of our judicial system to appear impartial – it would still be a crushing, mortal blow to the credibility of Jersey’s courts as presently structured and overseen.

But if our results were reversed in this way, you might argue “well – that’s democracy. The majority have spoken; they have faith in the court system. End of argument.”

But with all due respect – you’d be wrong.

The reason for this is that the administration of justice – is not necessarily the same thing as democracy.

Generally, we take ‘democracy’ to mean that the will of the majority carries the day; what the majority want – the majority gets.

And in functioning democracies – that’s what happens – via the political sphere. Political parties win their majority. They then form a government. Members of the legislature then approve the laws and policies of that government. All of which should be the democratic will of the people in action.

So why is the administration of justice different?

As we’ve already established in the previous two posts – stable, civilised democracies require a separation of powers – that the legislature and the judiciary should be two, distinct entities; each with their own particular roles.

Such an arrangement creates the existence of checks & balances, which, in plain English, means that no part of state authority can abuse power without being held to account by the other parts of state apparatus.

So the political sphere, the legislature, and all the braying politicians in it, make their laws and make their policies based on anything – from cogent policy reasons, to party doctrine, to which signs of the zodiac may be in ascendance. (Don’t laugh – that’s what Ronald Regan used to do.)

Essentially – the political sphere can eat, digest and excrete any old rubbish – quite regardless of objective facts.

But the way in which the judicial sphere operates is dramatically different to this.

The realm of democracy – of majority will – extends into the judicial sphere only so far as laws are concerned. Once the democratically elected government has made its laws – it can influence no further what takes place in court rooms.

For there to be respect for the law, respect for the courts, respect for the administration of justice – judicial processes cannot admit the political, the philosophical, the irrational – to enter the equation.

Courts must operate on an entirely objective basis – taking into account only the laws, the precedents, the evidence and the merits or demerits of the particular case before them.

This means that the judicial apparatus cannot operate merely in a way which reflects the majority opinion of the day. For if it did – the very basis upon which the concept of justice exists would collapse – immediately.

Suppose there is a civil case before the courts – involving some character who is widely known and regarded as odious by most people. Should that fact influence the court?

Categorically – no.

No matter that the odious individual be widely hated – if – in law – and on the facts – he is right – then he wins. End of.

No matter if 99% of the population despise him.

Or consider a person accused of some monstrous crime. The “democratic” will – the opinion of the majority – might well be that the accused simply be lynched.

Acceptable? Again – no.

No matter how repulsive the individual; no matter how wretched they may appear to most of the population – if the law and facts dictate it – the court must – and will – find them innocent.

So – democracy – and the good administration of justice? Not necessarily the same thing.

So even if a minority of 14% cannot view the justice apparatus as being objective and impartial – then that apparatus is not credible.

But – it wasn’t 14% who expressed no confidence.

It was 85%.

It would be difficult to overstate the apocalyptic implications of this result for the administration of justice apparatus in Jersey as presently structured.

They are crushed.

But it gets worse than this.

Our poll gave a result of 85% who thought that the Jersey judicial system was not capable of meeting the necessary appearance of objectivity test.

But – I can inform you that every – single – last – one of the survivors of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, with whom I have discussed the question of prosecution and court impartiality, has no faith whatsoever that the Jersey apparatus will deliver any semblance of justice.

That is the view amongst the key people; those who most matter – the victims.

Of those I’ve discussed this issue with – 100% of them have no faith at all in the impartiality of the Jersey prosecution and judicial processes.

And can we find that fact remotely surprising?

When the ‘Bailiff’, Jersey’s chief judge, and head of the judiciary which will deal with all such cases, delivers outrageous political speeches in which he makes remarks such as referring to Jersey’s “so-called” child abuse scandal, and that whilst the abuse was scandalous – “the real scandal” were the criticisms of Jersey?

When various members of the present judiciary have been involved in the concealment of child abuse in the past?

When Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache – brother of Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, has pro-actively obstructed and delayed the charging and extradition of suspects against whom there are well-evidenced cases?

Suspects the Police were ready and eager to charge?

No – we cannot – nor could any thinking person – be remotely surprised at such widespread scepticism towards the administration of justice in Jersey.

There is another fascinating feature of the last two posts and the opinion-poll.

In both posts I expressly invited – challenged, even – any lawyers; Jersey lawyers in particular – who disputed the analysis and the jurisprudence to argue their case via comments.

I have received not one – single – solitary legal argument against my analysis.

You’d think there’d be one or two – at least; given that 35 voted in support of the present system – and that the argument I advanced flattens the traditional approach to the administration of justice in Jersey.

But, no. Not one single legal disputant has raised a case.

And whether they care to admit it or not – no such credible argument could be promulgated.

The jurisprudence, the case-law, the Convention Rights – all make our case insurmountable and undefeatable so far as the good administration of justice is concerned.

That much was plain and obvious to me when I wrote a detailed and lengthy e-mail to the Bailiff, the Attorney General and all other senior figures in the Jersey law enforcement apparatus on the 15th November, 2007.

In that e-mail I explained – on an evidential basis – why the Jersey apparatus was not capable of meeting the appearance of objectivity test.

Even though I was not aware of the covert Police investigation at the time of writing the e-mail – I knew enough – through my own researches – to know we had a child protection catastrophe on our hands – and that these matters would, eventually come before the courts.

I concluded this detailed e-mail with a simple question; I invited them to accept that the Jersey law-enforcement agencies were hopelessly conflicted in respect of the inevitable child abuse cases coming to court, and that they should – voluntarily – recuse themselves from any involvement and instead invite the authorities in London to appoint independent prosecutors and judges.

Although the argument was overwhelming, I knew – of course – what the response would be.

With predictable haughty arrogance, both of the Bailhache brothers responded, essentially contemptuously dismissing my concerns.

I knew then that the path from that point would lead to where we arrive tomorrow.

The registering of papers with the High Court in London against the relevant UK Minister, in this case Jack Straw.

That destination was as plain-as-day to me back then. In fact, knowing full-well the power and arrogance of the Jersey oligarchy – I told survivors and whistle-blowers back in last July that we had no chance of securing justice unless we forced London to intervene.

So, tomorrow – under the banner of Families for Justice – John Hemming MP and I initiate our court action against the UK government for its failure to ensure the rule of law and the good administration of justice in Jersey.

And such is the strength and clarity of the case – I’m very confident we will, ultimately, win.

But – even considering the possibility of defeat; of the Jersey oligarchy wining – such a victory on their part would be entirely pyrrhic.

The nature of the evidence, the facts, the testimony from so many witnesses – so much truth – would destroy them. Even if they staggered from the court somehow victorious in some, technical legal sense – their standing, reputation and credibility would – still – all be annihilated.

I guess I felt in my bones – when it became clear the establishment were desperately trying to get rid of me as Minister, in an attempt to perpetuate the culture of concealment – around the end of July, 2007 – that this might be – The End – after 800 years – for the Jersey oligarchy.

And – ironically enough, I knew then that they could – with some serious common sense and humility – dodge the bullet; for example, by accepting the points I later made in my e-mail of the 15th November.

But – with equal irony – I knew back then that they simply would not take any such evasive action; that they would sink themselves through arrogance, hubris – and a deluded sense of utter invulnerability.

And so it has come to pass.

I suppose if I had to pick out one – of the multitude of catastrophic mistakes the Jersey oligarchy has made – as the most damaging, pivotal and damning – it would be Philip Bailhache’s speech – delivered on Liberation Day – in which he denigrated the child abuse investigation, insulted and wounded the survivors and poured contempt on the national media who – unlike the Jersey media – had ripped the lid off of the whole, festering mess.

A rabid Political speech by the head of Jersey’s judiciary – the same judiciary which, in theory, should be dealing with the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster objectively and impartially – in a manner which avoids even the merest suspicion of bias.

The Bailhache brothers – Philip and William are arch-Jersey conservatives; paternalistic, power-crazed, insular – and rabidly traditionalist.

Rather than embracing the 21st century – both have striven to turn the clock back to some Victorian age of deference; back to the days when the Jersey ruling elite simply did as it pleased – and people had neither the ability or will to challenge entrenched power in the island.

It is, perhaps, a final irony – that the mortal blows against the established order of things in Jersey have been – finally – administered by the Bailhache brothers.

Jersey’s profoundly unhealthy concentration of power; its ancient conflation of legislature and judiciary; its near-complete lack of effective checks and balances – finally destroyed – by two conservative, arch-traditionalists.



Why Jersey Cannot Administer Justice

In the Child Abuse Disaster;

Not even faintly.

And – why the issue is even more fundamental than that.

Here is the belated follow-up to my previous post on the administration of justice in Jersey.

It’s as well that it’s late – because I was able to read the Jersey Evening Post of today, the 7th August 2008.

Which – sorry – makes this post another long one. I know some people don’t like my lengthy ramblings – but we have to resist sound-bite culture. There is masses of short stuff out there if you prefer – even the insubstantial glossings of The Rag – if all you have time for is a couple of paragraphs.

But as a remarked in a comment – notwithstanding the fact that Jersey has a very sizable panoply of journalists – none of them – and none of the media they work for – will deliver the in-depth analysis and polemics you find on this site.

Indeed – what I’m concluding here should have been researched and published by Jersey journos a long time ago.

Remember – I’m a one-man-band churning out this stuff – It’s not like I even get paid for it – but it’s still more detailed, more accurate and more informative than that which is churned out by all of Jersey’s hacks – combined.

And – at the end of this post I’ll explain the inexplicable.

By one of those notable coincidences, The Rag features an article of great relevance to the subject I’m addressing.

Well, not the article, actually – that’s the predictable regurgitation of establishment spin and statements of the bleeding obvious.

But accompanying the article, on page 16, is a photograph.

I strongly urge readers to try and get a look at the photo if you haven’t seen it already.

Maybe there is a God?

I couldn’t have prayed for a more timely, relevant – and telling photo.

This is what the photograph depicts.

It is a ceremonial procession which is beginning outside of the Jersey parliament building.

Who knows – it could have been taken on Liberation Day this year – as we were due to process from the Royal Square where the parliament building is – down to Liberation Square – to mark our liberation from the forces of fascism.

Let us remember – it was on the occasion of this year’s Liberation Day, that the Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, delivered his frankly deranged attack on the investigations into the Jersey’s child abuse disaster.

But that is by-the-by.

What does the photo depict?

At the head of the procession is a court functionary carrying the ornate Royal Mace which was gifted to the Jersey robber-barons & privateers for their loyalty to the Crown during the English Civil War.

The Mace symbolises the authority of the Crown – under which Jersey’s oligarchy operates.

So in the photograph we have what is – for our times – a particularly relevant depiction of the British Crown’s authority over Jersey.

A few paces behind the Mace walks Jersey’s Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache – head of the judiciary – and, bizarrely, head of the legislature – and the man who thinks “the real scandal” of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster is not the abuse – but the “denigration of Jersey and her people.”

Walking along side Phil is the “Lieutenant Governor” – the functionary who represents the Crown in Jersey (in effect, the UK Government).

Phil is cloaked in some kind of pseudo-historical fancy-dress – funny hat – fur-trimmed red cloak, the whole bit.

The Lieutenant Governor is clothed in a yet more extreme example of that meaningless fancy-dress – so beloved by the British establishment to remind them of glory days gone by.

Mirror-shined boots, some kind of war coat, which may have been of relevance 200 years ago, a belt, so camply ostentatious it could have been designed by Jean-Paul Gaultier – as could the hat he wears – which appears to be attoped by a dead seagull.

This man is Lieutenant General Andrew Ridgway. A man who – instead of properly defending the good name of the Crown – has been implacable in his siding with the Jersey shysters.

He has repeatedly informed London that every thing in the garden is rosy – so far as public administration is concerned – notwithstanding the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

He has also – as has been reliably reported to me by several, separate sources – been doing his level-best to smear me by telling anyone who will listen that my campaign on behalf of abuse victims is just some kind of “political opportunism” and that I was merely “using the survivors for my political purposes” – his grasp of chronology clearly being so poor that he just doesn’t recollect that it was me who started campaigning for the truth to come out concerning child abuse – and that the resultant “political” row was generated and used opportunistically by his Jersey oligarchy friends to suppress the truth – and oppress me.

Strangely enough – as I sit here writing this post, the Lieutenant Governor is hosting – at Government House – a dinner party which features some UK politicians – and as guest of honour – Lenny Harper – to mark his retirement.

As though Lenny and his team had had unwavering support from these clowns.

Take it from me – the Police are under no illusions as to the cosmetic nature of such functions. Knowing Lenny, I expect he’s making all the right noises – but keeping his council – for the time being.

Keeping his powder dry.

So what, then, does the photo depict after Phil & Andy?

You couldn’t make it up.

For there – walking behind Phil & Andy – we see none other than the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – and Francis Hamon, former Deputy Bailiff, and still an active judge in Jersey’s court.

The Rag has always been in the habit of using such photographs – the fancy-dress, the manufactured tradition and pomp – the invented ceremonial functions – all developed over the centuries – or in this case, the last decade – to make a vast number of Brits go weak at the knees and doff their caps.

Such awe-inspiring “grandeur” is calculated to keep the rabble in line; an objective very much supported by The Rag.

But – in yet another example of crass misjudgement – they’ve used this photograph – clearly not realising that – under the current circumstances – what it depicts is altogether unsavoury – and damning of the administration of justice in Jersey.

For what is depicted are the unhealthy mish-mash and over-laps of traditional power, symbolism, the most senior Jersey oligarchy figures – all of whom should have been held to account a long time ago – and the supportive presence of the Crown/UK government in the form of Andy Ridgway – through who’s Offices the Jersey oligarchy has – yet again – been shielded and protected from accountability – no matter that the oligarchy’s actions have been inimical to the good of 85% of Her Majesty’s subjects here in Jersey.

I guess too many society dinner parties must rot the brain.

So in what way is the presence in the photograph of Michael Birt and Frances Hamon of relevance to our discussion?

In the 1990’s, Francis Hamon was – in addition to being a judge in Jersey’s Royal Court – a member of the Board of Governors of Jersey’s leading private school, Victoria College.

During this period, repeated complaints of child abuse were made to the school’s leadership.

At one point the then headmaster asked Francis Hamon – whilst they were playing a game of squash – what he should do about the complaints of abuse. Hamon failed to advise him to go to the Police.

And out of that whole, wretched abuse episode – it was plain that several people had a powerful case against them to answer for conspiring to pervert the course of justice, misconduct in public office, and breaching the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 by failing to properly protect children for which they had responsibility.

Amongst these people were the headmaster, Jack Hydes; Frances Hamon; deputy head, John Le Breton and one Piers Baker – the man who thinks child abuse is “teachers perks”.

All four of these people should have faced trial – none of them did.

Who was the Jersey Attorney General at that time?

The person responsible for the non-prosecutions?

The person who should have – but failed to – seek the prosecutions of these individuals?

Yep – Michael Birt; now Deputy Bailiff; deputy head of the Jersey judiciary and deputy chair of the legislature.

And there he strides – in the photograph – alongside Mad Frankie Hamon – and behind Phil and Andy – all of whom walk behind the Mace which represents the Crown – which – in theory – should be protecting its subjects in Jersey by ensuring to them the safety of the rule of law and freedom from tyranny.

Phil Bailhache – failed to deal correctly with child protection issues in the past – and who has made the most gross and crass overtly political interventions against the child abuse investigation.

Andy Ridgway – who has singularly failed to properly represent the Crown – who has defended these failed Jersey grandees to the authorities in London – and who has – pro-actively – been engaging in smear campaigns against me – the only Jersey politician to have openly represented the interest of the survivors.

Mike Birt – who not only failed to prosecute all those who should have been, in connection with the child protection failures at Victoria College, but who also – in 1998 – stood up in Jersey’s Royal Court and asserted that the case against the McGuires had to be dropped because of “insufficient evidence”. I, incidentally, read that evidence last year, after it had been drawn to my attention by whistle-blowers.

Just take my word for it; the evidence was NOT “insufficient” for a prosecution to go ahead.

And it is even less “insufficient” now.

Now that Jersey’s present Attorney General has had the completed papers from the Police on the McGuires – for three months now – and still he fails to act.

The present Attorney General being one William Bailhache – brother of Bailiff, Phil.

The same William Bailhache who obstructed my old Health & Social Services Committee when it was attempting to investigate child protection failures in the wake or the Bichard report.

The very same Attorney General who has, to date, obstructed the charging of at least three other suspects in addition to the McGuires.

One of whom – Danny Wherry – is a member of the same golf club as Bailhache.

You think it couldn’t get any worse?

Alas, not included in the photograph – though most probably present – will have been the 12 “Jurats” – a form of lay-judges who sit in judgment on cases before the court.

These 12 ‘judges’ are elected by an electoral college of lawyers and politicians – now doesn’t that just sound like a recipe for a healthy and straight judicial system?

But that isn’t really the point.

This is.

Amongst the 12 Jurats is one John Le Breton – the former deputy head of Victoria College.

Le Breton one was of the key participants in the cover-up of the child abuse; one of the people who should have been prosecuted – back in the late 1990’s – by Michael Birt.

Instead – he sits on the court benches – handing down “judgments” on lesser mortals – including – get this – former St. Helier Constable, Bob Le Brocq.

Le Brocq was the public figure who caught the flack for the presence of the paedophile Roger Holland in the parish’s honorary police force. He was arraigned before the court for this – and admonished – and consequently lost the election he was to shortly face.

I cannot say whether Le Brocq’s actions were all that they could or should have been; but what I can say – is that he was a good deal less culpable than the Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, who, when Attorney General, failed to make an attempt to get Holland thrown out of the police.

And very – very – substantially less culpable for child protection failures than one of the Jurats who sat in judgment on him – John Le Breton.

Le Breton colluded with the then headmaster of the school in attempts to cover-up the complaints of abuse – and even went so far as to, with Jack Hydes, attempt to humiliate and intimidate two of the victims into withdrawing their complaints.

Even by Jersey standards – his conduct was so appalling he had to resign in disgrace from the school. But – in typical Jersey oligarchy fashion – he was rapidly re-habilitated when the ‘electoral college’ appointed him to be a Jurat.

So there we have – illustrated by photographic evidence – published by The Rag, no less – the simply inescapable conflicts of interest, over-laps, direct involvements, professional and personal relationships, mutual intermeshings – and involvement of the Crown – all of which go further to the proof that the administration of justice apparatus in Jersey is – plainly – incompetent to deal with any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

So having described in detail the direct conflicts of interest which bedevil the prosecutory and judicial apparatus in Jersey – let’s recap the fundamental – rock-solid – legal principles of objectivity.

In yesterday’s post, I explained, at some length (sorry), the background information pertaining to the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, the Jersey oligarchy’s profoundly antagonistic and deeply conflicted position – and why, resultantly, the prosecutory and judicial processes of Jersey are manifestly incapable of achieving the necessary appearance of objectivity.

Yesterday I dealt with some fundamental, legal principles, and then went onto explain how the head of Jersey’s judiciary – it’s chief Judge, Sir Philip Bailhache – was deeply conflicted; I explained that no judiciary headed by this man could even remotely be regarded as appearing to be objective and impartial in any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

And – as I said I would – I have described above why, not only Phil, but all the rest of Jersey’s prosecutory and judicial apparatus as well, was also hopelessly conflicted.

But as I also said, there is also another – absolutely fundamental issue – which I will conclude with.

Before then, let’s recap the situation, the arguments, the facts.

As can be seen by reading my last posting, the established facts are these:

1: Jersey is having to come to terms with a child abuse disaster of world-scale. No matter what the particular facts and details of each case may be – we cannot now be but certain that something quite monstrous has gone profoundly wrong with the Jersey authorities’ attitude to vulnerable children.

2: The final exposure of a vast catalogue of abuse will, obviously, lead to both criminal and civil legal cases.

3: There is, therefore, no escaping the fact that a prosecution system and judiciary will need to be deployed to deal with all such cases.

4: Certain rock-solid, fundamental and inescapable principles of jurisprudence are established as such immovable foundations of justice as to be beyond all credible argument. For our purposes, the relevant principles are:

(a) Justice must be seen to be done. All judicial process have to avoid even the merest hint or suspicion that they may not be impartial and neutral. The administration of justice – in order to be credible – has to meet a test of the appearance of objectivity. There cannot even be the merest suspicion of conflict.

(b) No man can be a judge in his own cause. No person can sit in judgement on a case in which they feature in any way; nor can a person appoint those who will judge him; to do so would be to breach the crucial appearance of objectivity.

I did invite any lawyers who dispute my analysis to debate the issues on this blog, but none has. I guess there are some arguments so fallacious and absurd that not even lawyers could make them.

So we can safely conclude that our analysis is correct.

1: The administration of Justice Apparatus in Jersey needs to become involved in the child abuse disaster.

2: The administration of justice has to appear to be impartial; it has to avoid even the merest suspicion of being conflicted.

3: Jersey’s senior judge and head of the judiciary, Sir. Philip Bailhache is hopelessly conflicted, as detailed in Tuesday’s posting. He has made several, strident, political interventions in connection with the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, and has a personal history of not responding adequately or professionally to child protection issues.

4: As things stand, no judge can be appointed to hear cases in Jersey’s court unless the judge is appointed and/or approved by the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache; or in his absence, the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt.

5: The involvement of either man in appointing judges would breach the appearance of objectivity test on the grounds that ‘no man can be a judge in his own cause’.

6: The conflicts of interest entirely engulf the rest of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus. Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General, Jurats – all are hopelessly conflicted.

So that much is established fact; no Jersey lawyers at all have rushed to dismiss our argument so far.

Through its own choice and insistence over the decades and centuries, the Jersey judiciary maintains an involvement in politics. There is a profoundly unhealthy over-lap between the legislature and the judiciary.

The Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff, in addition to being head and deputy head of the judiciary are also speaker and deputy speaker of the Jersey parliament.

No propositions, amendments, questions, formal statements or reports can be tabled to the legislature without first being approved by either the Bailiff of Deputy Bailiff.

Both men routinely exhibit dramatic political bias in exercising these bizarre powers.

I personally – as have a number of other non-establishment members – have had propositions, amendments, questions and reports interfered with and obstructed on a regular basis.

The deep politicisation of both men is very much evident in such examples of pro-oligarchy bias and the obstructions placed in the way of anti-establishment States members.

The Bailiff, or in his absence, the Deputy Bailiff, acts as the civic head of the island; though God knows on what authority.

In this capacity, the Bailiff has routinely made political speeches and given addresses in which he purports to speak for the community of Jersey. When doing so he has adopted the cloak of de facto prime ministers – making political pronouncements as would the prime minister in the UK.

In making such speeches, the Bailiff has repeatedly attempted to defend the status quo of Jersey’s position; to defend the oligarchy and to – as he would no doubt presume it – to speak on behalf of the community.

In acting in this way he has routinely – as is a matter of public record – made it crystal-clear that he is joining in with, and supporting the actual political establishment of the island in all their various efforts to show a veneer of respectability to the outside world.

So here’s the rub.

As a judge – let alone as actual head of the judiciary – the fortunes and appearances of the island’s governmental authorities ought to be a matter of total disinterest to him.

No respectable judge can do their work if they carry in their minds the constant consideration: –

“How will the implications of this judicial matter look politically; how might it affect the executive. I don’t want to see any damage or harm come to the cause, standing or reputation of the government.”

Yet that is precisely what we have from Phil Bailhache.

And this state of affairs is doubly problematic for him and the judiciary which he leads.

Firstly, in the case of Phil Bailhache – we do not even need to speculate on his political views, allegiances or priorities.

He, himself has overtly, prominently and publicly displayed just such political partisanship.

So in his case – it isn’t even merely a case of “suspicion” of conflict. It’s out on the table – for the world to see.

Secondly, even if he hadn’t bee so incautiously overt in his political activities – the mere fact that he regards himself as the ‘civic’ leader of Jersey – and thus has an unambiguous stake in the appearance and reputation of the island and its establishment – means that he cannot escape the suspicion that he may be biased.

Which returns us to the established point that no respectable judicial process can, for one instant, be associated with even the merest whiff of suspicion.

The test is that judicial processes must achieve the appearance of objectivity.

Neither of the present incumbents as Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff – nor indeed, those roles as presently defined, can get remotely close to meeting that test.

To elaborate on the principles at play here; in respectable, functioning democracies – it has been accepted – for a very long time – that there needed to be a clear separation between legislature – the realm of politics – and the judiciary – the realm of law.

Such a ‘separation of powers’ has long been regarded as necessary in order to achieve what are termed effective ‘checks and balances’. This needs to be so in order to ensure that neither realm – the political or the legal – can indulge in untrammelled power; that each be subject to checks and restraints by the other.

The political sphere makes the laws to which the courts must work within, and adjudicate upon. The courts then administer justice impartially – free of political considerations.

For this arrangement – which underpins power in all established, respectable democracies – to work – the courts must be free of any political taint.

Not least, because – and this is a very relevant point to the Jersey situation – it is often governments which break the law. Public authorities; different sections of public administration are subject to the rule of law – every bit as much as you or I.

Therefore, the courts; the judiciary, will often be called upon to hear cases and adjudicate upon both criminal and civil actions against the government or one of its departments.

But this arrangement cannot possibly work if judges carry with them the concern – “how will this look for the government?” If they did – the effectiveness of the rule of law collapses – instantly.

Judges, and the courts over which they preside, must – I repeat, must – set aside, and not allow, contamination by political, personal or philosophical considerations.

The whole modus operandi of judicial proceedings is that they apply objectively the laws of the day, admit only evidenced facts to enter the equation – and that they then come to impartial and objective decisions based upon the relevant laws and the merits or otherwise of that particular case.

Judges and their courts will often be called upon to adjudicate over some action or omission of the government. And the factual, evidenced, lawful conclusions of such cases may well be profoundly embarrassing and extremely detrimental to the government.

And that is just – “tough”.

The law – is the law- is the law.

And if a government has broken a law – it must be held to account by the courts – quite regardless of whether the judgment is “politically” damaging for the government.

Having laid out those facts – we are forced to accept that there is only one credible conclusion we can arrive at in our consideration of the competence of the judicial apparatus of Jersey to deal with the child abuse disaster.

And that conclusion is that it cannot be remotely regarded as competent as presently structured.

Both structurally – and in terms of the political actions of certain of its senior members – its contaminating entwinement with the political sphere in Jersey forms an insurmountable obstacle to the good administration of justice.

In fact – this conclusion is so inescapable that we have to question the calibre and competence of senior figures in the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus when they continue to refuse to face that fact.

Even if all of the individuals I cite above were – by some superhuman and Christ-like ability – to set aside their personal views, their prior involvements and their political considerations; even if I was to concede that such a fantastical notion could be exercised by these individuals – it would still make no difference.

It would make no difference – whatsoever – to the fact that they would continue to APPEAR to be conflicted.

And it is that mere suspicion – that mere hint of conflict – which renders them and the entire Jersey judicial apparatus incompetent to deal with any issues – criminal or civil – arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

I said earlier that there was a fundamental issue with which I would conclude; by which I would attempt to explain the inexplicable.

So, here goes.

Given that it is – very – very – obvious that the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus is hopelessly conflicted in any matter relating to the child abuse disaster; given that there are absolutely mountains of rock-solid jurisprudence – unassailable authorities – which make our case – which seal our conclusions – we have to ask a question?

Why should the Jersey judicial apparatus be placing itself in diametric opposition to all established authority and case-law?

The reason is this.

They all know that if they conceded the fact – for it is a fact – that Jersey’s prosecutory system and judicial apparatus is disastrously conflicted – and therefore incompetent to deal with these cases – then we head – very rapidly – to an unavoidable conclusion.

The legal principles, the jurisprudence, the case-law and human rights – all draw Jersey implacably to an inevitable conclusion.

Which is that – because of its tiny size, because of inevitable conflicts of interest – because of that fundamental principle that justice must be seen to be done – because no suspicion of bias can be permitted in judicial processes – Jersey is not capable of the proper administration of justice under the present constitutional arrangements.

Not just in respect of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – but in practically every single criminal or civil case of any significance.

If the Jersey oligarchy were to concede the fact of their conflictedness – to admit that they cannot meet the test of the appearance of objectivity in the present crises – then – inevitably – they also concede that such a small place as Jersey cannot properly administer justice at all – without dramatically greater external involvement and oversight.

This is why the Jersey oligarchy – finally – finds itself making a last stand. And doing so – in futility – against the entire canon of established jurisprudence and authority.

They know – we know – they know we know – we know they know we know – that a final, implacable end has been reached.

That whilst Jersey can – and should – remain self-governing insofar as the political sphere is concerned – in the case of the competent administration of justice – we must now embrace external and independent judicial processes.

Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to be done.

Not even the merest suspicion of partiality or conflict can be associated with any respectable, functioning judicial processes.

Jersey is, therefore, simply incapable of meeting that basic standard.

And to those who condemn me for committing such heresy – recognise that the fundamental legal principles I describe are not some fanatical product of mine; they are the sound and wise product of centuries of justice.

If Jersey is to stand as a respectable, self-governing jurisdiction into the future – we simply have no choice other than to accept that what passes for the administration of justice at present in the island – just does not meet the requisite standard.

Indeed – probably hasn’t done for at least 100 years.

I do not advocate full independence for the island. Personally, I want to retain my British citizenship.

Nor do advocate becoming a part of the United Kingdom – I value Jersey’s historical independence.

But this is now the 21st century.

The good administration of justice cannot be delivered internally – in a community of 90,000. Structurally – it simply isn’t possible. The conflicts are simply inescapable.

I, along with John Hemming MP, am shortly to embark upon a legal action in London against Jack Straw MP – the relevant UK Government Minister.

Our case is simple:

Britain – historically, constitutionally and under modern Convention obligations – has ultimate responsibility for the good administration of justice in Jersey.

Britain does have the power to intervene – something unarguably established by robust precedent.

Britain should intervene – under the present circumstances – which involve a clear breakdown in the ability of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus to meet the test of the appearance of objectivity.

Britain’s ability to exercise such power is through Jack Straw and the Privy Council.

Britain’s failure to intervene – on behalf of a very substantial number of abuse victims, and the good administration of justice generally – should be subjected to Judicial Review.

That – in essence – is the case we will be making.

Personally – I’m confident we will win; that we will secure a Judicial Review of the situation.

But – I really wish none of the above was necessary.

I just wish our oligarchs possessed the wisdom to – finally – face the inevitable.





[Up-date – 27.08.2016; – first written in the 05.08.2008, this post is an important part of the historic record and will give great insight to child-abuse survivors, whistle-blowers and campaigners as to just how conflicted, corrupted – unlawful – judicial processes can be in the British Isles – conflicted, corrupted juridical processes actively protected and supported by UK authorities in Whitehall. What you read of below was reported to the UK authorities – but they covered it up – they shielded a system manifestly incapable of delivering a lawful prosecution, policing or judicial system to abused Jersey children – or the UK children trafficked to Jersey for abuse and torture.  For greater detail, read this Report to the then UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw – a Report which was unlawfully ignored.

Jack Straw and the Illegal Jersey Child-Abuse Cover-Up.

These were the illegal actions of UK authorities – aiding and abetting the torture and rape of children. If IICSA refuses to take evidence relevant to the UK authorities corrupt, child-abuse concealing conduct towards Jersey – then we’ll know IICSA is a fake. Read below of the judicial corruption which runs Jersey – then ask yourself of the fate of local children – and those trafficked – in one way or another – to Jersey from England.] 

Do you think the administration of justice apparatus in Jersey is capable of reaching the standards expected in modern, established functioning democracies.

Read the judicial principles below – read why the Jersey oligarchy can’t meet those principles – then have a good, long think – maybe for the first time in your life- as to what Jersey really is.

And I would also be very interested to receive any opinions from lawyers – as to whether my interpretation – as described below – is correct or wrong?

I’m happy to use this forum to debate the issues with any lawyer who wishes to identify themselves.


When writing last night’s post, I promised a more detailed deconstruction of the frankly cretinous leader comment produced in yesterday’s Jersey Evening Post.

Whilst I will take a closer look at some of the barking-mad assertions contained in the comment, I though it would be more useful to take a closer look at the underlying issues, and the principles of the good administration of justice.

I will explain those principles – and place them within the Jersey context – in the post below.

Background information:

As I have remarked frequently, one of the most startling features of this whole, disastrous situation has been the sheer stupidity and incompetence of the Jersey oligarchy. Even trying to look at things from their, perverted, perspective, it can be seen that they have continuously made the most crass blunders.

The objectives of the Jersey oligarchy are plain; and always have been.

I told, last year, some of the survivors and whistle-blowers I was working with that the establishment’s prime and overriding objectives would be:

1: Protect their prestige, power and wealth.

2: Protect their “image”.

3: Pretend that we didn’t really have a disastrous failure to protect vulnerable children on our hands.

4: Pretend that our systems of public administration worked just fine.

5: Gloss over any problems

6: Protect and preserve the lucrative status quo.

7: And – in order to support and further the above 6 objectives – to do absolutely everything in their power to minimise the scope and scale of any charges, prosecutions and civil actions arising out of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

I told the people I was working with that these 7 objectives would be pursued with implacable determination by the oligarchy of this island.

And I told them this before any of us were even aware of the covert police investigation.

Was I right? Or was I right?

The entrenched Jersey oligarchy – in all of its corrupt, decadent hubris, has rabidly pursued those 7 objectives.

Even to the point of crassly stupid obviousness; I mean, let’s face it, you would expect the average establishment trying desperately to sweep appalling crimes under the carpet to go about such evil tasks with a degree of discretion and subtlety.

Yet the Jersey clowns and gangsters have been so stupid as to engage in such machinations on an openly practised basis.

For example:

Following my discovery of the child abuse disaster, usurping my position and my initiative, in a futile attempt to prevent the truth coming out, to call in an independent, external investigator.

Senior civil servants, like Marnie Baudians – the Directorate Manager of Social Services, no less – writing letters demanding my sacking on the fantastical grounds that it was not acceptable for me to speak-out publicly about child protection service failures.

Fast-tracking the dismissal procedures against me – and providing less than 24 hours notice of the “case” against me.

Deputy Bailiff Michael Birt – he of child abuse cover-up infamy – giving a ruling that it was acceptable for the Council of Ministers to abandon due process, as described above.

The States of Jersey becoming the very first ever jurisdiction in the democratic world to sack a social services Minister for whistle-blowing.

Unlawfully stopping my Christmas speech in which I was attempting to express recognition and empathy for abuse survivors.

The very first time any States member had ever stood in the assembly to recognise the truth of what victims have suffered. And the States stopped it.

Attempting to smear Lenny Harper.

Frank Walker, showing his true colours by shouting abuse at me and saying that I was “trying to shaft Jersey internationally.”

In the midst of the crisis, calling a political press conference for the sole purpose of attempting to smear me.

Making utter damn fools of themselves in front of the assembled world media pack.

The politician now responsible for child protection, Senator Ben Shenton, pro-actively attempting to smear and rubbish the police enquiry.

Just taking that last point – can it be imagined that in any respectable, functioning democracy, you would find THE politician, legally and politically responsible for child protection – pro-actively rubbishing a major police investigation into child abuse?

Then, of course, we get to the fact that the States of Jersey Police Force has 5 suspects, with well-evidenced cases against them – who they are ready and willing to charge – but which they have been pro-actively prevented from charging by Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache, either directly, or via his agents, such as Crown Advocates and UK based Barristers.

This last example of unethical and moronic nonsense drove the Police Force into the unprecedented step of issuing an international press release explaining how they had been prevented from bringing the suspects to justice.

How often – in democratic countries – are police forces driven into publicly explaining – to the world’s media – the obstructions being placed in their way by the authorities of the state? I’m not even aware of the Italian police having taken such extreme measures.

So – there we have a brief description of the rank stupidity of the Jersey establishment; a catalogue of gross blunders so crass they could only be the product of an oligarchy which has been absolutely corrupted by power and the resultant sense of invulnerability.

And it just doesn’t stop.

The Jersey Evening Post:

So let us briefly return to the cracker-barrel ramblings of The Rag – before getting on to intellectual matters.

The Rag speaks of “Pressure on an old relationship”.

Just what – do they imagine – might be responsible for the current tension between Jersey & the UK?

What has caused this “pressure on an old relationship”?

In the world of The Rag and its oligarchy paymasters, though it isn’t stated explicitly, the causes of such ‘pressure’ are the anarcho-commie agitations of a few off-the-wall extremists like me – who are hell-bent on “trying to shaft Jersey internationally” (© F. Walker.) and “rocking the constitutional boat”.

Look, JEP editors, subs and hacks – I know this is difficult for you to get your collective head around – but the cause of the constitutional pressure is the sustained, decades-long, cruelty, battery, abuse, torture, rape and sodomy of vulnerable children.

The cause of Jersey’s problems is that such atrocities were permitted to take place – and that 95% of such crimes were concealed.

That justice has been denied to the survivors.

That even elements of the island’s judicial apparatus have participated in the culture of concealment.

Those facts are the CAUSE of our oligarchy’s present woes.

Not the victims, not the whistle-blowers, not the national media and not me.

The cause IS The Atrocity.

The Rag then says:

“Why disturb Jersey’s relationship with Britain, which was established eight centuries ago and has been robust and satisfactory enough to survive not only massive social and political change but also the English Civil War and occupation by Nazi Germany?”

Oh dear.

Yet another example of embarrassing self-humiliation by the oligarchs and their lickspittles.

I’ve already explained “why” we have to “disturb” the relationship with Britain – namely it’s the only way the victims will get justice. I’ll return to this point later.

A relationship which was “robust and satisfactory enough” to survive “the English Civil War and occupation by the Nazis”.

Take a good look at that phrase – and marvel at it.

You couldn’t pay for stupidity of that calibre; only centuries of an incestuous and unopposed monopoly of power could breed such cretinism.

For The Rag blithely uses such phrases in the obviously deranged belief that such references support their case.

In the English Civil War, very large numbers of the local population were on the side of the parliamentarians. Not, however, the oligarchs of the day – who – just like today, in fact – were very keen to maintain a lucrative and advantageous status quo.

This fact may not be immediately clear from ‘official’ history books.

What else would the robber-barons, land-lords, merchants, privateers, and slave-traders do other than side with the Crown – upon which they relied for authority and some kind of “legitimacy” to enable them to exploit and abuse the local peasants?

The Jersey oligarchy – having won then – as they always have – did as do all victors – and wrote the history.

You’ll read much of how Jersey was “loyal to the Crown in those troubled times”. But you’ll have to read a little more widely to learn that at one stage, when the Royalist leadership were ensconced within the walls of Elizabeth Castle, they would occasionally fire cannon balls into the town in the hope of hitting the peasants at market in what is now the Royal Square.

Then we come to The Rag’s allusion to having been “robust” enough to “survive” occupations by “the Nazis”.

You know – things have come to some new threshold Kafkaesque absurdity when an establishment and its relationship with its customary sources of authority can boast of having come through – unchanged – occupation by Nazis.

As though it might be imagined that this was, somehow, a good thing. A stamp of approval.

A famous old anti-establishment Jersey politician, Norman Le Brocq – who was one of Jersey’s unsung heroes of the marginalised local resistance movement – would often remark, with weary disbelief, that of all the jurisdictions occupied by the Nazis during WW II – the only places where precisely the same political and judicial establishments remained unchanged – before, during and after the war – were the Channel Islands.

The evidenced fact is that things rocked along very nicely indeed for the local oligarchy during those years of occupation; a very profitable time, it was. The local shysters embraced the Nazis with open arms – seeing not some monstrous evil which should be fought to the death – but instead – in customary Jersey fashion – a lucrative business opportunity.

Ah, yes – The Jersey Evening Post.

Indeed, the power-arrangements of those occupation years – the established order of things – were indeed sufficiently “robust” to enable The Guiton Group – and its Rag, the Jersey Evening Post – to carry on minting it throughout the Occupation by very profitably churning out propaganda on behalf of the occupying Nazis.

A very “robust and satisfactory” arrangement – for the owners of the Jersey Evening Post.

In fact, the main reason for the “relationship” with Britain proving to be so robust after the occupation is perfectly clear.

Such was the truly monstrous scale of collaboration, treason, profiteering, abuses of power, racketeering by the local shysters – and the enthusiastic support for such things by the island’s supine political and judicial authorities – that to have openly faced the truth would have been to the most profound embarrassment and shame of Britain. That British territories – British leaders – had behaved in such ways.

The relationship with Britain “robustly” survived that era – essentially because Britain gritted its teeth and held its nose whilst making cosmetic noises about “our beloved Channel Islands”.

That is why our oligarchy’s arrangements survived the war – uniquely across occupied Europe.

Because Britain needed to avoid the appalling shame.

Had the truth been faced by Britain in the wake of WW II, a very significant number of the local spivs would have simply been hung.

Executed for treason and collaboration.

People like the war-time Bailiff, Alexander Coutanche – the infamous ‘Ja, Ja Man’ – would have been hung from the nearest yard-arm. Instead he was given a peerage – and the only way in which he was hung is in portrait-form in Jersey’s Royal Court.

And joining him on the gibbet would have been the owners and editors of the Jersey Evening Post. All people who would have richly deserved the same fate as that other British propagandist for the Nazis, “Lord Haw Haw.”

On the gibbet long with a load of other Jersey spivs and shysters.

The Rag then goes on to refer to: “unacceptable threats to our ….. judicial…. autonomy.”

It goes on to say that the “insistence” of campaigners like me –

“that UK judges and prosecutors must officiate when abuse cases come to court strikes at the heart of our right to operate an independent judicial system and therefore at one of the foundations of our constitutional position.”

Let us, at that point, leave our amusing diversions at the stupidity and amorality of The Rag and its owners, because this assertion of theirs leads us neatly into the important stuff.

The basic principles of the good administration of Justice and the rule of law.

The Good Administration of Justice – and Why Jersey cannot deliver it.

I’m going to explain a few basic legal issues; principles which are simple, easily understood and can be expressed in plain English.

And again – I say if any Lawyer wants to challenge the interpretation I produce here, identify yourself in a comment; I’m ready and willing to debate the issues.

Whatever the precise details of individual cases – it is clear that Jersey has sustained – and failed to prevent – a child abuse disaster of international scale.

There is – obviously – a need for the deployment of a prosecution service – and a judicial apparatus to determine any cases – criminal or civil – which will come before the courts.

That much is inescapable.

So having established a clear need to deploy the judicial apparatus – we must then ask the following question:

“Can the Jersey prosecution and judicial systems be regarded as competent and safe to deal with any such matters arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster?”

The answer to that question is plainly:


Why should that be so?

Let us look at some well-established – and utterly fundamental legal principles.

“Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to done”.

What is meant by this phrase is that the credibility and authority of any respectable judicial apparatus depends upon that apparatus being seen to be objective and impartial.

It is not sufficient for judicial processes to be objective – they have to be seen to be objective.

Absolutely no taint of conflictedness or partiality can be permitted to enter the process.

Not even the merest suspicion – no matter how unjustified – of partiality or conflict.

The very instant any such appearance or suspicion arises – the merest whiff of conflict – those involved in the judicial proceedings – judges, court officials, jurors etc. – must declare themselves conflicted and “recuse” themselves from any involvement in the case, or cases, in question.

And what makes the position of the Jersey oligarchy so manifestly disastrous is that the above-described legal principles are not some ‘loony-left’ invention of ‘crypto-anarchists’, as the Jersey establishment like to depict me.

Instead, the principle of the need for any judicial process to appear to be objective is well-established in British case-law.

It is well-established in all respectable jurisprudence that the administration of justice must be both impartial – and appear to be impartial.

Any person appearing before a Court should be able to have faith in the fact that the judge is independent of Government and equally that the judge is independent of the parties.

Historically a person has a right to an audi alterem partem, or a fair trial, meaning a trial which is independent, impartial and timely. This has long been a common law entitlement.

The fact that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done has been given specific judicial approval in the English case of R v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, from which I quote below.

In this case, a solicitor, whose firm acted for a defendant in a civil action for damages, had also sat as a clerk to the Justices in respect of the criminal aspect of the case. Whilst it was not suggested that the solicitor/clerk had been biased – the mere appearance of conflict was unacceptable.

Lord Hewart CJ said:

“A long line of cases shows that it is ……of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done ……. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper inference with the course of justice.”

Should there still be any doubt about the absolutely essential nature of the appearance of objectivity – simply consider the case of Lord Hoffman. He was one of the Law Lords who sat to determine whether the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was able to be charged and prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

Lord Hoffman – it was revealed later – was a supporter of Amnesty International. This mere appearance of bias was sufficient to cause the decision to be set aside.

The all-powerful and inescapable need to meet the test of the “appearance” of objectivity is thus well-established as a very key-stone of British jurisprudence.

But the authority for that principle does not end there.

These fundamental principles are further described and enforced in the European Convention of Human Rights, to which Jersey is a signatory – via the United Kingdom.

“Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….”

So in addition to British jurisprudence – we also have the European Convention on Human Rights to guide us in these matters.

In the case of any civil matter or criminal matter – every person is absolutely guaranteed fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Given all of the above – it is therefore demonstrated beyond credible argument that the administration of justice has to meet a test of the appearance of impartiality and objectivity.

Not even a suspicion of conflict can be permitted to enter the equation.

So, can the Jersey prosecutory and judicial systems hope to even get close to meeting that test? Of clearing that hurdle of the appearance of objectivity?

Not a prayer.

In the context of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, the Jersey apparatus and its present incumbents are not even close to being on the radar-screen of appearing objective.

Indeed, so plain and obvious is that fact – that it speaks volumes about the present incumbents that they can attempt to maintain a position which flies in the face of all respectable, established jurisprudence and authority.

So how and why are the Jersey authorities conflicted – and therefore simply not competent – to deal with any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster?

Having established that even the appearance or suspicion of conflict renders a judicial process invalid – let’s look at just a few of the conflicts which contaminate the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus.

Jersey’s Chief Judge, the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache.

Not only is this man the most senior judge in Jersey – he is also the head of the judiciary – and he is speaker of the Jersey parliament.

And this is a crucial point – so mark it well – under present arrangements, no judge, for example UK judges, sit in Jersey’s court unless chosen and appointed to do so by the Bailiff.

So even if the Jersey oligarchy could be made to see the writing on the wall and accept the inevitability of UK judges hearing any case – those judges would have to be appointed by Phil Bailhache.

Another very well-established legal principle is that “no man can be a judge in his own cause.”

In practice this means not only can a person not sit in judgement on a matter in which they have an interest – neither can they appoint those who will sit in judgment. For if they did so, the principle of the appearance of objectivity as described above is manifestly breached.

So why is Sir Philip Bailhache conflicted – and not remotely capable of approaching the objectivity test?

In addition to being speaker of the Jersey parliament – an immediate conflict – he has always been a deeply politicised individual.

In addition to exhibiting extreme political bias against anti-establishment States members, he is also in the habit of making public, political pronouncements.

All of which are invariably in defence of the Jersey oligarchy and the status quo.

In the context of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster alone, he has made at least three, specific – and deeply biased and partial interventions.

1: Unlawfully stopping my Christmas speech of recognition and empathy for abuse survivors.

2: Giving a lengthy political interview to the Jersey Evening Post in which he made pro-establishment assertions concerning the child abuse disaster.

3: Hi-jacking Jersey’s Liberation Day annual holiday to deliver the most extraordinary, biased and profoundly ill-judged speech imaginable.

In that speech he said the following things:

“Yet many journalists continue to write about the Island’s so-called child abuse scandal. [emphasis added]

He went on to make even further, frankly deranged, assertions.

“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. [emphasis added.]

Remember – these are the words of a man who is leading the judiciary which will – unless those in London can be made to come to their senses – hear all matters – civil or criminal – arising form the child abuse disaster.

And even if external judges are brought in – as things stand they will be appointed by Phil Bailhache.

“So called child abuse”.

“The real scandal is not the child abuse – the real scandal is the denigration of Jersey”.

You just couldn’t make it up.

But things get worse than this:

For Sir Philip Bailhache himself is directly conflicted in child protection matters.

Let us remember, this is the man who, when he was Jersey’s Attorney General, permitted a convicted paedophile to become an honorary police officer, who then went on to commit further offences against children.

This is the same man who was a member of the Board of Governors of Victoria College –when that institution was suppressing and concealing complaints of child abuse.

The same man who sentenced an elderly paedophile, who had been grooming three teenage girls with a view to raping them, to 2 years probation – largely on the grounds that the victims must have ‘been asking for it’.

The Jersey judiciary – under the leadership of this man – capable of meeting the appearance of objectivity?

Absolutely – no – chance – whatsoever.

Again – I make the challenge to any lawyer who disputes my analysis to identify themselves and debate the matter.

So that is why – ultimately – the Jersey oligarchy and its Rag are so profoundly wrong as to have clearly reached some final blind-alley of hubris and decadence.

Were this not the case – were these people possessed of even a microscopic amount of wisdom – they would have simply accepted the fact that they are conflicted, and cannot meet the appearance of objectivity test. And would have done so back in November 2007 – when I first wrote to them explaining these points.

Before I was even aware of the covert police investigation.

‘Well’ – you may ask – ‘OK, that’s the Bailiff personally conflicted – but surely he is just one man – the rest of the Jersey judicial apparatus is still competent to meet the appearance of objectivity test?’

Err –

Sorry – no chance.

The rest of the established Jersey judicial apparatus has about as much chance of appearing impartial and disinterested as I would have of beating Joe Calzaghe in a fist-fight.

Actually – if you’re out there, Joe – stop ducking me. I’ll take you on at light-heavy or super-middle weight. You choose.

Look – it’s a less crazy idea than the Jersey judicial apparatus being able to hear any matters relating to the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

In my next post I will explain the insurmountable conflicts which encircle the rest of the prosecutory and judicial apparatus in Jersey.

Not that further evidence is real necessary.

So plain, so obvious, so basic, so fundamental is the jurisprudence, and the appearance of conflict which possesses Jersey’s judicial system that – were they not largely a load of ethically bankrupt shysters – Jersey’s lawyers would have written to Phil – just quietly advising him ‘look – this time, the game is over.’

But instead of some sensible decisions and actions – we are going to have to witness the spectacle of Jersey’s Attorney General – Phil Bailhache’s brother, William Bailhache – standing up in the High Court in London – and arguing in the teeth of all accepted and well-established jurisprudence and authority – that “The Jersey Way” is the right way.

Stuart Syvret


Jersey’s Only Newspaper

Mounts an all-out assault

On the rule of law

And established principles of jurisprudence.

Another day – another example of the stupidity, ignorance and frank criminality of the Jersey oligarchy.

I re-produce below this post the leader comment from the Jersey Evening Post of today, 4th August, 2008.

It makes for a remarkable and implacable contrast with the leader comment from The Times newspaper of last Friday. (See Friday’s blog)

This is a stark example of the type of propaganda by which the population of Jersey have been corralled and controlled for 800 years.

It is an approach which certainly worked, extremely effectively, for all that time; until, that is, about 20 years ago. But, whilst waning in its effectiveness, it still works reasonably well for the Jersey oligarchy. It helps them keep the rabble in-line, so their bosses & pay-masters can carry on minting it, with the prime function of this island continuing to be merely a piece of money-making apparatus to be used by the elites and their clients.

However, the kind of moronic garbage reproduced below, will ‘work’ on a certain traditional cohort, but, alas for the oligarchs, it no longer works on any thinking people – nor, particularly, the outside world.

And that much is so obvious, we have to ask how can a journal – in the year 2008 – be so tactically ignorant of just how absurd their stance appears to the real world – let alone of how embarrassing the sheer non-compatibility of its views are with basic, long-established principles of jurisprudence?

I don’t have time to provide a detailed, point-by-point analysis of the leader comment tonight – but I will do so tomorrow.

You may recollect I did just such an analysis of The Rag’s leader comment post-Williamson.

It was actually a very entertaining exercise – I mean real, laugh out loud, kind of amusement. So dishonest, so non-compatible with the facts, so absurd, so wicked and so full of lies was that JEP leader comment, that one could only regard it as an act of bleak self-parody on the part of The Rag.

Occasionally a few of the hacks who work there will speak to me privately and say things like “hey – we feel wounded by the stuff you write on your blog. OK, our bosses and subs are w**kers, but we’re just trying to do a good job under really difficult circumstances.”

Yeah. Right.

Another great inadequacy of Jersey “journalists” is that they think everyone else is some kind of retard; people who just don’t grasp what is going on. Like we just don’t know about “the bonuses” – the “performance” remuneration available – in several forms – to Jersey hacks who are pleasing to their bosses.

And it’s not only the hacks who have such “opportunities” to enjoy “performance related pay”. The oligarchy was always an equal opportunities employer when it came to buying those who would serve its ends.

For example, The Jersey Evening Post was, until a few years ago, owned by a local “company” called the Guiton Group.

How many Jersey voters – do you think – are aware of the fact that the Guiton Group funded the election campaigns of certain pro-establishment candidates?

Heavy stuff, no?

Mafioso kind of conduct.

By way of example, a former Deputy of St. Saviours had their election printing cost ‘dealt with’ on the Guiton Group’s account with the printers in question.

As I said, I’ll write a more detailed analysis, maybe tomorrow.

But in the mean time, just to illustrate the simple stupidity and ignorance of The Rag’s leader comment, consider:

The Rag – in all seriousness, condemns opinions which have it that the good administration of justice cannot be carried out successfully under the present, Jersey, arrangements.

The Jersey Evening Post – in all seriousness – attempts to argue that the any legal issues which arise from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster can be dealt with locally – and that “attacks” which point out the manifest conflicts of interest which bedevil the so-called administration of justice in Jersey, just don’t require independent prosecutors & judges.

This argument of The Rag’s is so far removed from reality as to be laughable to anyone vaguely familiar with centuries of established jurisprudence which makes it clear that any judicial process must – I repeat, must – meet the test of the “appearance” of objectivity.

But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at such a simply ignorant, thick and unethical approach from a newspaper which has only ever been the house-journal and propaganda rag of the local gangsters.

The true feebleness of The Rag’s position is actually revealed in its own words when it says “we” have the “freedom” to “March to the beat of our own drum” in matters “of the rule of law.”


And there was me – thinking that not only did we have centuries of British case –law, but also the European Convention on Human Rights adopted by virtually all of Europe since World War II, as “the drum-beat” to which all respectable, civilised democracies in Europe marched.

Clearly, I’ve been mistaken. In Jersey-Evening-Post-world, the rudimentary standards of the good administration of justice – as followed by the rest of Western Europe – must be a load of misguided, anarchist nonsense – and that the Jersey oligarchy has, by way of contrast, got it right.

As I wrote in my last blog entry, ‘we are forced to witness and endure . . . the faintly deranged belief that it is the Jersey establishment which marches in step – and it is the rest of the civilised world which has got it wrong.’

So, reading today’s half-witted leader comment, we have to conclude that it’s QED – again.

Once more – it’s the Jersey oligarchy and its media which, supposedly, have the valid analysis – and it’s the rest of Western, European democracy which must, surely, have got it all wrong.

Even traditional, conservative, centre-right newspapers like The Times must have been infiltrated by a load of anarcho-commie fifth-columnists. I mean, how can it be otherwise, when the Jersey Evening Post takes a diametrically opposite view to that of The Times?

It couldn’t be, surely, that The Rag is wrong?!?

No, let us put such absurdities out of our minds.

And instead, let us wish the JEP hacks, subs and editors well; who could begrudge the rewords of hard work?

I do not doubt for one second that every, single penny of those “performance bonuses” have been well-earned.

Read the parallel universe nonsense from Jersey’s only “newspaper” below.

I’ll provide a more detailed de-construction later.


Jersey Evening Post, Leader Comment, 4th August 2008.

Pressure on an old relationship

WHY disturb Jersey’s relationship with Britain, which was established eight centuries ago and has been robust and satisfactory enough to survive not only massive social and political change but also the English Civil War and occupation by Nazi Germany?

Currently, the most satisfactory answer to this question must be that it would be foolish in the extreme to upset the status quo – unless, that is, such a dramatic change were forced upon us by unacceptable threats to our political, judicial or fiscal autonomy.

However, in spite of the manifest benefits of a situation which couples the protection offered by the ancient direct link with the Crown and freedom to march to the beat of our own drum in matters of taxation, public administration and the rule of law, two separate and inimical sets of forces have begun to push constitutional change and independence higher up the agenda – as described in the six-part News Focus series which begins today on these pages.

The investigation into child abuse at Haut de la Garenne has given those at home and abroad who object to the Island’s already high level of independence a new line of attack. Their insistence that UK judges and prosecutors must officiate when abuse cases come to court strikes at the heart of our right to operate an independent judicial system and therefore at one of the foundations of our constitutional position.

But if critics of autonomous Jersey are attempting to push the Island into the arms of the UK, others believe that constitutional realignment as far as full independence might eventually be necessary to protect not only ancient freedoms but also our ability to make a living. It is argued that if the UK government were to try to force fiscal changes fatal to the finance industry – perhaps to secure favour with its fellow EU states – the Island would be compelled to go it alone.

It is further argued that the increasing extent to which our government relates directly to other governments and international agencies without UK mediation shows that we are already extending our autonomy.

Moreover, although the idea of a break with the UK – even while retaining the Queen as Head of State – has in the recent past been seen as far-fetched, influential voices at the highest levels are now saying that impediments to full independence would be few and anything but insurmountable. It is also pointed out that, in the opinion of many authorities, the UK would not stand in the way of a constitutional separation.

The second interim report of the Constitution Review Group, chaired by the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, spelled out very clearly that an independent Jersey is no mere pipe dream. It remains to be seen whether the picture of the future that, by implication, this groundbreaking report described ultimately becomes reality.

Jersey Evening Post.







Read its leader comment below this post.

I suppose, in a tragic kind of way, one could find it quite entertaining – watching the Jersey oligarchy walk down the path of its own destruction.

It was, after all, going to happen – one way or another – sooner or later.

But if only the engines of that demise were one, or several, of the many other corruptions which possess the ruling elites here – one could indeed indulge in a degree of schadenfreude.

Creative accounting? Embezzlement? Bribery? Racketeering? Blackmail? Fraud? Tax dodging? Corruption of the planning process? Money laundering? Misconduct in public office? Perjury?

Okay, that last one, perjury, is, I concede, long-shot. For such an offence to be prosecuted, we would first require a functioning judicial apparatus.

Any of these cultural ‘features’ of “The Jersey Way” could have been the cause of the inevitable implosion.

But of all the rancid toxins which course through the veins of our stagnant ruling elite – it is the battery, torture and rape of children – and the concealment of such crimes – which has – finally – boiled to the surface like some metastasising canker.

Even now – after 20 months of becoming reluctantly familiarised with this awful subject – I cannot think of what so many of these children must have gone through without being gripped by a cold black dread; like some kind of icy vacuum.

Under normal circumstances I could have observed the corrupt shower who form our Glorious Leaders, being the author of their own destruction with a certain degree of satisfaction; perhaps even smiled a little at each new self-administered train-wreck.

Instead – I just want to shout at them “in the name of Christ – enough! For God’s sake just stop.”

But instead, with a seemingly endless stream of amoral absurdities, those who rule us descend to ever greater bathyspheric depths of moral turpitude.

For example, even in recent days, we have seen a Jersey oligarch begin the process of eliding from the judiciary to the legislature – largely on the grounds that today’s police force are exhibiting too much independence and need to be brought under greater direct political control.

This is one of those examples of the final stagnation of the Jersey establishment.

In which other established democracy would you find elites possessed of such stupidity and arrogance as to seek election on the grounds that the police force needs to be brought under direct political control – at the precise time the same police force has been sufficiently free of political interference to – finally – expose many decades of the most appalling child abuses?

Only that sense of invulnerability enjoyed by the terminally stupid could lead people to exhibit such folly.

And it is not as though we’re considering only a few embarrassing eccentrics.

The entire panoply of power in Jersey – most politicians, all institutions of the state, and the entire local media – all participate in the faintly deranged Groupthink which grips public life in the island.

The Jersey establishment and its media, through a blindingly obvious succession of omissions, distortions, half truths, perverse emphases and out-right falsehoods strives – with the obsession of the crazed – to maintain the fiction that The Atrocity – The Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – is some minor, passing controversy – as opposed to a final, signifying definition of what our community has come to.

So marginalised, slandered, and attacked have I been throughout this wretched episode that I have had to constantly gauge my perception of reality along side that of other people; people outside the crucible of Jersey.

For in Jersey, during the last 20 months, I have been labelled a communist, a thug, an anarchist and generally some kind of off-the-wall, lunatic-fringe extremist. I have, in all seriousness, been accused of engineering the entire controversy in order to “shaft Jersey internationally”; I have been depicted as being mentally ill; dammed as “not a team player” (I guess that means not joining in with the teamwork needed to maintain the culture of concealment) and “using the situation for my political purposes” – as though it could be imagined that my actions have been, even faintly, beneficial to me in any way.

As I have already remarked, I look at the conduct, the behaviour – the simple stagnation of the Jersey oligarchy, and I just want to say “in the name of God, enough!”

For in truth, the Jersey establishment serves as a warning to the world.

A warning of just what such arrogance, hubris, megalomania and sense of invulnerability can possess those who rule society when their power is near-absolute.

In the year 2008, in the eyes of Jersey’s ruling elite, it is as though the French and American revolutions never happened; as though unquestioning deference to one’s “social superiors” – as through they were infallible beings – is simply the natural order of things.

But time and again, the verdict of history has been cast upon those who indulged in such untrammelled power.

The words of John Dalberg-Acton remain as powerfully relevant today as they were in April, 1887:

“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

Jersey’s traditional ruling establishment would have you “judge them unlike other men”; as though they were ‘Popes or Kings’ of centuries gone by.

Were this not the case, this island’s leaders would have acted with wisdom during this disaster.

The worst peace-time crisis in the island’s history.

Instead, we are forced to witness and endure the smug complacency, the arrogance, ignorance, stupidity, the venal self-interest, the moral vacuity and the faintly deranged belief that it is the Jersey establishment which marches in step – and it is the rest of the civilised world which has got it wrong.

The truth, of course, is brutally – and tragically – different.

And no amount moral dereliction, distortions and lies by the Jersey Evening Post will change that fact.

Should you ever be tempted to believe the Jersey oligarchy spin, which would have you believe that survivors, whistle-blowers, the Police Force and campaigners are merely some kind of marginal and extremist irrelevancy – set aside what I say.

And instead read the leader comment – reproduced below – from The Times newspaper of Friday, 1st August 2008.

The Times is a very traditional, centre-Right conservative newspaper. Not a journal whose motivations are the anarchic de-stabilisation of respectable democracies.

The Times has covered the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster from the very outset; nearly a year ago – before most other media knew where Jersey was.

So this is a newspaper that knows of what it speaks.

A centre-Right, conservative publication – who’s views are unambiguous.

Read the comment below – and fix it in your mind.

And recall it – next time you see the Jersey oligarchy implying that the Child Abuse Disaster is some kind of Lefty plot.


Leader Comment from The Times Newspaper:

1st August, 2008.

August 1, 2008


Jersey’s Government should take a more robust stance over the child abuse investigations, and should prevent closure of a murder investigation
There was a note of resignation in the statement yesterday by Lenny Harper, the deputy chief officer of States of Jersey Police, that there may never be enough evidence to mount a murder inquiry into the partial remains of five children found at Haut de la Garenne.

As a policeman who has been central to the painstaking efforts to sift and analyse bone fragments and teeth found in the cellars of the former children’s home, Mr Harper is clearly eager to bring to justice anyone responsible for whatever crimes took place. As an employee of a government whose commitment to this investigation has been at best lukewarm, however, he knows that the case appears, for the moment, to have reached a dead end. His job, and that of the Jersey government, is to ensure that this case remains open and that the inquiry goes on.

To the public, things appear straightforward. Dozens of Jersey residents have testified that, as children sent to Haut de la Garenne, they suffered physical and sexual abuse and knew about punishment rooms in the cellars. A police investigation, the biggest mounted in the Channel Islands, has uncovered underground rooms and found disturbing evidence: a shallow concrete bath with blood on it and the words “I’ve been bad for years and years” scrawled on a wooden beam, the letter K written in black on a wall with whitewash covering the rest of the word, a total of 65 milk teeth and more than 100 human bone fragments, one coming from a child’s leg and another from a child’s ear.

In addition, a member of the public said that he had been told by staff to dig two holes near the boys’ dormitory, and police have found in one of them a large amount of lime at the bottom. That is certainly enough to prompt the reasonable suspicion that horrific crimes, including murder, have been committed at the home.

Bringing specific charges may prove to be much more difficult, however. First, the timeframe being investigated ranges from the late 1940s to the 1980s, and the remains, which were burnt, cannot be carbon-dated. Secondly, there are no reliable reports of missing children during this time, as those sent to the home were often illegitimate, unwanted or were listed as simply having left for the mainland. And thirdly, although some 97 allegations have been made of abuse dating back to the 1960s, and more than 100 people listed as suspects, several potentially key witnesses are dead and there are no clear links between the abuse and murder.

The frustrations of the case have also been reflected in public attitudes. Many people in Jersey, especially at the start of the investigation, have been angered by what they see as attempts in Britain to disparage their system of justice, force the pace of the investigations and impose independent judicial control. A former health minister, a trenchant critic of the Jersey government’s attitude, was sacked and Mr Harper himself is known to have been close to resignation over official reaction to the abuse inquiries.

The Jersey government should take a more robust stance over what has happened. For Britain, this is a delicate matter. The island, a Crown dependency, is not part of the United Kingdom and not subject to Home Office regulation. Ministry of Justice officials have held talks with those involved in the case and although there are ways of intervening – either directly or through the Privy Council – the British Government is extremely loath to do so or pre-empt the findings of an investigation still under way. But it should not be necessary. However baffling the case, it remains a homicide investigation. There is no reason to curtail or curb it. What happened in the dark cellars of Haut de la Garenne must be revealed, whatever the financial or political cost.

The Times

1st August 2008