Monthly Archives: March 2009


Dignity and Compassion;

A Lesson to All Politicians.

Many readers in Jersey will have seen tonight’s local television news, an unusually large part of which was devoted to an important subject; namely our Health Minister, Jimmy Perchard, who tells people to commit suicide.

The piece consisted of some introductory background information and a live studio interview with Jimmy.

Halfway through his interview, CTV played their recorded interview with Jill Gracia – who so movingly explained her experiences and feelings in respect of self-harm to us in comments she made under the previous posting.

It took a great deal of courage by Jill to publicly recount her experiences, and we should all be grateful that she did. CTV read the comment and I was able to put them in touch with Jill.

Thanks to her bravery, this most difficult and distressing of subjects now has a far higher place in public consciousness.

Can the same be said of political consciousness?

Strangely enough, I actually think it can. God knows I have my differences of opinion with most States members, but so manifestly beyond the pale is telling a person to kill themselves, that most States members generally are appalled at such comments.

Perhaps there’s hope for the States, even yet?

But what of Jimmy – the politician who – above all others – as Health Minister – should exhibit compassion and sensitivity towards those who have experience of self-harm?

Watching the CTV interview, I honestly felt sorry for him.

He looked a wreck. And it was painfully obvious that this is a man trying to punch way above his weight; a man simply out-of-his-depth.

I hope this episode doesn’t affect his health – and that if Jimmy himself can’t face facts, his family will encourage him to take a more realistic assessment of his ambitions.

In fact, the most striking feature of the CTV piece was the stark contrast between Jimmy – and Jill.

He was plainly a man all-at-sea – who had obviously devoted little, if any, in-depth thought to the issues his job requires him to wrestle with.

Jill – by way of contrast – is a human being of an altogether higher calibre.

Compassionate, calm, dignified, thoughtful.

Watching her was a humbling experience; I hope I can develop some of her attributes.

All decent people owe Jill our thanks.

But, returning to Jimmy’s performance, regrettably, I have to – again – put the record straight. I don’t wish to dwell on this subject, but for as long as he persists in his attempts to imply that I was not being honest when I quoted his remarks in the States, I will have to carry on defending myself.

In the States chamber he advised me, at least twice in rapid succession, perhaps three times, to “go and top yourself”. A fact I would happily attest to under oath in a court of law.

The supposed “provocations” Jimmy relies upon in an attempt to defend the indefensible were, and are, nothing more than the rough and tumble of the political environment.

The fact that he cannot deal or cope with such things, again must make one come to the conclusion that here we have a man badly overreaching himself.

Let us hope for Jimmy’s sake that he learn his limitations.

For an indication of the extent of those limitations – just compare Jimmy’s appearance and stature with that of Jill; her compassion and thoughtfulness.

As I said – I hope to develop such attributes.





A health minister who tells people to commit suicide.

A Speaker who blocks a counter-statement.

The roiling tumult of stupidity and hubris that is the Jersey polity impinges upon us with all the welcome savoir of a toilet being flushed.

And it isn’t even funny any more.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of Senator Jimmy Perchard’s – err – somewhat intemperate outbursts; a subject which has been discussed microscopically in the Jersey media recently.

How bad was his conduct?

Let me put it this way.

Even The Rag has demanded his resignation.

What else do you want?

Jimmy is presently the Minister for Health & Social Services – and his ‘performance’, as it were, has placed his continuation in that job in great jeopardy.

So, with great reluctance, on Tuesday he gave a shallow, half-baked “apology” to the States Assembly in the form of a ‘Personal Statement’.

It was all predictable enough – “sorry to fellow members – but it was all Syvret’s fault anyway” – save for one, remarkable feature.

Or, rather one remarkable omission.

The swearing and the insults from him I am prepared to take on the chin. Politics is a rough business – and if you ‘dish it out’ you have to be prepared to take it as well.

Considerably more problematic for Jimmy was his painfully obvious difficulty with the – err – exactitudonal recollection of his extempore semiotics.

But even that pales into insignificance in the shadow cast by his references to self-harm and suicide.

He has – so far – told me to kill myself on two occasions; firstly advising me to go away and “slit your wrists”; and more recently directing me to “go and top yourself”.

This – let us remember – from the man who is the Minister for Health & Social Services.

So when Jimmy came to the States Assembly this Tuesday to make his apology for his conduct, I didn’t, frankly, expect him to offer any kind of apology to me – on the contrary, it was entirely predictable that his statement would largely consist of a diversionary attack on me.

And I would have accepted that with perfect equanimity. After nearly 20 years in politics, these things are like water off a duck’s back to me.

But I was genuinely startled at his total failure to address the subject of his references to self-harm and suicide – and to offer a sincere apology to all those who may have been affected by self-harm – either directly or indirectly.

It does, actually, take something particularly serious to spur me into political battle-mode. And this was one such occasion.

Over the lunch-break I hurriedly wrote a draft Personal Statement – which I reproduce below – with the intention of delivering it during the afternoon session. I would have had no intention of responding to the various assertions in Jimmy’s statement – had he only recognised and apologised for his habit of advising people to kill themselves.

However, the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt deemed my draft statement “too political” – and refused me permission to make it.

Yes – that is how crypto-feudalistic and paternalistic the Jersey polity is. Elected members cannot ask questions in the Assembly, table propositions, amendments, legislation – or give statements – without the text gaining the prior approval of the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff.

Phil Bailhache – and Michael Birt; he being the former Attorney General with a strong predilection for ensuring that any prosecutions which might have been politically embarrassing – simply didn’t happen.

A tradition being stoutly continued by Phil’s brother, Bill Bailhache – the present Attorney General.

One might think that under the present circumstances – of all the times for these people to reign-in their political biases and interferences – now would be that time.

But no – their hubris and sense of utter invulnerability ruins their judgment.

So Jimmy’s statement of “apology” – in which he failed utterly to apologise to those affected by self-harm issues – went unanswered in the chamber.

So, for what it’s worth, you can read my disallowed draft response below.

Jimmy – and those who support him – need to ponder this.

I possess all the diplomatic skills and tact of an M10 battle tank.

If I can have seen the central and unacceptable offensiveness of his references to suicide, Jimmy really needs to start being honest with himself – and consider whether a job as Health Minister is remotely suited to him.

However – this being the States of Jersey we’re speaking of – the horrifying thing is that he will almost certainly retain the job.




24th March, 2009.


I am forced to make this statement in response to the personal statement given this morning by the Minister for Health & Social Services, Senator James Perchard.

It is with genuine disappointment that I am having to make these observations, as I had hoped that Senator Perchard’ statement would draw a line under the matter. I’m afraid it failed to achieve that objective in several noticeable respects.

I intended to say no more on the episode – and have even gone as far as publicly stating on the JEP web-site that I would not be seeking an apology from Senator Perchard.

However, rather than recognise my concession, and willingness to put the episode down to the rough & tumble of politics, Senator Perchard repeated certain allegations and condemnations of me in his statement of this morning.

But even then, I might have let the matter pass were it not for the central, startlingly serious failing of his statement, which I will return to.

To deal with my personal position in this matter, I have to say I am very disappointed that Senator Perchard continues to deny the words he uttered to me in the Assembly, and instead, effectively, accuses me of dishonesty in misquoting him.

I have to defend myself against this imputation, so I state again that the words used by Senator Perchard, which I then repeated, were quoted by me on that occasion entirely accurately.

I’m afraid it is also difficult to reconcile Senator Perchard’s statement of this morning, in which he claimed to have not mislead the Assembly, with the unqualified and unambiguous flat denial given to the chamber on that occasion, that he had stated such words.

It should also be noted that were it not for the fact that some surrounding members of the Assembly confirmed the Senator’s outburst to the Jersey Evening Post, and the fact that a reporter from that journal had captured on her dictaphone Senator Perchard advising me to go away and slit my wrists, his conduct would have remained hidden.

It has to be regarded as deeply regrettable that the Senator would have happily continued to have me perceived as the person who had uttered a falsehood.

A large part of Senator Perchard’s statement consisted of indirect attacks upon me, in which he accuses me of various provocations and criticisms of him and others.

As far as he is concerned, the supposed provocations have been nothing more than one would expect to encounter in the political sphere.

For example, on the occasion he advised me to slit my wrists, the supposed “provocation” was pointing out to him, as the Assistant Minister for Health & Social Services, that the professional report of the Howard League for Penal Reform vindicated the position of the whistle-blowing employee and myself – and that such factual findings stood in stark contrast to the assertions being made by senior civil servants in his department.

On that occasion, the point was entirely political, and a politician should be able to deal with such difficulties in a professional manner, not as Senator Perchard did.

The Senator also contends that a supplementary question I asked of him during the States meeting at which the later incident occurred was some form of unreasonable provocation. It was not.

I will not take up more time by repeating the question, as it is available in Hansard, should anyone care to examine it.

The question was entirely reasonable; what prompted the question was another regrettable example of Senator Perchard’s conduct during a recent States social event. Obviously embarrassed by the oblique reference to that incident, the Senator lost his temper.

As far as my criticisms of others are concerned, I would point out that they are made openly, under my own name, rather than hiding behind a pseudonym – and are made in a public sphere, so do not attract the protections of parliamentary privilege.

There is clearly a fundamental difference between my perspective on such matters – and that of Senator Perchard. He – as is common amongst many States members – seems to regard his job as protecting his department and senior managers from the public.

I, Sir, take the opposite view – which is that it is the job of politicians to protect the public interest from States departments.

The forgoing observations deal with the comparatively trivial matter of my position.

Now, Sir, I must return to the far more significant failing of Senator Perchard’s statement.

It was very noticeable that his apology, such as it was, was largely directed at the States chamber. My feelings, and those of other members of this Assembly are, frankly, of little consequence when contrasted with the concerns, feelings and views of the public.

It is regrettable that Senator Perchard directed so little of his apology to the people of Jersey.

But of even greater concern is this: –

On two occasions Senator Perchard, who is the Minster for Health & Social Services, directed a person to self harm – to kill themselves.

The Senator has on one occasion told me to slit my wrists.

And on another, more recent occasion, advised me to go away and “top myself”.

Frankly – Senator Perchard could have left out of his statement 90% of its text – had he only addressed the important matter; the fundamental issues arising from his conduct.

Which are, of course, his references to self-harm and suicide.

Sir, the Senator could have forgone any reference to me – forgone any apology to the States Assembly – because the one, central apology that needed to be made; that had to be made – was an apology to those who have experienced suicidal thoughts, or the families and friends of those who have.

That Senator Perchard’s statement made not one, single, such reference to public feelings in connection with the subject of self-harm; not even a hint of an apology for his words encouraging suicide, can only be regarded as both startling and deeply sad.

The Senator merely said this:

“Secondly, comments I directed at a States member concerning self-harm were made last year and outside the Assembly and before I became the Minister for Health and Social Services.”

It is as though the Senator regards advising a person to commit suicide as, somehow, a minor matter – provided any such comment was made outside the States chamber – and merely to a States member.

Senator Perchard also neglects to mention in the quoted paragraph above, the fact that he was the Assistant Minister for Health & Social Services – when he advised me to go and “slit my wrists”.

Sir – my personal feelings in this matter are of little relevance; indeed, I did not even seek an apology from the Senator – and, even today, would have let pass his further inaccurate assertions made against me. I genuinely wished Senator Perchard’s statement to draw a line under the episode.

But sadly we remain in the position whereby we have a Minister for Health & Social Services – who has advised a person to commit suicide on two occasions – and who has, despite all comment, singularly failed to recognise or acknowledge, in anyway, the distress those particular remarks have caused to many of his department’s clients and their families across the island.

Sir, it was bad enough that such remarks be made by the Senator, given the particular position he holds.

That he still, even today, fails to recognise and apologise for his references to self-harm, speaks a certain truth of itself.

Because I am personally involved in this matter, I will not be taking or initiating any action against Senator Perchard.

Instead, Sir, the question that confronts the Assembly as a whole is this:

Can the States of Jersey have as a Minister for Health & Social Services – a person who advises people to commit suicide?

I know what my answer to that question is – but considering and answering that question is the task that now confronts States members collectively.

Senator Stuart Syvret.





This is just a brief post, to inform readers of the latest tortuous pitchings and yawings of the States of Jersey on its course towards – in theory – a dramatically better child protection system.

At least – that is the hoped and expected destination.

Can the government of Jersey get there?

Possibly – though understandably I have always had my grave doubts.

I often express my view that events in Jersey are so far-fetched as to be scarcely believable – yet, that is how things unfold here.

How many readers of this blog, I wonder, can be unaware of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster? Of the dramatic scandals and world-wide media coverage which have arisen due to the decades-long failure of our oligarchy to protect children effectively?

Very few indeed, I would have thought.

So – even though most of my readers will not be politicians – let me ask you to conduct a simple thought-experiment – and imagine yourself to be a politician in Jersey; or, frankly, any other jurisdiction which has been confronted with decades of failure by its authorities to protect children from abuse.

Now – you are faced with the task of recognising, accepting – and endeavouring to change the failures of the past.

What, I ask, would your political response be?

Let me speculate as to how most rational people would respond.

You would firstly wish to fully grasp and understand what had gone wrong.

You would want to recognise and acknowledge the sufferings of the victims, and give them all necessary support.

You would want to understand just how these things were able to have happened – largely without detection or punishment – for all these decades.

You would want to ask some very serious questions of the political system of which you are a part – and, in particular, the supposed “professionals” who should have been protecting children.

You would want to know how they failed – and why they failed.

Why the children suffered.

In my speculations – all of the above responses would occur to the average person, and even politicians, because as we all know – those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

So having undertaken the above-described, honest and responsible analysis – and having learnt the requisite lessons – you set about fixing the system.

You develop new systems, policies, safeguards, checks and balances.

Then having developed those new policies – to be doubly-certain of them – you subject them to detailed scrutiny – and refine them if necessary.

You then take those policies through the debating process of your legislature until the new policies are fully, democratically endorsed.

You then enact them – and subject them to a new regime of independent scrutiny, to ensure the system does not relapse into the failures of the past, and instead, develops and improves with time.

I cannot say what your conclusions would be after conducting the thought-experiment I suggested – but the above-described response would certainly be my way of confronting and dealing with the issues.

But, this is the States of Jersey we’re dealing with here.

A child “protection” catastrophe of global scale: States of Jersey’s response?

“Oh let’s just throw a load of money at the problem and it will go away.”

Though no matter how extraordinary it may seem – the States were planning to debate a demand for more public money to be spent in the area of child protection, seemingly as a cosmetic gesture – without any meaningful scrutiny of the questions posed above – whatsoever.

And not only an absence of formal scrutiny – but, extraordinarily, even an absence of parliamentary debate and approval for the supposedly wonderful “policy” drawn up upon the recommendations of Andrew Williamson.

The States Assembly never diminishes in its capacity to surprise me.

I was surprised that the current Council of Ministers could be so startlingly inept as to attempt to brush all of that necessary learning process under the carpet – given the inescapable seriousness of the situation.

I was – even more – surprised that the formal scrutiny system seemed determined to NOT scrutinise child protection.

And even more surprised that certain Sates members – who I thought better of – were content to proceed in that way.

Indeed, though I won’t embarrass them by mentioning their names – it has been remarked to me by several people that certain of the speeches made this Wednesday by non-establishment States members “could have come out of the mouth of Frank Walker.”

I genuinely wonder if the members concerned even begin to grasp the folly of their position?

But – I said the capacity of the States to surprise me never diminishes.

Occasionally, the Assembly gets it right.

Today, I secured a convincing vote to the effect that the whole child protection issue – and our policy responses to it – be fully scrutinised – and subjected to a States debate.

I did not expect to win the vote, but fortunately, the interests of the island’s children were put first.

But how can the Assembly have found itself in the position of having to insist that the new child protection policies will be scrutinised, refined and debated?

Having to argue for an informed debate on child protection policies – after all that has taken place?

God only knows.

I would like to thank the majority of my colleagues for recognising the folly of proceeding with the grossly premature, un-informed debate that we were being asked to engage in.

Instead – we’re going to do the job properly.

I hope.




A Death-Delivering Maniac?

Jersey’s Then Attorney General

Michael Birt

Pulls the Plug

On The Police Investigation.


The content of this blog-posting has been edited to comply with the Jersey government reporting restrictions.

The actual name of the psychotic rapist and serial-killer nurse has been removed – and replaced with the phrase “Nurse M”.

The author of this blog has recently been imprisoned by the Jersey Oligarchs, thus becoming Jersey’s first political prisoner since the Nazis were thrown out.

A refusal to comply with the government agenda would cause the author to be imprisoned again – in a similar way to those political dissidents and bloggers who embarrass the governments of China, Russia & Saudi Arabia.  

Although, at present, Jersey is not a free and functioning democracy – it is hoped that the ruling oligarchy can be replaced in due course.

Stuart Syvret  

29th November, 2010

So it begins.

It is with trepidation I publish the material below – for reasons which will become plain within the first few paragraphs.

The document I publish here was tabled before the court in London, as one item of evidence in the Applicant’s bundles.

To be clear – this went before the two judges – and even then, they chose to disregard the public interest – instead asserting that we should take up these matters with the Jersey justice apparatus.

Notwithstanding the fact that the same administration of justice apparatus was responsible for covering-up what is revealed.

The document I publish is a secret Police report from 1999.

It is self-explanatory.

The subject of this report – one Nurse M – came to the attention of the Police because of – comparatively – minor offences involving the stealing of drugs from the Jersey General Hospital.

He was charged with these comparatively minor offences, pleaded guilty – and was sentenced to two years unsupervised probation.

I was a member of the then Health & Social Services Committee, and later became President of the Committee in December, 1999.

Nurse M was sacked from the General Hospital in response to the comparatively minor offences.

However, being a former military Nurse, who has served in the first Gulf war – he found a ready stream of politicians and others to lobby on his behalf to be allowed to be re-employed in the Hospital.

On one occasion he appeared before the H & SS Committee to make a formal appeal.

It was rejected because of the conviction for the minor offences.

Still, I continued to be lobbied by politicians and others, who wanted the Committee to employ Nurse M again.

I raised the issue of this lobbying in a face-to-face meeting with the then Chief executive of Health & Social Services, Graham Jennings.

I did not want Nurse M to be re-employed, and Jennings was certainly of the same opinion.

He explained that Nurse M was obviously a wholly unsuitable individual to be in health care. Jennings went on to say that, in any event, we couldn’t be expected to take Nurse M back even if we wanted to – as he was deeply unpopular with other staff – who were “mounting a vendetta against him”. To illustrate the extremity and unreasonableness of the “personality clash”, Jennings said to me, “a member of staff has even suggested that he killed people. It’s utter rubbish. But don’t worry – the Police have investigated the matter, and whilst they were too gung-ho and wanted to start exhuming the non-cremated bodies, the Attorney General Michael Birt has told them to drop it, because he doesn’t believe their are any grounds for securing a conviction.”

At the time, I took this at face value. After all, if your professional Health Chief Executive tells you this – and relays to you the fact that no less an authority than the Attorney General has dismissed the allegations – who is a mere politician to doubt them?

But – some years later – around 2005, perhaps – a conscientious member of staff at H & SS leaked this Police report to me.

As is clear from the Report, Jennings had a copy – but he never told my Committee or me of its existence.

It took a whistle-blower to reveal it.

When I read the report you are about to read, I was speechless.

Amongst it’s suggestions are that – during the period of February 1998, through March 1998 – Nurse M may have murdered 13 people in the Hospital.

8 – in a period of four nights during February 1998.

5 – during March 1998.

As for the remaining 10 months he worked on Corbiere Ward – who knows?

At the time of reading this report, I was deeply shocked that Jersey’s then Attorney General, Michael Birt, could cause such an investigation to be dropped.

Jersey’s version of Harold Shipman.

A mass-murderer in sunny Jersey’s hospital?

Oh dear – terrible for the image of the island’s authorities.

Potentially a huge scandal – of the kind that might “shaft Jersey internationally”.

Never mind – brush, brush – carpet, carpet. There – sorted.

Everyone can carry on with a nice easy, quite time. No controversies.

No awkward questions.

One of the tragedies of this episode is that reading the judgment on Nurse M’s conviction for the minor offences – by way of sentencing mitigation, his legal representative adduced a load of character witnesses.

Prominently amongst them – people who’s loved-ones had been “cared for” by Nurse M.

How many of those loved-ones were murdered by Nurse M?

We will probably never know.

Thanks to Jersey’s prosecutory and judicial system.

And to think – some people doubt the capacity of the Jersey oligarchy to cover-up child abuses – and possibly killings?

The horror, the horror.



Your ref:

Our ref: RHLeB/PAO

Date: 12th May 1999.


M C St. J. Birt Esq. QC.
HM Attorney General
Law Officers’ Department
Morier House
Halkett Place
St. Helier

Dear Attorney General


I refer to the attached report by Detective Inspector Faudemer concerning the above named who is currently on remand from the Magistrates’ Court for a variety of charges involving Drugs, Theft and Firearms.

Mr. Faudemer’s report details allegations and innuendo, the most serious of which indicate that Nurse M may, over a period of time, have terminated the lives of some patients at the General Hospital where he was employed as a Nurse.

I support Mr. Faudemer’s recommendation that if enquiries are to continue a phased approach should be undertaken, the first of which would be to collate further evidence. However, I recognise that the continuation and development of this investigation will require a high level of legal advice and guidance from your department and our work will impinge upon the Health Authority and Viscount and given the uniqueness and sensitivity of such an investigation I feel it is appropriate to hold a high level meeting with yourself and others to whom I have copied this letter.

The purpose of the meeting will be to receive an oral brief from Mr. Faudemer who will be able to answer questions which you and others may have, followed by a general discussion to determine the way forward.

The meeting has been arranged for Thursday 20th May at 2.15 p.m. in the Conference Room at Police Headquarters and I look forward to seeing you.

Yours sincerely,

R. H. Le Breton
Chief Officer

c.c. Legal Adviser – Mr. Ian Christmas, Deputy Viscount – Mr. P. De Gruchy, Chief Executive Health Service – Mr. G Jennings, Deputy Chief Officer – Mr. R. Jones, Superintendent – T. Garrett, Director of Finance – Mr. M. Szpera.


Submitted by: Detective Inspector B. Faudemer.

Date: 8th May, 1999.

Subject: Investigation of NURSE M.


This report has been compiled into three separate areas, namely:

1.Evidence which gives rise to concern, relating to the activities of NURSE M.

2. The recommended for phase 1 of any investigation.

3. The suggested manpower requirements for conducting such an investigation.


On Thursday, 1st April, 1999, Police Officers attended the home address of a female who disclosed that NURSE M, a Staff Nurse on Corbiere Ward, had stolen and stored drugs at her home address. The female, an ex-lover of Mr. NURSE M, produced to the officers, drugs in the form of Valium and Hypnoval, together with a syringe containing clear liquid and several packets of Coproxamol. These have since been identified and their content verified. Hypnoval is more commonly known as a ‘date rape’ drug. Enquiries confirmed that the drugs were from the hospital and indeed had been sent from the Hospital Pharmacy to Corbiere Ward, where Mr. NURSE M worked.

A check on the Firearms Register held at Police Headquarters, revealed that Mr. NURSE M had possession of several firearms, and that his Firearms License had expired in October, 1998. The female who handed the drugs to the Police confirmed that NURSE M had attended at her premises with a loaded firearm.

Mr. NURSE M was arrested on returning to the Island on the 17th April, 1999, and, armed with a Warrant, his home address was searched. During the search, the following property was recovered.

1. One lump of brown cannabis resin, tablets and scales.
2. Knuckle-duster.
3. A Police Philips radio (in working order).
4. Bag containing various medications.
5. Eleven syringes with a clear liquid within, and other medication, including
two bottles of potassium chloride.
6. Six firearms, with large quantity of ammunition.
7. One expired Firearms Certificate.

NURSE M was interviewed concerning the medication found, and at first suggested that the insulin in the eleven syringes was intended as an aid to body-building. He later changed this story, in that he intended to kill himself with the medication, by marching down to the Cenotaph in military dress, where he would inject himself with a lethal dose of insulin and potassium chloride.

He claimed that the medication recovered from his ex-girlfriend’s address by the Police, which prompted the investigation, had originated from himself, but that he had taken it to the location by mistake, from Corbiere Ward, having left it in the pocket of his nurse’s uniform.

Police Surgeon Dr. Michael HOLMES first expressed concern when he viewed the drugs recovered, in that a combination of insulin and potassium would be very difficult to detect in the body. Added to this, the amount of drugs in the possession of Mr. NURSE M cast doubt on his account, in that he had several lethal doses of drug. If a person with a serious medical history were to be injected with the combination of drugs found in the possession of NURSE M, the cause of death would not be clearly apparent. His possession of such drugs was therefore regarded as suspicious.

Enquiries have continued over the last three weeks, and have established that Mr. NURSE M has had several affairs with either patients or relatives of patients at the General Hospital.

A disturbing disclosure was received from a nurse in the United Kingdom, which will be subject of comment later in this report. The evidence which gives rise to the suspicion that Mr. NURSE M may have endangered the life of patients is as follows.


Nurse A in the UK, has disclosed in a statement recorded on the 6th May, 1999, that she had worked with NURSE M in Corbiere Ward during 1997 and 1998. She was part of a team of three who were responsible for one of four sections on Corbiere Ward. NURSE M, Nurse A and another male nurse, would work together. She was the more senior of the three, and had responsibility for assessing Mr. NURSE M’s performance. It should be stated at this stage, that this nurse is currently critically ill in hospital, awaiting a lung and heart transplant, and may die in the near future. She holds the view that NURSE M was intent on terminating the life of very ill patients, and to support such a claim, she cites specific incidents.

Incident 1 – an elderly male admitted to Corbiere Ward (name unknown) suffered a heart attack which was further complicated when his insulin levels became abnormal. He was placed on a glucose drip, which is the normal procedure. The drip had been inserted correctly, and was working fine when Nurse A checked the patient on the previous evening in question. Nurse NURSE M handed over to a nurse on the ward, just prior to Nurse A arriving for duty (the am. shift). On this occasion, NURSE M had not worked with Nurse A and the normal team. As normal, the nurse checked on her patient and discovered, to her horror, that the glucose drip had been disconnected from the patient, and a bung put into the base, preventing the substance from leaking. The patient was unconscious and close to death. The nurse reconnected the drip and the patient recovered within about ten minutes.

Nurse A checked the patient’s records and established that NURSE M, who had been solely responsible for his care had, at about 07.00 hours, entered a blood/sugar reading of ‘0.3’. She states this would be regarded as dangerously low (confirmed as critical by Dr. HOLMES). The nurse confronted NURSE M immediately, as he was still on the ward, and he explained that the patient must have moved and the drip disconnected. She, however, cannot accept this account, due to the bung being in place and the fact that the patient was unconscious. The nurse endorsed the patient’s records accordingly, and reported her concerns to the Senior Nursing Officer Lesley HIGGINS.

The nurse alleges that HIGGINS disregarded the incident, in the hope that NURSE M would shortly move to another position in the Accident and Emergency Department, and would therefore no longer be a problem.

The nurse checked the patient’s records some days later and noticed that an entry had been inserted by NURSE M which stated that, on discovery of a 0.3 blood/sugar level, the Duty Doctor had been informed. The nurse believes this to be a false entry on the part of NURSE M and that the doctor had not been consulted.

By placing a bung in the drip, she is firmly of the view that this was a deliberate act aimed at ending the patient’s life.

Incident 2 – A Mrs. [name excised] was admitted to Corbiere Ward at around Easter 1997, with liver failure. The son of Mrs. [name excised] confided in the nurse that NURSE M had asked him why he bothered visiting, because his mother would be dead in the morning.

Mrs. [Name excised] died whilst on Corbiere Ward.

Incident 3 – Perhaps of greatest concern to Nurse A, was an incident in 1997, around the time Princess Diana died. Andrew NURSE M had responsibility for a patient on the ward who was critically ill (name unknown). In the final days of the patient’s life, the family attended upon the patient 24 hours a day. Nurse A was approached by a member of the family, who asked why NURSE M would turn up the dose on the diamorphine pump during the evening and re-set it to its original setting, before the morning shift began. This rang alarm bells for Nurse A, who reported the matter to Lesley HIGGINS, who again did not take the matter very seriously. Dr. HOLMES holds the view that such action could result in the early termination of a patient’s life.

Incident 4 – A young girl was admitted to Corbiere Ward, following an overdose. NURSE M found her attempting to hang herself in the toilet on the ward. The patient was transferred to the APU, where it is alleged that the young girl disclosed to a member of staff that NURSE M had offered to show her how to commit suicide correctly.


This incident occurred within the UK at Basingstoke Hospital. Nurse B was employed at the hospital and has disclosed in a statement, that she entered into a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with NURSE M during his one year attachment to Basingstoke Hospital. She explained that they had experimented with [sexual activities excised], with her permission. This had, however, progressed to NURSE M becoming very violent, and he had on one occasion, thrown her over his shoulder and placed his knee on her chest, asking her if she wanted to die. She suffered a fractured sternum on this occasion. She alleges that the violence progressed to rape, and on one occasion, she was tied up on a table, naked, when he put a poker in the fire, took it out, placed it in water and ran it along her body at the time. Nurse B is very scared of NURSE M, and she was spoken to by her line manager, after sporting a black eye and cut lip at work.

Basingstoke CID have been asked to undertake a thorough investigation of her allegations, which, on initial assessment, suggest the victim may have suffered over 20 incidents of rape.


Nurse C worked with Nurse A and NURSE M. The nurse supports Nurse A’s account of the detached glucose drip, and will provide a statement on Tuesday, 11th May, 1999. The early indications suggest that the allegation that the hospital authorities, in the form of Senior Nursing Officer Lesley HIGGINS, did not act correctly, are supported by Nurse C.


HIGGINS paints a picture of an over-confident Andrew NURSE M, who was taken to task for answering the telephone on the ward, introducing himself as the Ward Manager, rather than the junior nurse that he was. She recalls a clash of personalities between Nurse A and NURSE M, but has omitted to reveal important evidence. Firstly, she has not mentioned the incident described by Nurse A. In addition, she has failed to produce the written assessments on NURSE M, when Nurse A placed her concerns on record, in writing. Nurse HIGGINS has stated that she misses NURSE M, due to being short-staffed. Nurse HIGGINS regards the Police enquiries to date as an inconvenience.


The Hospital Authorities, with the assistance of Senior Nursing Officer Jenny LE GALLAIS, have conducted a survey of deaths on Corbiere Ward, in conjunction with the duties of Andrew NURSE M, from the 1st March, 1998, to the 31st March, 1999. The average death rate is 4.5 deaths per month, but evenly distributed between NURSE M’s duty time, rests days and annual leave.

In February, 1999, however, the records show a significant departure from this trend, and we see 8 deaths in four nights when NURSE M was on night duty. In March, 1999, five deaths occurred, all during the duty time or the next morning when NURSE M would have been on night shift. Such fluctuations could easily be explained by a serious bout of flu affecting frail or already critically ill patients, but equally it could be due to foul play.


The services of NURSE M were dispensed with by the States of Jersey Police in September, 1993, as a result of:
a) irrational behavior;
b) consistent failure to seek advice;
c) consistent failure or refusal to follow advice given;
d) regular indications of mistrust between him and his peers.
Due the lead-up to his dismissal, he was described as deceitful and sly.


Medical reports from Dr. Ian BERRY and Dr. VINCENT, the suspect’s GP, indicate that NURSE M has suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome linked to his service in the Gulf War. He suffered from depression in January, 1999, when he attended his GP. At no time has he given an indication of suicidal tendencies. The treatment for depression and the rise in deaths on Corbiere Ward during February, 1999, do give me cause for concern.

Mr. Richard WALTER

Mr. Richard W ALTER is a US Forensic Psychologist based at the Michigan State Prison. He has considerable experience in the field of offender profiling and visited Jersey to attend the International Police Surgeons Conference. Whilst in Jersey, I took the opportunity to relay the facts of this case to him. He confirmed my suspicions that NURSE M possessed the hallmarks of a serial killer and that he was an extremely dangerous man. He found the sexual activities of NURSE M to be of particular note and the threat to kill Nurse B, on the occasion that he allegedly broke her sternum, was an indication of the man’s unhealthy interest in death.


NURSE M is due to reappear at the Magistrate’s Court on the 19th of May, 1999, and a bail application is expected. He is currently held at St. Saviour’s Hospital. The degree of security on Chausey Ward can only be described as poor.


Arising from the evidence above, I would recommend the following response from the States of Jersey Police.

I would advocate that this incident is broken up into two phases. Phase 2 should only be considered if significant evidence is uncovered during Phase 1.

Phase 1

The following action should be undertaken in pursuit of this case:

1) Recover all documents and appraisals from the Hospital in relation to NURSE M and patients mentioned in the statement of the nurses already interviewed.

2) Identify the patients referred to in the statement of Nurse A, and interview the relatives.

3) Identify and recover records of patients who died in February, 1999, and interview all relatives of such patients.

4) Identify and interview all past and present members of staff (46) in 1998.

5) Trace [name excised] reference possible sexual advances to her in Jersey by NURSE M.

6) Re-interview Lesley HIGGINS in more depth reference the disclosures of Nurse A.

7) Identify all patients who were resident in Corbiere Ward in February, 1999, and during incidents referred to in the statement of Nurse A.

8) Identify and interview the female and members of staff reference the suicide attempt, including the hospital staff she disclosed to.

9) Engage a UK expert arising from a similar enquiry, to advise on this investigation.

10) Devise a press strategy.

11) Conduct an emergency conference with Hospital Authorities and request Senior Nursing Officer Jenny LE GALLAIS assists with the enquiry.

12) Commence a HOLMES incident room.

13) Seize drugs records on Corbiere Ward.

14) Invite Basingstoke CID to conduct enquiries into NURSE M’s activities whilst in post at that location.

15) Identify all friends in Jersey of Nurse A and interview them.

16) Record possible ‘dying declaration’ from Nurse A.

Dependent upon the results of Phase 1, Phase 2 may require the following action.

Phase 2

Consideration should be given to expanding this enquiry to all patients who died on Corbiere Ward during the term of office of Andrew NURSE M. This should, in my view, only be considered upon receipt of all the information obtained in Phase 1.


I have attempted to assess the manpower implications of undertaking such a major enquiry, and they are attached to this report in the following folders, together with other relevant data:

Folder 1: Schedule of suggested manpower requirements re: Phase 1.

Folder 2: Survey of deaths between the 1st March 1998, and 31st March 1999.

Folder 3: Statement of Nurse A.

Folder 4: Police report of Detective Sergeant 202 Andrew SMITH re: the seizure of drugs at the home address of Andrew Nurse M.

Barry Faudemer
Inspector – CID


The British Judicial Establishment

And Their Approach

To Protecting You.

This is a brief posting – intended as an introduction to the serial presentation of evidence – which I hope to begin with another posting later this evening.

Watch this space – and remember – as you wait – that quote from the Tindersticks song, En Diablo En El Ojo:

“I wouldn’t close your eyes just yet

I wouldn’t turn the lights down yet

Because there are things you’ve got to see here

There are things you’ve got to believe with me.”

In the mean time, it may interest you to know that I have written to the court administration in my own name, seeking to make a formal complaint about Tuesday’s farrago, get it deemed a mis-trial and secure a fresh hearing.

I’ll explain my concerns below, but first let us consider some of the dialogue which took place under the previous posting.

Those who have read readers’ comments under the previous blog will have been as surprised as I was to learn of certain facts.

Not least that one of the two judges – Lord Richards – was tried for exposing himself to a woman. One commenter pointed out that he was acquitted. To which another commenter wrote in response – saying:

“True. And that case is closed. However, even if completely exonerated, anyone charged with a similar crime could expect to have formed strong opinions about such things.

In most of the world’s jury systems, Richards would be automatically disqualified even from citizen jury service.

On that basis alone, if the presiding judge knew a juror had been falsely accused, the court would have to consider his views contaminated by his prior experience with the process. Even a witness account would likely be challenged if he or she had ever been charged with related crimes.

Richards can’t expect to be seen as impartial, and will have to recuse himself or face public scrutiny on an international scale. Just imagine what future books on The Jersey Matter will say!”

Amongst my comments last night I wrote this:

“Now, the decision of the judges in question makes perfect sense.

As I said in the posting – the billionaire Barclay brothers can JR Jack Straw in London – but my constituents can’t.

Look – the question of Richards’ supposed innocence just isn’t the question. The issue is that when you have any, remote, kind of tainture – anything which may give rise to a suspicion of non-objectivity – then you do not involve yourself in determining a judicial procedure which touches upon similar territory.

And Tugendhat – knows Phil Bailhache and the rest of the crew – because he’s served as an appeal court judge in Jersey – and appointed to that post by – Phil Bailhache!!!

Christ on a bike.

We go to London on behalf of my constituents – who are victims of the most foul abuses and maltreatment – and resultant cover-ups by the Jersey oligarchy.

And we get as beaks a man who is mates with the prime objects of our criticism – and a man who may or may not be a sexual pervert.

Rock & roll!

I suppose one should find it funny, really.

I mean – really – you just couldn’t make it up.”

This drew the following comment:

“Oh here we go.

You lose your case and guess what … yep, the English judges are all bent allies of the oligarchy.

You’re nothing if not completely predictable Mr Syvret.”

To which I responded with the obvious observation:

“Well – as the – belatedly – revealed facts in this case show – yes!


And –

‘Allies of the Jersey oligarchy’.

A man with a history of accusations against him of sexual perversion.

And a man who is mates with Phil Bailhache – and was appointed by him as a Jersey appeal court judge!

Yea – one could not contrive to manufacture the said material!

Facts is facts, son.”

So – what to make of the ‘fine traditions’ of the British upper-classes?

Protecting each other – rather than protecting you and your family.

As will become horrifyingly clear when I post the first item of evidence.

So – whilst you wait for the next posting – and the tragedy and obscenity of what it reveals – you might like to read my complaint to the court administration, which I reproduce here:

“I believe that what occurred on Tuesday was a mis-trial. And that rather than having to mount an appeal – the Applicant is entitled to a re-hearing of the Application.

The grounds for complaint are as follows:

The Applicant did not receive a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. This because: –

The Applicant was given only approximately one hour to make its case – this notwithstanding it had been scheduled for two hours – and, in fact, the hearing had been scheduled as the final business – so could have continued into the afternoon.

The lead judge, Lord Richards, repeatedly and excessively interrupted and questioned me, as I attempted to make the Applicant’s case. This had the effect of disrupting the flow of my presentation; answering his constant interruptions caused me to have to repeat a number or points which I had already covered – and introduced digressions down paths which were of less significance for the Applicant. This further had the effect of causing much of the Applicant’s case to be left unstated.

The absurdly short time allowed – and the fact that the presentation of the Applicant was constantly pro-actively disrupted, thus consuming more time – plainly prevented the Applicant from fully presenting and rounding-out its case.

On this ground alone – a clear breach of British jurisprudence and of Article 6 of the ECHR – the Applicant did not receive a fair hearing, nor anything remotely resembling a fair hearing.

We then have to consider the two judges, Justice Tugendhat and Lord Richards.

Neither of these two judges should have been hearing this case – nor should Lord Richards be hearing any cases which touch upon matters of sexual deviancy.

Both of these judges should have recused themselves from this case.

Lord Richards has a history of being accused of a sexual perversion – namely flashing a woman on a train. He was acquitted of this charge – but he can be expected to have “formed strong opinions” concerning accusations of sexual misconduct – many of which underpin the Jersey case. Lord Richards cannot, therefore, be regarded as a legitimate component of an impartial tribunal when the tribunal in question is hearing cases involving sexual misconduct.

His involvement in cases, such as that of the Applicant, breaches the need for the appearance of objectivity to be retained at all times.

Justice Tugendhat was appointed by Jersey’s Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache – one of the prime objects of the Applicant’s complaints – to the post of Jersey appeal court judge. This fact was revealed only at the very start of the hearing – not some weeks before – and in the declaration, it was made clear that Justice Tugendhat knew not only Philip Bailhache, but also many of the other prime objects of the Applicant’s concerns.

Given the financial constraints of the Applicant, we were unable to, realistically, mount an objection – as this would have meant an adjournment for possibly some weeks – and another very expensive visit to London.

The Applicant should have been told of Justice Tugendhat’s conflict of interests significantly before the day of the actual hearing. Had the Applicant been so informed, it would have objected strongly to the involvement of Justice Tugendhat.

Instead – no such realistic or practical opportunity was afforded the Applicant – therefore we had to proceed with a plainly and heavily conflicted judge.

Similarly, had the Applicant been informed, it would have strongly objected to any judge who had an unfortunate history of accusation of sexual perversions. It is nothing less that extraordinary that Lord Richards should have considered himself – let alone the court administration consider him – to be an appropriate judge in this, or similar, cases.

Both judges were plainly conflicted and should not have been there.

It was also clear to several people in the audience that the judgment of the two judges had been largely determined and written beforehand; their short retirement enabling them to merely tweak it a little to give a semblance of having taken into account that which was said in the hearing.

In addition to a formal complaint against the conduct of the hearing – and against the inappropriate involvement of the two judges – I also wish to formally complain to the appropriate department or person who has responsibility for determining which judges will hear which cases.”

British “justice” in action.

When you read the next posting, you won’t, perhaps, be surprised that the appalling events depicted in it did not receive a completed investigation – and that then Attorney General Michael Birt, told the States of Jersey Police to drop the enquiry.

Read my next posting – hopefully I’ll have time to get it done later tonight – and then take another look at our high guardians


Late night London, #4

London Diary.

I’m sorry – we lost.

However all is not lost. The two judges rejected our Application on a single, narrow, ground; basicly that we should attempt a Judicial Review of the Jersey judiciary – before that self-same judiciary – itself.

Work that out – if you can.

It appears that multi-millionaire media magnates, like the Barclay brothers can JR Jack Straw in the London courts – even though only on hypothetical questions – but my poor, messed-up and powerless constituents can’t – on the basis of strongly evidenced corruption in the Jersey system.

Anatole France famously wrote:

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

Indeed, the “equality” certainly applies to the rich when it comes to not behaving as the poor have to. But, alas, that “majestic equality” appears not to flow in the other direction when the poor seek the remedies of the rich.

Which was, of course, the point he was making.

But – I said all was not lost.

The judges expressed no opinion on the merits of the facts and evidence we placed before them – and nor did they express a view on Jack Straw’s duties.

So – the fundimental issues remain open to us – we just have to go back and use a diffrent route.

So that’s what we will do.

John and I are allready working-up a substantive Judicial Review case to bring before the court in Jersey – which will be fascinating in itself – as they’ll have to produce a court competent to hear the matter.

And – we are going to bring a much broader range of complaints to the attention of Jack Straw – some deeply alarming material. And when he fails again to act on that – then we bring a fresh Judicial Review application against Straw – on all the broader issues .

So – the battle continues.

So that readers can assess for themsleves some of the evidenced issues – and fully understand what the conduct of the Jersey oligarchy has been – and the things that Jack Straw is, apparently, content with – I’ll be posting some of that evidence in the coming days.

As I said, I’m sorry for not succeeding. But these systems have been evolved by the rich to serve the rich.

I tried my best – but the odds were always against us.

But, the battle continues.



Late night London, #3

A London Diary.

Just a brief note as I plough through law books, authorities and proceedural guidance in preperation for the London Courts.

11.00 AM – Court No. 1 – Royal Courts of Justice.

Frankly, I haven’t got a clue what I’m doing – but, hopefully, I’ll pull the argument together in time.

The hearing is just the first step; if we win, we secure permission to set a date for a full trial of the facts, issues and evidence – which will be tested against the law and precident.

The view of those we’ve spoken with is that if we get permission – we’re 95% of the way to victory.

Not least because we have a significant quantity of deeply disturbing evidence tabled.

In the course of the last 2 years I have come to know many survivors – most of who simply never recieved justice in Jersey.

No doubt, some people in Jersey will regard this battle as bad for the island.

But, as with a serious illness, sometimes drastic steps have to be taken.

That these events are having to occour is not the fault of survivors, it’s not the fault of whistle-blowers – and it’s not the fault of me.

The cause of this battle is the failure of the administration of justice in Jersey – in all manner of horrifying ways – as will become clear.

But in particular – this is for the survivors – and those who didn’t survive – like Michael O’Conell.

If I fail – forgive me – I’ll have given it my best shot.

I’ll write tomorrow.




The Politics of The Church.

A Challenge to Jersey Christians

From Dr. Martin Luther King.

Before embarking on this blog, I feel I should offer at the outset some important contact details to those who may be affected by reading some of what is written below.

NSPCC helpline:

If you are calling from the United Kingdom please use this number:

0800 169 1173

If you are calling from anywhere else in the world, please use this number:

+44 (0)20 7825 7489

The States of Jersey historic child abuse enquiry team can also be reached at a specific number:

0800 735 7777

The States of Jersey Police can also be contacted via e-mail at:

Alternatively, you may contact me if you wish, in strict confidence, at the following e-mail address. This is secure and doesn’t use the States of Jersey system:

I accidentally happened to hear BBC radio Jersey – twice – today, and on each occasion what was being said caught my attention.

Yesterday and today, Jersey has been the location of an international anti-tax haven seminar and a series of protests against off-shore finance generally.

Jersey’s traditional politicians will not admit it, but the island’s economy has been utterly captured by finance industry related activity. Whatever one may think of the rights or wrongs of off-shore, the practical facts are that at least 80% – that’s probably a conservative estimate – of our GDP arises from the off-shore finance activities which Jersey hosts.

It is not difficult to see just how utterly dependent Jersey is on this single economic sector – as large parts of the remaining economic activity of the island – the accommodation industry, for example – are also dependent upon the wealth and spend of the finance sector.

The reality is, therefore, that our Glorious Leaders have placed us in total dependency upon an industry which has always been – sooner or later – doomed to extinction – as predicted by many commentators over the years.

Whilst many would argue that the demise of off-shore is long over-due and to be welcomed, whatever the rights or wrongs of that opinion – we, as a community, may well be faced with impending and imminent economic melt-down – with colossal resultant hardship for the people of Jersey.

So given the central importance of this issue to the future of the island, one might imagine that there would be meaningful debate on the subject; that bankers, accountants and Jersey Establishment Party politicians would want to meet and argue with their critics.

Little, if any, such engagement happened from those quarters. Frankly, not particularly surprising – given their omnipotence, the Jersey oligarchy’s response to any difficult challenge is simply to assert that black is white – and completely ignore any facts, argument or evidence placed before them.

So far – all pretty much established and obvious features of the situation Jersey finds itself in.

But the seminar and protests of yesterday and today have an interesting dimension, in that several of the key organisations involved are Christian charities. For example, Christian Aid.

I’m not personally religious, but I respect the views of those who are; I think about their various faiths and what they mean to the individual believers and to society more generally. I find religions philosophically and personally interesting.

In my, quite possibly mistaken, apprehension, I have always imagined Christians and the Church to, indeed, be on the side of the poor, the starving, the down-trodden and the vulnerable. And that certainly seems to be the outlook of those Christian NGOs presently campaigning in Jersey.

So, it was with interest – I can’t say ‘surprise’ anymore – that I listened to a Reverend on BBC Jersey radio this morning – a man actively involved in the Jersey branch of Christian Aid – pouring criticisms upon Christian Aid as a national organisation for their objection to tax-havens – and asserting that the local branch were now seriously considering breaking all relationship with Christian Aid UK, and instead look to another faith-based NGO with which to affiliate.

Well, I suppose we should wish them luck in their quest, because I can’t imagine any respectable Christian NGO being pro-tax-havens, so they might be looking for a long time.

But what was even more remarkable was the Reverend’s assertion that Christianity & the Church – were “not political”. A somewhat strange statement to come from a man who – by giving the interview, and speaking as he did, was himself engaging in politics.

Obviously a very substantial number of Christians around the world don’t share his view – or they wouldn’t be funding and supporting Christian NGOs in their political work to change national and international policies with the objective of bringing some succour and justice to the world’s poor and abused.

Again, I may be mistaken in this, but it seems to me that by striving to follow, and to promote the teachings of Christ, one would, unavoidably, be engaging in a de facto political act. You would be trying to change society from its shallow, materialistic, greedy and uncompassionate course, towards a more empathetic, caring, considerate society.

The personal is political.

But the words of the Reverend as broadcast this morning were not especially surprising to me.

I say this because – given my notion of what it means to be Christian, as described above – I long-ceased to be surprised at the yawning abyss between what prominent Jersey Christians do and say – their materialistic life-styles, political activity and affiliations, lack of empathy, and disregard for the poor and social justice on one hand – and the teachings and example of Christ on the other.

I expect it’s just my ignorance – some misunderstanding on my part – but when I observe churches besieged by BMW X5’s, Porsche Cayennes and Jaguars on Sundays – awaiting the return of their multi-millionaire bankers, accountants, lawyers and property speculators – following their weekly dose of smug sanctimony – I have to scratch my head and wonder what Jesus would have made of the spectacle?

The strong impression I get is that to be a prominent Christian in Jersey is to belong to what is more of a de facto Conservative political party and social club – than it is to be in a communion with fellow followers of Christ.

This is why I was not in the least surprised to hear on the radio this morning, the Reverend denouncing Christian Aid as an organisation – and telling the world that the Jersey branch was now considering splitting from it.

I get the same weary sense of resignation as I look around the States chamber at those members who imagine themselves to be Christians unconcernedly supporting policies which are short-termist, materialistic, frequently – and obviously – based upon a pack of lies, and very often antithetical to the good of the average person in Jersey.

And the attitude of the island’s Dean, who failed to support me when the establishment stopped me making a Christmas speech because I was expressing empathy for child abuse survivors. His attitude made all the more ironic, given his subsequent use of the same Biblical quotes that I hade been prevented from using, when he was addressing a service for victims of Haut de la Garenne.

Or another Reverend of Jersey’s Anglican Church – who wrote a letter to the Jersey Evening Post in which she wrongly asserted that children had not been institutionally abused in Les Chennes and Greenfields – that they hadn’t been psychologically and emotionally damaged by being kept in solitary confinement for weeks – or even months – at a stretch.

I did phone her and offer to meet, to show her evidence, and explain the findings of the Howard League which disproved her view – even to introduce her to a number of the young victims. She was completely disinterested. And I can’t say I was surprised – given that her letter was essentially little more than a Political hellfire & brimstone sermon in support of jailing children.

Just another example of the social conservatism one finds solidly predominant beneath the thin cloak of Christianity in Jersey.

I said that today two items had caught my attention on BBC Jersey. The morning news assault on Christian Aid by the Reverend was the first – the second was a brief exchange I heard at around 12.10 during the station’s public phone-in slot.

A caller was speaking in support of the denunciation of Christian Aid – and to support her case, she quoted the words of a deceased Jersey Reverend – and former Vice-Dean of the island – one Reverend Peter Manton.

The Reverend Peter Geoffrey Kevvit Manton.

Former rector of the Parish of St. John and former Senator.

Manton was described by the caller as “this charming man”. She went on to say that “he said he would never have anything to do with Christian Aid – because it was political”.

I am not in the least surprised that this particular specimen of a supposed “charming man” should have been hostile to the politics of Christian Aid.

I say this because I have learnt a great deal about Manton – and have written about him previously on this blog.

It speaks volumes that Manton should have been telling people he’d have nothing to do with Christian Aid – whilst engaging in the politics of being a closeted founding member of a neo-Nazi, anti-immigrant organisation.

The two relevant blog-postings which can be read in my archive are dated, 15th & 16th July, 2008.

I will re-produce here some of what I wrote in those postings – and more significantly, what some of my readers wrote in comments.

On the 15th July, I wrote this:

“Earlier today a reader posted the following comment, after some similar correspondence on my comments section:

‘Re the Anglican church!

I am only mentioning the Anglican Church, and in particular one `Vice Dean’ (who by the way was also a member of the States of Jersey elite), as I know for `fact’ that he raped and sexually assaulted Island children!

Similarly, I am now of the belief that he was part of a much wider paedophile ring!’

Yes – I know precisely what this commenter is referring to.

Would I be right in thinking it is the Reverend Peter Manton?

Sometime Vice-Dean of Jersey?

Then a Senator in the States of Jersey, the island’s parliament – who had to be ushered out of his seat early because of his attempts to take sexual advantage of a vulnerable alcoholic woman?

The Reverend Peter Manton – rapist of 13 year-old girls?

Yes – tragically – as others have remarked on this blog and elsewhere – even what is in the public domain so far is merely the tip of the iceberg.”

Given what many of my constituents had told me by this time, especially certain survivors, it was plain that a determined effort was being made by the church establishment to bury everything.

I went on to write this:

“Word has reached me of several Churchmen desperately trying to smear me to anyone who will listen; they dismiss me as some kind of communist, anarchist – and general trouble-maker – who no one should speak to or contact.

(Incidentally – a similar strategy is being used by many of Jersey’s lawyers. They too have an awful lot to hide – given their atrocious failures to properly represent victims over the decades.)”

The posting about Manton generated an even greater flow of information to me – including some well-evidenced reference to his political affiliations – the Church man who wouldn’t get involved in Christian Aid – because it was ‘political’ – yet had no such qualms about being a crypto-Nazi.

In the posting of the 16th July I wrote this:

“The Reverend Peter Geoffrey Kevvit Manton.

Nazi – as well as child rapist.

Some very useful references were suggested by commenters who have shed some light on the festering murk of the late Peter Manton – former Vice-Dean of Jersey’s Anglican Church – former Senator in the Jersey parliament – and child rapist.

I quote some of the facts we were referred to below.

The information is taken from the book ‘Encyclopaedia of British and Irish Political Organisations’, by Peter Barberis, John McHugh and Mike Tyldesley.

Entry number 681 is to be found on page 195. I reproduce it here.

‘WISE (Welsh Irish Scots English)

Dates: 1974 – present.

Founded in 1974 as an anti-immigration association with links to the National Front [639] and the Monday Club [116]. WISE was led by Joan Mason, a former civil servant. Other members have included Lt. Col. Robert Gayre, of Gayre & Nig, Brigadier Hugh McIntyre and the Revd. P.G. K. Manton. [Emphasis added] It opposes black immigration, calls for the repatriation of settled blacks and seeks to ‘defend’ white culture against alien influence. Its rallies have been attended by Nazis, and in the early 1980’s, by Rightwing Conservative MP’s. Since 1984, bad publicity has caused a decline in membership.

References: A. Maolain 1987; Hill, 1988.'”

The two blog-postings I quote above attracted a significant number of comments – some of which I will quote here:

“Mr Searchlight said…

The Revd. Peter Geoffrey Kevvit Manton was Rector of St John between 1965-1985. He was sworn in as Vice-Dean in 1975.

Surely not the same Revd. P.G.K. Manton that kept other very dubious company as a member of Welsh Irish Scots English (WISE) in the 70s and 80s…

As if being linked to the Monday Club wasn’t bad enough. But the NF?”

“Anonymous said…

The Peter Manton that I referred to was the rector of St John of Jersey in Jersey.

There is no confusion about who he is or the crimes he is guilty of!

Those of you who know the truth about this monster please, please either talk to the police or Stuart.

Another victim.”

“Anonymous said…

I was physically, not sexually, abused by the Brothers of De La Salle in the seventies. This has resulted in my anti-religion stance of today.”

“Anonymous said…

I was also at De La Salle in 1960´s was also Physically abused by the brothers….and when I was interviewed by J. police concerning HDLG policeman wouldn’t pay any attention saying “that was the education system then” and wouldn’t listen to me…
I was also sexually abused as a Sea Cadet. Manton was sometimes there taking prayers….link there perhaps????…Question: Would I go again to the police and make a statement? No, I would not…Why not?? Too many wearing the same school tie maybe.”

“Anonymous said…

Glad to see the connection between Manton and the Sea Cadets has surfaced – my husband, and ex cadet, has been asking since the first news reports of Haut de la Garenne were aired “when will the link with Manton be made.”

It is rare that individuals are able to abuse alone for prolonged periods of time: if those around are not joining in the abuse they are usually at least aware on some level, but in order not to be challenged and accused a figure like Manton would need the collusion of powerful people around, reasons why the average person suspecting his interest in and behaviour towards children would find themselves gagged.

Many of us had a reasonable idea of some of what was going on, many have friends who have had their complaints fall on deaf ears – we all need to have the mechanisms that collectively gagged us dissected.”

“Anonymous said…

Can anyone tell us (me)..
How the investigation concerning “The Sea cadets” is still “Going on”? or is it ?
The words, carpet, brushed and under come to mind….
Now that Manton has been mentioned all we have to do, is find the connection to those who may be still sitting in big house…”

“Anonymous said…

The plot thickens! I wonder who else amongst Jersey’s ever so distinguished government and residence will be exposed for what they really are?

Many, many years ago when aged about 14/15, a well known and convicted Jersey paedophile told me (as he and his sicko friends entrapped me), that he supplied children from HDLG and Jersey in general, to well known TV personalities!

The link between Jersey paedophilia and these `celebs’ was the Jersey `Opera House’!”

Those were just a few of the comments left on my blog. I also received a significant number of private communications directly to me.

Consider – what connects the three disparate subjects touched upon in this posting – child abuse, tax-havens and the stance of the Church; what do they have in common?

What unites these subjects is the marked reluctance – even complete failure in some cases – of those who profess to be the spiritual, ethical leaders of our community – and those who follow them – to honestly form a real understanding of the disconnect between what it is they profess as a faith, as a system of ethics – and the difficult reality of their politics, life-styles and actions.

Hopefully, the disgusting entity that was Manton is a rarity. I know the vast majority of Christians would not harm children.

But what of other actions – other impacts on people?

Did Jesus, I ask, preach that people should only pay token regard to the needs of others?

In my imperfect understanding of these things he did not. Instead, compassion was at the heart of what he did.

As I said – I’m not personally religious – but do think seriously about such questions as faith and ethics.

But, unfortunately, often – when observing Jersey Christians in action – I feel I have to cleanse myself by watching clips of Martin Luther King on YouTube – to remind myself what a real Christian does and says.

I’ll give a web address below to a short, yet powerful clip. (I did try to place a hyperlink, but couldn’t make it work.)

(post-script: readers have now placed a hyperlink to the clip in the comments section)

It is film of the final, prophetic, speech Martin Luther King made. He was murdered shortly after the meeting depicted. After his address, the clip shows some short scenes of the political struggles of the time – and concludes with Dr King saying these words – which seem so apposite a question to pose to Jersey Christians:

“One day we will have to stand before the God of history,
And we will talk in terms of things we’ve done.
It seems that I can hear the God of history saying:
‘That was not enough! That I was hungry
And ye fed me not’.”

Let me invite Jersey Christians – especially those that are, in truth, more Conservative than Christian – to go to this link and watch on YouTube the final speech made by Dr. King before his murder – watch till the end and consider his words.

Watch this man – and then tell me that Christianity and politics are two separate realms.




Some More Grim Farce.

Forged E-Mails;

Expensive Spin-Doctors;


Read all About It!

From Jersey’s Leading News Source!

My fans are clamouring for another blog posting – But I’m sooo busy preparing to batter (in a purely Ghandian, non-violent, metaphorical sense, you understand) the Jersey oligarchy, I just don’t have time.

What to do!

How can I keep my audience sated in their desire for world-class, ‘Life-Enriching’ spelling mistakes?!?

How to cope with the pressure!?!

Shall I just churn out a load of desperate, frankly pathetic, shallow and tragic space-filler – of the kind churned out by the Jersey oligarchy media in its death-throes?!?


Instead I’ll give you a quick and easy scoop – which is fundamentally important in respect of the public good; is of real news value; is exclusive – and is damn funny – in a Beckettian black-farce kind of way.

Cast your mind back some months and remember certain parts of the national media – all of the Jersey media – and Big Frank – and the department full of Satan-worshiping spin-doctors (if they’re not, they’d better convert and start getting acclimatised) he employed with £300,000 of your taxes.

This was a time when a certain e-mail was leaked from the Jersey Chief Minister’s department to certain, carefully selected, national journalists.

An e-mail to Big ‘Honest’ Frank’s offices, which – on the face of it – came from Lenny Harper – and made – supposedly – misleading and inaccurate claims about a forensic anthropologist’s report.

This e-mail was carefully served up – at your expense, Jersey tax-payers – to the media in order to “show” them how “unreliable” that Mr. Harper was.

But – oh dear – that damn annoying thing called the truth has returned – and is “trying to shaft Jersey internationally”.

Read the three items of correspondence re-produced below.

You couldn’t make it up.

There was, indeed, an e-mail from Lenny to Big Frank and Bill – ‘Mr. Honesty’ – Ogley & Co. But rather inconveniently for them and their spin campaign, it happened to be an entirely accurate, professional document – which crucially – and pay attention now, because these subtleties get lost in the fog of war –

Crucially, was an accurate account of what Mr. Harper had been told in the forensic anthropologist’s report.

Nothing ‘invented’, ‘sensationally made-up’ or ‘exaggerated’ by Lenny – just a formal reporting, in good faith, of what was in the forensic anthropologist’s report.

Hmmm……Bit of a problem, that, for our Glorious Leaders.

So – thinking caps on!

“What do we do about this? Harper’s e-mail is an accurate account of the information in his possession. That’s not going to fit-in with our very expensive spin-campaign to make him appear an ‘unreliable witness’. And we’ve got to get it right – because the tax-payer expects value for money, these days.”

“I know. Look – let’s not be squeamish about these things – this is how Politics and spin is done – let’s forge Harper’s e-mail by manipulating it, editing it, tweaking it in some way – so it cons the public into thinking he’s written a load of cobblers!”


“Do I get a bonus, now Frank?”

Look, Frank is gone – if not quite yet forgotten – and the answer to your question is – no.

No – you collection of utter, mind-bogglingly incompetent, dozy clowns.

Yes – in all its stark stupidity and rank decadence – that’s what the Jersey oligarchy did – manipulated e-mails – and other, similar activities – in order to lie, con, spin and conceal.

It apparently not occurring to this collection of “geniuses” that the “truth will out”.

Nor, apparently, it occurring to them that the activities they have engaged in are criminal offences.

Oh – sorry; I forgot. Bill Bailhache only enforces the law on uppity plebs – so I guess they needn’t worry about the criminality of their actions – well, at least not for a remaining month or two.

When reading the three documents below – two letters from Lenny, and one response from Big Frank’s “successor” – note just how much importance the States of Jersey attaches to openness, transparency, honesty and ethics.

Another “Life Enriching” example of morality and probity – as lived by The Jersey Way.

Brought to you by Jersey’s leading news source.




9th February, 2009.

Dear Chief Minister,


Thank you for your letter of 23 December. I am sorry for the delay in replying. However, can I now inform you that I no longer require the copy of the e mail in which Bill Ogley reprimanded me for considering the financial costs of the Abuse Enquiry and in which he told me that the cost was irrelevant.

In respect of the second e mail, may I give you the brief background? This was an e mail sent by me on 2nd May in which I outlined the findings of the Anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain in respect of bones being sent to him which appeared to be human juvenile and burnt and buried shortly after death. He did not identify any particular part of the body. I quoted from his report verbatim. The quotes in the Mail were inaccurate and had obviously been invented in places. A Mail journalist told me that your predecessor’s office had leaked the e mail. It is difficult to see how else the Mail could have got it. Unfortunately this time there is no tape recorded conversation implicating a Jersey Minister. In any event, the e mail can only have been falsified by either the Chief Minister’s office or the journalist. Another Sunday newspaper has carried out enquiries on this matter, including speaking to Mr Chamberlain who accepts that I was misquoted and who states that he was never shown the actual e mail and that he never heard me say anything contrary to his findings. He has made other comments to the journalist which will no doubt appear in the forthcoming article. My instinct tells me that it was the journalist who falsified the e mail but in the face of your refusal to assist, the opposite impression endures. Those are the reasons for which I ask for the e mail. I fail to see how it can be a breach of policy when the e mail has already been (wrongly) quoted in the media. One good reason under law for disclosing communication is to correct a public mis-perception. This would seem to fit that criteria perfectly.

Yours sincerely

Leonard Harper.


18th February, 2009.

Dear Mr. Harper


I note your comments, and consider that it would be inappropriate to respond in any way.

In relation to the disclosure of the e-mail, I note you have not provided any legal basis for your claim to be entitled to this information.

I therefore consider the matter closed.

Yours sincerely

Senator Terry Le Sueur,
Chief Minister.


5TH March, 2009.

Dear Chief Minister,


Thank you for your letter of 18th February. I note you refusal to release the e mail, and your refusal also to comment further. This unfortunately tends to support those in the media and politics who believe the leak and fabrication came from your office. I do agree with you however that the matter is now closed between you and I.

This does not of course affect my right to supply the correspondence to those journalists and members of the States of Jersey who have expressed an interest in your attempts to cover the fabrications and breaches of the law committed by those in various positions past and present within the Jersey system.

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Harper