Monthly Archives: June 2009

CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT, 2009.

JERSEY CHILD PROTECTION FAILURES:

NO ONE WANTS TO LOOK UNDER THE ROCK.

The Jersey Parliament:

Still Failing Vulnerable Children.

In case I hadn’t communicated this in a clear and uncryptic manner previously, fighting the child protection battle as I have during the last two years has been personally exhausting.

I say this, not because I’m looking for a medal – fighting for the proper protection of vulnerable children – and justice for the abused – is simply no more than one would expect of any decent person.

But after breaking the trail in this campaign for two years – in the teeth of rabid opposition and hostility from the Jersey oligarchy and their “Friends at Court at Whitehall” – I was hoping to have been able to hand over the baton a long time ago.

There is only so much that one person can do – especially when the “reward” for your efforts consists of such things as getting arrested and held in locked cells for seven hours whilst the police turn over your home – without a warrant – because you might have broken the data protection law when exposing wrongdoing.

Politically and personally, the costs of fighting this battle have been immense – not only for me, but for those close to me.

So every few months during the last two years I have looked for certain successes – certain events – certain stages at which I could step back from the front, confident that the correct actions would be taken, or that others would take up the fight.

My most recent great hope that the truth would be exposed, the lessons learnt – and the necessary changes be made – was in the States of Jersey’s formal Scrutiny system.

I should have known better – but I imagined that once a Scrutiny Panel – the Jersey parliament’s equivalent of a Select Committee – had been charged with the task of uncovering what really went wrong, I could relax a little; step back and let others take the issues forward.

Predictably – that was another vain hope.

The relevant Scrutiny Panel – Chaired by Senator Alan Breckon – quite remarkably didn’t actually want to formally scrutinise the States response to the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. I had to argue in the Assembly for the issues to be referred to Scrutiny.

And so, frankly bizarre, was the reluctance to scrutinise the policies that even a majority of States members agreed with me and declined to debate the proposals until they’d been reviewed.

The response, methodology and attitude of the panel has been atrocious. Really – so inept and inadequate as to be stunning.

Hence the self-explanatory e-mail I reproduce below.

Today I wrote to all States members, and explained just why I – and others – couldn’t engage with this Scrutiny Panel.

The belligerent indifference exhibited by the Panel towards the task it is charged with undertaking cannot be regarded as anything other than a further manifestation – in the year 2009 – of the Culture of Concealment.

Often during the last two years many people have said to me, “Where are the other States members? What are the rest of Jersey’s politicians doing?”

In response, I have defended a minority of States members – saying, “well, some of them at least share our concerns; they’re on our side. It’s just that they prefer to approach the subject in a different way.”

In truth – I’ve said this more frequently in hope – rather than in experience.

As I contemplate the general response of Jersey’s politicians to the child protection disaster – I can only honestly say that there are four of us who have exhibited the appropriate commitment and genuine concern.

Two – who prefer to keep a low profile – but are actually taking the issues seriously.

And me and one other.

The other being Deputy Paul Le Claire, who has publicly fought for the interests of vulnerable children – and has, through his political pressure, achieved great advances for children in need of effective legal representation.

That’s four people – out of a total of 53.

Whither the other 49?

I just can’t answer that question.

But I can inform you just what I think of the performance of the relevant Scrutiny Panel – as you can see in my e-mail below.

Stuart.

From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 25 June 2009 10:48
To: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: Child Protection and the Failure of Scrutiny

Dear Colleague

I felt I should inform you that, sadly, I will be unable to contribute to the work of Senator Breckon’s Scrutiny Panel in its examination of child protection matters. I will explain why this is so.

I was already troubled by the quite startling reluctance of Scrutiny to examine these issues, when the un-policied funding proposals were tabled for debate.

Nevertheless, the States had the wisdom to recognise that a subject this important required formal scrutiny. However, the reluctance of the panel to fully and enthusiastically engage with this task has remained all too evident.

Firstly, the woeful inadequacy of the panel’s work is illustrated in the fact that so few witnesses have been examined; there are at time of writing, merely 10 headings described on the web site. Of those 10, only two – the NSPCC and the Jersey Care Leavers could be said to represent the interests of vulnerable children. A further exception could be made in respect of Professor Thoburn. That leaves 7 individuals/organisations which represent the edifice of the customary States/quasi-States interests in this subject.

This is not to say these individuals/organisations should not be interviewed; rather, it displays the utter inadequacy of the panel’s work and methodology that the vast majority of evidence so far taken – has been from representatives of the very self-same apparatus which has so catastrophically failed.

It must also be pointed out that the quality and standard of the cross-examination, as is evident from the transcripts, is so inept as to be laughable in a tragic kind of way.

Notwithstanding the above observations, I have engaged in repeated e-mail correspondence with the panel in an attempt to be able to come before it and provide evidenced and informed testimony.

Sadly – all my efforts were a waste of time.

Though I could go into great detail – I will confine my observations to three factors.

1: My duty of care to survivors and other witnesses.

I am in close contact with a significant number of survivors and witnesses. Many of these people are those who have been repeatedly betrayed by the Jersey public administration apparatus again and again over the decades. Whilst the JCLA represent a small number of ex-residents, and a smaller number of actual survivors, the JCLA can, in no way, claim to be representative of a broad cross-section of potential witnesses.

That leaves us in a position where the vast majority of the most important and relevant witnesses have not been courted by the panel and have not been interviewed.

This is a ridiculous state of affairs. Tragic, in fact – to look at the panel’s web site – and observe the absence of dozens of other interviews which should have taken place – and, instead see the great majority of the panel’s interviewing time consumed with passively accepting a load of diversionary and vacuous guff – from the very people and organisations responsible for the catastrophic failures, and the concealment of those failures.

I have repeatedly asked my self this question: – “Should I be pro-actively suggesting to survivors or advising them that they should attend the panel and give testimony?”

I would very much have liked the answer to that question to be “yes”.

However – in many of the most relevant cases we are dealing with people of all ages who have been repeatedly betrayed – time and again over the years – by Jersey’s public administration. The States, the Police, the prosecution service, the courts – the list goes on.

And – yet again – the vast majority of them are now being betrayed again by those self-same forces – notwithstanding the deeply distressing trauma endured by many of them in revisiting – again – what happened to them when giving interviews to the police.

I have had to ask myself: – “Would it be ethical of me to guide and advise survivors to give evidence to the panel – knowing perfectly well that the panel has precisely zero interest in doing a proper job – and would merely leave the survivors traumatised yet further at yet another betrayal by the States?”

The answer to that question can only be “no”.

2: Flat refusal of panel to obtain highly relevant evidence.

I have, on several occasions, advised the panel on the identity and whereabouts of a variety of key evidence; evidence which goes to the very heart of the systemic and cultural failure by Jersey’s public administration to protect and nurture vulnerable children. Absolutely core evidence which would prove the toxic self-interest which pervades the higher management structures of Jersey’s so-called child “protection” apparatus.

For reasons which are utterly mystifying – the panel simply refuse to even ask for that evidence.

Again – it is simply impossible to imagine the panel getting even close to adequately addressing its terms of reference in the absence of such evidence.

3: Threat of criminal investigation and breach of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.

I would have been prepared to run the risk of contributing to further harassments and criminal investigations against myself – and the consequent risk of prosecution – if I thought for one instant that some real benefit would be generated in terms of assisting the island’s vulnerable children and making Jersey’s public administration face its gross failures.

However – for the reasons described above – and others – I can have zero confidence in the work of the panel.

I cannot, therefore, perceive any benefit in me taking evidence before the panel – or giving personal testimony to it – knowing that I would be running the risk of providing further alleged evidence and grounds for the pursuit of criminal investigations and potential prosecutions against me. I have questioned this matter with the Attorney General, because the relevant laws on testimony and protection of witnesses seemed far from clear.

I quote a part of the Attorney General’s answer here:

“But my starting point in relation to prosecution would be the same, namely that anything you say to the Scrutiny Panel would not be used in any criminal proceedings brought against you other than as an inconsistent statement where that was relevant, though it might also be used for the purposes of gaining other evidence; and no criminal prosecution, based on other evidence, would be prevented just because your evidence to the Panel happens to go into that territory.” [Emphasis added.]

It can be seen from this answer that I could possibly be running the risk of contributing to the ‘gaining of other evidence’ against me, and possibly being prosecuted even though the ‘work of the panel was going into such territory’.

The territory in question – for clarity – are the alleged breaches of the Data Protection Law, for which I was arrested, detained in locked cells for the best part of 7 hours, and subjected to a “fishing expedition” type search – undertaken without a warrant.

The fact remains – and States members would be well-advised to reflect upon this – that very substantial quantities of the evidence brought to my attention and obtained by me has had to be provided – and obtained – outside of formal procedures.

The reason for this is – I would have thought – extremely obvious. Namely that much of this information and data – evidence of gross failings, malfeasances and even criminal acts by various parts of Jersey’s public administration – is the very type of material which has been deliberately concealed from politicians and public over the decades.

Concealed quite deliberately – in order to protect those responsible for the failings, concealments and crimes.

I repeat – I have to ask myself the question – why should I make the sacrifice of being subjected to yet further oppressions by the Law Officers’ Department and others, by revealing evidence to the panel – when the work of the panel is – manifestly – useless and absurd?

I must also make the point that the threat of criminal investigations and prosecutions against me – I consider to be an unambiguous breach of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.

The surveillance, arrest, detention and searching I have been subject to have all arisen out of my attempts to do my political duty; namely hold the government – the executive – to account by exposing malfeasances and inadequacies in the system. This is entirely legitimate work for a politician – indeed, even a duty. In much the same way as the Conservative MP Damien Green was doing his duty – yet was obstructed and oppressed for doing his job.

The actions of the Attorney General, the Data Protection Commissioner and the States of Jersey Police have all conspired to obstruct and prevent me from doing my political duty. I have been – and remain – under threat of obstruction, compulsion and menace – in direct contravention of Article 47 of the SoJ Law. Such compulsion and menace is influencing me in my ability to give testimony to the panel.

But – given this panel – not that much use would come of it, even if I did give such evidence.

The panel have, incidentally, also refused to call the Attorney General and cross-examine him on these issues. Again – another startling and bizarre reluctance – given the profound and broad implications for the effectiveness of Scrutiny generally.

Conclusion.

I intend – in spite of the panel – to do all I can to contribute to the genuine advancement of the interests of vulnerable children in Jersey, and the necessary addressing of the gross malfeasances of our public administration. I will do this through several different avenues – one of which will be to bring before the assembly for debate a detailed analysis and set of proposals for the genuine and effective protection of the island’s vulnerable children.

As far as Senator Breckon and his panel are concerned – as already communicated to him – I would bring a vote of no confidence against him without further prevarication – if I thought the exercise would be a productive use of time. Instead, I shall concentrate on my work with survivors and in the generation of meaningful proposals for improvements in the system.

I will simply confine myself to asking Senator Breckon to resign.

He and his panel are manifestly uninterested, disinclined and simply unable to do the necessary work.

I explain the above, so that members understand fully why I – and a number of other key witnesses – cannot and will not engage with this panel.

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey

BILL OGLEY

THE “SECOND INDIVIDUAL”

BEHIND THE “OPERATION BLAST” FILES;

Secret Police Reports on Politicians

And Members of the Public.

So – I can now confirm that the “second individual” behind the “Operation Blast” secret files on Jersey politicians is – Bill Ogley.

The Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and the island’s senior civil servant.

Following the revelation of the existence of these secret files, Graham Power wrote a memorandum to the Home Affairs Minister explaining why the files existed – and who had asked for their compilation.

He said that there were two individuals expressly behind the request for the files to be compiled – former Senator and Chief Minister, Frank Walker.

And Bill Ogley.

Ogley – knowing that this information effectively terminates his career – has taken desperate and futile steps to keep his identity secret. This has even included threatening the JEP with injunctions and legal action if they named him.

Well, I said it was a plainly doomed attempt on the part of the “second individual” to keep their identity secret.

And sure enough – thanks to the Quite Vile Blog – Jersey people can now know that the man we pay £250,000 a year – as a – supposedly – non-political head of the civil service is, in fact, more akin to something from the old East German Stasi.

As I said – this is, effectively, the end of his career. How can we have a head of the civil service who is politicised and demands that secret files are kept on all politicians and certain members of the public?

And it is not as though the Operation Blast exercise is his only failing.

The man is an extremely well-documented liar – as I will demonstrate with some powerful evidence in a later posting.

He is incompetent, unethical – and in classic Jersey civil service fashion – always puts the support and protection of his senior civil service colleagues over and above the public interest. No matter how grossly incompetent, dishonest and unethical they are – he supports them through thick and thin.

To the profound detriment of the public good.

And to those who might be tempted to think senior civil servants wanting to keep intelligence files on all your politicians is no big deal – just remember – Britain hasn’t fought consistently and steadfastly to be a free and democratic society only to have unelected functionaries effectively usurping your democratic power and undermining your democratically chosen representatives.

And – let us not forget, the Operation Blast files are not confined solely to your politicians – they might well have a Blast file on you.

Ogley must go now.

And, frankly – it will be a case of good riddance.

I shall write in more detail about this subject later this week.

Stuart.

IS THE MONSTER DEAD?

DID STATES OF JERSEY APPROVED

CHILD RAPIST AND TORTURER

AL MCGUIRE DIE RECENTLY?

A rumour reaches me to the effect that “Big Al” McGuire died at some point during the last two weeks.

I have broken this news to survivors – who will now try and get the Jersey cops to confirm or deny the story.

This will, of course, require the cops to actually do some work – as they’re most unlikely to have had him under surveillance. Let’s face it – it took BBC Panorama to track him and his disgusting, psychotic monster of a wife down last time.

But – I have to say – I could only be confident in the accuracy of the story once officially confirmed. I don’t doubt the honesty of my sources – but I just can’t stop myself from thinking ‘wouldn’t it be terribly “convenient” all round – if he “died” just now?’

It’s feasible that that his “death” could just be a lie that is being fed to unsuspecting people, who are then contacting me in good faith.

Let us remember – when he and his wife were on trial in 1998 – he collapsed in court with – allegedly – terminal bladder cancer, claiming then to have 6 months left to live.

That was a complete lie.

A lie that the Jersey oligarchy – in the person of Michael Birt – gratefully seized upon as part of the excuse for corruptly abandoning the prosecution.

And – quite “remarkably” – McGuire wasn’t actually independently tested to see if his “illness” was genuine.

I mean, why should the prosecution bother with such mere details – when they’re as desperate for the trial not to go ahead as he is?

So – here we are again – but this time it is – allegedly – death.

As I said – whilst I’ve no doubt my sources are sincere – it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the story of this States of Jersey approved and protected maniac having met his end were just another fiction – another example of the Culture of Concealment.

Sorry if that seems paranoid – but in truth – it is no stranger than many other examples of “The Jersey Way” we have had to become familiar with.

The McGuires were big time Jersey Catholics – and thus had a good deal of protection and support from the island’s Catholic establishment – which goes some way to explaining how they were able to get away with their foul and monstrous crimes.

If he is dead – he has escaped human justice. But – let us console ourselves with the thought that if his religious beliefs are well-founded – and there is a God – McGuire will have now begun a very much deserved eternity – burning in hell.

Stuart.

THE ASCENT TO JUSTICE.

A Long Climb Begins.

In my youth, I used to climb mountains. Admittedly, it’s been some years since I awoke at 1.00 am – and meticulously armoured myself with the appropriate layers of clothing, plastic boots, crampons and equipment, grasped the ice-axes, switched on the head-torch – and set out into the minus 20 degrees darkness with a view to summiting in time for the sunrise.

I do want to take up climbing again. As I wrote in a blog post last year – it seems the ideal mid-life crises activity.

Well, it was either that – or acquiring a 170 horsepower motorcycle.

But the more hideous scars that pock-mark my body like a kind of memory made flesh, come from impacting against cars and various bits of street furniture at – err – possibly unlawful speeds. My lower left leg looks like someone’s taken a shotgun to it.

So, as attractive as the thought is – of getting something like a Triumph Speed-Triple – and doing two-mile wheelies along Victoria Avenue whilst listening to Motorcycle Emptiness on the iPod – I think avalanches, hypothermia and getting struck by lightning are probably the safer options.

Not to mention, of course, the fact I could do without yet more attentions from my law enforcement friends. Not that I’m advocating irresponsible road activity, you understand – it’s just that large, powerful motorcycles can inadvertently get out of control.

And, getting back into climbing has another profound advantage – in that it would require me to get fit – lose a stack of weight, build up my stamina and attempt to regain some upper-body strength.

Climbing is a bit like boxing in that respect – the more intensely you do it, and the fitter you get – the closer one comes to getting acquainted with death.

There’s also a great advantage to Jersey tax-payers in that my proposed mid-life crisis won’t be claimable on expenses – unlike Pollard’s guitar lessons.

But – back to mundane reality – I’m overweight, unfit, broke – and my time is totally consumed by having to fight several wars on various fronts.

Yet in today’s battles I can draw strength from my experiences with mountains – remembering the absolute focus and determination required. So whilst being a politician for the time being has reduced me to physical wreckage – I can embrace my present wars as a metaphor – a virtual mountain ascent – requiring the same commitment.

So – today, after the inevitable inertia – the oligarchy began their attempted prosecution of me. Metaphorically, for me – the first step on my bid for the summit.

Will I get there? Won’t I make it, and have to retreat? Shall I metaphorically ‘perish’ in the attempt?

I just don’t know. But like making an attempt on a mountain – I’m going to try, regardless.

What passes for a prosecution system in Jersey has determined that they need to cast aside and abandon such cases as those against child rapists – and those who have criminally concealed such foulness – and, instead must devote their time and resources to pursuing the really monstrous threats to society.

Like me – for allegedly forgetting to renew my driving licence and not registering a change of address.

Well – we’re all equal before the law. I, therefore, want to secure for myself the same rights as all people in Western Europe enjoy – particularly the right to a fair trial.

So that is the distant peak which I seek. One can occasionally capture a distant glimpse of it – beneath a lowering wretched sky – in brief moments when the clouds part. It is many miles away – with foot-hills, moraine, glaciers, bergschrunds, avalanche-zones and formidable rock-faces standing between my first step – and that distant summit.

A fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Regular readers of this blog will recognise just what a desperate landscape stands between here and that established right.

Some people may wonder why I’m mounting such resistance in respect of what are, comparatively trivial alleged offences?

Because unless someone takes a stand against the manifestly incompetent, politicised farrago that is the administration of “justice” in Jersey – serious injustices will continue to be inflicted on other people.

I recently wrote about a young constituent of mine – a victim of institutionalised child abuse – torture, basically – at the hands of the States of Jersey.

He got sentenced to 3 years for dealing a bit of ecstasy.

The same judge – two weeks later – sentenced a well-connected local businessman to 270 hours community service – for conspiracy to import over £20,000 worth of cocaine.

That’s 270 hours community service – as opposed to the sentence the Crown was seeking – of 10 years in jail.

Another, more recent example of the ministrations of Jersey’s courts is to be seen in the sentencing of the JDA 2. These two non-oligarchy States members got prosecuted – for such heinous offences as helping a disabled British ex-serviceman to apply for a postal vote.

The sentence? A total of £12,000 in fines.

£12,000.

Those are just a few of the, frankly barking mad, extremist, politicisations, biases and incompetencies of Jersey’s banana-republic style judicial apparatus.

I don’t believe such a festering and invulnerable system can remain unchallenged if we want genuine, objective and impartial justice – applied equally to all – regardless of social standing or political views.

The Jersey oligarchy – having decided they want to rub my face in it – maximally persecute me for the heinous alleged crime of forgetting to renew my driving licence – have presented me with all the opportunity I needed to challenge the stagnant and festering shambles that passes for the administration of justice in Jersey.

That challenge began today with the first court appearance.

I won’t go into great detail in this posting – as I’ll keep you informed at each stage of the process – a long process, undoubtedly.

Suffice it to say that my first pleading to the court today was a recusal application. This is when a party to a court action argues that the judge, or some other component of the judicial apparatus involved in the case, is either actually biased – or runs the risk of appearing to be biased. In that case – the applicant asks that they ‘recuse’ themselves and step down.

Naturally – my recusal application was rejected – and equally naturally – I’m appealing that decision.

There was one amusing moment in the exchanges – when the magistrate in question – one Bridget Shaw – asked me to agree that I wasn’t objecting to her as an individual – rather my objection was to the Jersey court as an entity?

I replied that, actually, as it happened, yes – I was objecting to her personally, as well as generally objecting to the Jersey apparatus.

It just so happened that one of the items of evidence I had in support of my recusal application was one of Phil Bailhache’s many Political speeches.

Can we guess which one?

It was a Political speech he gave on the 30th June 2008 – in court – at the swearing-in of a new magistrate.

This is an extract of what he said on that occasion – and which I quoted in court today:

“You take up your post at a time when the judiciary and those in public office in the Island are, for better or for worse, under greater scrutiny than has been the case for some time. No-one can object, of course, to holding individual members of the judiciary to account for their judicial conduct or indeed for their conduct outside the court room. Indeed you have become, by virtue of your office, a member of the Jersey Judicial Association which last year adopted a Code of Ethics and Conduct setting out quite clearly what is expected of judges and magistrates in this Island. But wholesale attacks upon the judiciary and suggestions that they are collectively incapable of dealing with any outcomes of the current child abuse inquiry are ignorant and unwelcome, and I deplore them. Senior politicians, should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda.”

Now – can we guess just who is the “deplorable senior politician” – who has had the temerity to make, supposedly, “ignorant and unwelcome” criticisms of Jersey’s judiciary?

That’s right – me.

Can we now guess which magistrate was being sworn-in on this occasion – and being subjected to this contaminating Political assertion from her boss?

This just isn’t difficult – is it?

Bridget Shaw.

At the conclusion of my recusal application, she adjourned for around 15 minutes to consider the pleading – and insisted on taking my human rights law-book with her.

Don’t the courts and the judges have these things readily available as a matter of course?

The fact she had to take the work on the relevant authorities from the defendant before being able to make her judgment would hardly lead one to feel imbued with confidence in the administration of justice in Jersey – even if one didn’t regard it with contempt already.

As I said – I’m appealing her refusal to recuse.

And when I come before the higher court – I’ll be making exactly the same recusal application in respect of them.

And when that application is rejected – again, a recusal application will be made before the court of appeal; a court appointed by – Phil Bailhache.

On and on – towards that metaphorical summit – the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.

It is a long, strenuous and challenging route – but as with trying to climb a mountain – the metaphysical and existential journey is a reward in itself.

I’ll keep you up-dated.

Stuart.

AND SO IT CAME TO PASS.

JERSEY “JUSTICE” FAILS THE CHILDREN –

AS PREDICTED –

BEFORE WE WERE EVEN AWARE OF THE COVERT POLICE INVESTIGATION.

In a moment of exhausted trawling through my mass of records, files, e-mails and other information – I came upon the e-mail I reproduce below.

It was, of necessity, a long e-mail.

I wrote it on the 15th November 2007 – over a month after I had been given the bullet as Health & Social Services Minister – and – before I and the people I was working with were aware of the covert police investigation into historical abuse.

I wrote the e-mail with two things in mind, back then.

Firstly – that there would – inevitably and unavoidably – be a need for police investigations; decisions on prosecutions; and court-cases – both criminal and civil.

Secondly – that the Jersey police force, prosecution system and judiciary would betray the survivors – just as that apparatus had – so many times before – if left to its own devices.

Which is why I wrote the e-mail below to the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force; to the Attorney General; to the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff; and to the Magistrates.

By that date – 15th November, 2007 – I had discovered and learnt enough about the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster to realise that we had a catastrophe on our hands.

Well, actually, I had come to that conclusion some months earlier – in April or May 2007. Which is why I was covertly working with survivors and whistle-blowers throughout most of the year, in an effort to compile a substantial dossier of evidenced cases to thrust upon the States of Jersey Police Force.

Why was it necessary to assemble the evidence to give in substantive form to the police?

Because, as will be plain from the e-mail below – I had every good reason to have recognised the Jersey police force to have been a substantial part of the problem – over the decades.

But – and please note this crucial point – survivors and I were making that assessment based on the traditional, past “performance” of the Jersey police – the incompetence, the bias, the politicisation, the cronyism, the concealment of crimes – indeed, the out-and-out corruption routinely exhibited by the force over a sustained period of decades.

However – we failed to take into account the professionalism, integrity, ethics and honesty of the then leadership of the Jersey police.

Graham Power and Lenny Harper.

Both tough, straight, no-nonsense cops of the highest calibre.

So – when reading the e-mail below, please discount my criticisms of the police force – at least in the context of when it was led by Lenny and Graham.

Indeed – the only single one of the people I addressed the e-mail to – from whom I received a professional and civilised response – was Graham Power – who replied the very next day.

It was a day or so later that I was asked to attend the police station – though no reason was given. I went with resignation – imagining the oligarchy were trying to stitch me up with some fabricated nonsense.

Instead Lenny Harper and another senior officer spent around two hours explaining to me the covert investigation they were undertaking into all the concealed child abuses of the past.

I can’t really describe how I felt at that moment – the best I can do is say it was as though a mountain had suddenly been lifted from my shoulders.

Suddenly – ten months of nightmare and disgusting political warfare upon the survivors and me seemed to end.

No longer were we alone – no longer were we facing years of struggle to expose the truth. Now – we actually had a straight and decent police force on our side.

But, as true as that was at that moment – we all know what happened – in the end.

The investigation was obstructed at every turn by the Jersey oligarchy; baseless smear-campaigns were mounted against Lenny; eventually they even – with brazen illegality – suspended Graham Power.

Oh how our hopes have been dashed.

Despite the best efforts of highly dedicated, tough, straight cops like Lenny & Graham – the decadence, immorality, corruption, concealment and self-interest of the Jersey oligarchy wins – again.

Forgive the length of this post, but the e-mail below is an important document in this wretched history.

I desperately wish it wasn’t so – but sadly every concern I expressed on the 15th November 2007 has come to pass.

And worse: – Birt is Bailiff – Bill Bailhache is Deputy Bailiff – and so the whole, wretched, self-perpetuating cess-pit of turpitude and failure continues.

The tragedy for this community is that the dangers were all so easily predicted – before we even knew of the covert police inquiry.

Stuart.

From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 15 November 2007 20:18
To: Graham Power; William Bailhache; Bailiff of Jersey; Michael Birt; Ian Le Marquand; Ian Christmas
Cc: [Cc’d names excised.]

Subject: The Rule of Law & Child Protection in Jersey

Gentlemen

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

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

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

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

This brings me to my point in writing to you.

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

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

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

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

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

1: The Conflictedness of the Police.

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

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

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

2: The Conflictedness of the Prosecutory Service.

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

As far as the Attorney General is concerned, some time ago when I was Minister for Health & Social Services I sought from him (I still have the correspondence) the full police report and its six appendices into the abuse scandal at Victoria College. My reason for needing this information was that I was examining what went wrong in that case, whether the then current law was defective, how it compared to our present Children Law – and whether what we were doing today – in the light of the Bichard Report – was adequate. It proved immensely difficult for me to obtain anything from the Attorney General. After much persuasion he eventually sent me a version of the police report – with no appendices – but the version was so redacted as to be utterly useless. Indeed, it contained far less information than that contained in the Sharp report – which he knew I possessed already. I was not, therefore, properly able to consider this key material with a view to ascertaining what went wrong and why only one prosecution was mounted. The Attorney General’s actions in behaving in this way actively obstructed me in my lawful work under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in that I was not able to carry forward my investigation into improvements in child protection, and the relevant legislation. This obstruction of the lawful duties of the Minister for Health & Social Services, as defined in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, may well have been unlawful.

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

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

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

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

A further – and in some ways even more insurmountable conflict – is this. It is plain that many States departments have – for very many years – been breaking various laws in respect of the care, protection and welfare of children. Obviously and inescapably so. Therefore one of the most pressing and obvious questions is this: ‘why has neither the Attorney General or the Solicitor General ever correctly advised the relevant departments that their practices were unlawful? Why have no departments been prosecuted?’ It is plain that much – perhaps even a great deal of – the culpability for the States of Jersey engaging for decades in policies which were unlawful lays with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

Therefore, for the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to undertake any widespread prosecution of States departments would be to effectively put themselves on trial as well. Possibly as defendants; certainly reputationaly. Not a sustainable or credible situation.

We also have to consider the long-term record of the Office. The previous Attorney General – now Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – in fact exhibited all of the politicised and conflicted behaviour I describe above. As is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice Principle, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. Just as should the Principle. Just as should Francis Hamon, a Governor of the school at the time and a person who went on to become Deputy Bailiff. Just as, of course, should Piers Baker, the man who thinks paedophilia is “teachers perks”. Whilst a strong case could be made for the prosecution of Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker for attempting to obstruct the course of Justice, the relevant Law, prima facie breached, was the then current Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

I quote Article 9 here:

9 Cruelty to children under 16

(1) If any person who has attained the age of 16 years and has the custody, charge or care of any child under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes him or her, or causes or procures or permits him or her to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him or her unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, limb, or organ of the body, and mental derangement), he or she shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker should have been prosecuted for breaking this part of the Law. Unambiguously so. At best, all four of these creatures ‘caused’ or ‘permitted’ the children to be ‘assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause him or her unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.

No such prosecutions took place. It is plain that Michael Birt placed the “reputational” considerations of the Jersey Establishment above the proper protection of children – and above the rule of law.

But this was not the only example of political considerations overriding the rule of law. When Attorney General, Michael Birt also abandoned a prosecution for very serious offences.

The case I refer to was the prosecution of Mrs Jane Marie Maguire and Mr Alan William Maguire. The Act of Court records that the prosecution was abandoned on the 20th November 1998.

“Her Majesty’s Attorney General declared that he abandoned the prosecution against Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support it.
The Court therefore discharged the said Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire from the prosecution and, by virtue of Article 2(1)(c) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law, 1961, ordered the payment out of public funds of the costs of the defence”.

The Maguires were routinely beating, abusing through grotesque punishments, neglecting and treating with great cruelty many of the children that passed through the “group home” they ran at the time for the Education Committee, which body had responsibility for child “protection” at the relevant time (1980s to mid-1990s).

When I was Minister for H & SS, just one of the many issues I had recently had drawn to my attention by whistle-blowers was the case of the Maguires. I requested access to the relevant files. I read the two very substantial lever arch files and one smaller ring-binder file. The evidence contained in these files seemed absolutely compelling. Many witness statements, affidavits of victims, statements from other members of staff, an “internal” report from 1990 by Social Services, which concluded that the actions complained of were happening (though the “performance” of Social Services in this matter is another question entirely) and, essentially a catalogue of utter savagery against the children.

Yet Michael Birt concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to continue the prosecution. The evidence described many children being routinely – over a period of years – beaten with fists, implements and other items which were used as weapons against them. They were frequently made to eat soap. They were made to drink Dettol. One child had his head smashed violently against a bunk bed frame. One of the part-time support staff witnessed Mr Maguire throw a child a distance of about 7 feet across a room to impact against the wall because the child was not tidying up to Maguire’s satisfaction. Psychological and emotional cruelty and abuse were routine. A female child resident was sexually abused by Mr Maguire.

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

It just won’t wash, I’m afraid.

Clearly – to have prosecuted the Maguires would have been to expose to outrage and contempt a States of Jersey department for permitting the abuse to continue for a decade, and to have acted unlawfully in not informing the police the instant the abuse came to the department’s attention. Further, the department would have been viewed with even greater contempt and disgust by the public when it became known that Mrs Maguire was kept in employment by the department for some years afterwards – working in the Child Development Centre! It would, of course, also have meant exposing to contempt and disgrace that Establishment icon, Iris Le Feuvre, then President of the relevant Committee who happily went along with all this in 1990 and, moreover, wrote a quite sickening letter of “thanks” to the Maguires.

It is plain that the failure to see through the prosecution in this case represents a complete breakdown in the rule of law. An abandonment of justice in order to protect the “reputation” – such as it is – of the Jersey Establishment. The victims of the Maguires were denied justice.

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

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

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

3: The Conflictedness of the Judiciary.

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

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

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

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

The Bailiff too, cannot be seen to be objective. He too is conflicted. The reasons for this are several. He is one of the individuals who needs to face questions over his past failure to protect children from paedophiles. For example, when he was Attorney General, he failed to take the appropriate action to prevent the paedophile Roger Holland from joining the St. Helier honorary police. Holland went on to abuse children whilst a parish police officer.

The Bailiff was also the Chairman of the Board of Governors of Victoria College during the early phases of the child abuse which eventually lead to the conviction of Jervis-Dykes. The paedophilic activities of this man were brought to the attention of the School leadership again and again – yet he was allowed to remain in post and committing abuse for years before – eventually – being arrested and charged. Again, this is a matter that should be investigated, and upon which the Bailiff should be required to answer some serious questions.

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

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

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

The position of Le Breton is completely untenable.

It would also take a deeply fanciful construct to maintain that any of the Jurats could be considered sufficiently remote and impartial in these matters. All are friends and colleagues of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff; friends and colleagues of the Attorney General and Solicitor General. But in particular, all are friends and colleagues of Jurat Le Breton. It is well established in respectable jurisprudence that people cannot be a part of a jury if they personally know any of the key actors in a case.

All of the Jurats fail this test.

Moreover, each and everyone of the Jurats is drawn from the traditional ranks of the island’s Establishment. As detailed above – an Establishment that puts its own interests – the protection of its image, and of its power – over and above the pure consideration of the rule of law, should the oligarchy be threatened in any way.

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

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

In the case of this long-term, sustained cultural failure to properly protect and defend children, the entire edifice of public authority in Jersey is on trial. It, therefore, has an inescapable self-interest in again sabotaging the rule of law and engineering another cover-up.

It is a fact well established by centuries of respectable jurisprudence that not only must the administration of justice be impartial – it must also be seen to be impartial. No aspect of the current policing, prosecutory or judicial apparatus in Jersey could remotely hope to meet this test in respect of the child protection issues arising out of the present episode.

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

My question to each of you is simple:

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

Thank you for your assistance.

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey

THE MAGUIRES’ POLITICAL PROTECTOR

IRIS LE FEUVRE:

A JERSEY OLIGARCHY MONSTER.

The Official Response of the States of Jersey

Upon Learning of a Decade of Child Torture.

This is a very brief post – as its core subject matter is self-explanatory.

Very self-explanatory.

I reproduce below a vomit-inducing letter of “thanks” to the child-abusing  Maguires, written by the then President of the Jersey Education Committee – one Iris Le Feuvre.

Until 2005, Jersey had a Committee system of government, as opposed to a Ministerial system. And, until the late 1990’s, child protection responsibilities lay with the Education Committee, of which Iris Le Feuvre, a States member at that time, was the political boss.

After 10 years of child-torturing, the activities of the Maguires became too problematic – even for such scum-buckets as Anton Skinner, Geoff Spencer, and Marnie Baudains to carry on ignoring.

So in 1990, with reluctance they carried out an “internal” investigation into the matter – during which many of the Maguires’ atrocities were so well-evidenced and exposed as to transcend continuing disguise.

Iris Le Feuvre and her Education Committee received the resultant – albeit utterly lame and inadequate report – which had been authored by Skinner and the child rapist Geoff Spencer – and they decided the best way to avoid embarrassment all-round was to let Jane Maguire “retire” from running the Blanche Pierre group-home at Le Squez – and, instead, move to working in the ‘Family Development Centre’.

Le Feuvre, Skinner, Spencer and Baudains failed to inform the police of the abuses they had been covering up, but finally had been forced to confront. Instead the police only discovered the abuses eight years later – purely by happenstance.

And even though they tried to prosecute in 1998 – the atrocities were covered up then, in 1998 – by the child rapist Danny Wherry – and the child abuse concealer, Michael Birt.

But – eight years earlier – back in 1990 – the typical Jersey oligarchy ethical bankruptcy, arrogance, self-interest and hubris prevailed on the first occasion of betrayal.

And – for spending 10 years torturing, abusing and sexually molesting little children – the Maguires were rewarded with the following letter – from Iris Le Feuvre.

Read it and weep.

Stuart.

Iris Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee

Our Ref: ILEF/SJR/G.H

26th July 1990

Mr. & Mrs A. Maguire
Flat 4, 80 St. Marks Road
St. Helier
Jersey

Dear Mr & Mrs Maguire

On Wednesday the 25th July, 1990, the Education Committee was officially informed of your decision to retire as house parents of the group home, Le Squez.

The Committee recalled that you have been house parents to the children of the group home since 1980 and during the past ten years had cared for many children on our behalf.

Several members of the Committee, including myself, were already familiar with your excellent work during this time having served on the Children’s Sub-Committee, and have always been impressed with your total commitment to the children in your charge.

It is therefore with regret that we learn of your retirement. Although we fully appreciate that after ten years of extremely hard work for our children a change of direction and a rest from the 24 hour-a-day commitment you have shown over all these years was well deserved.

My Committee therefore asked that I write on behalf of every member to thank you for your many years of excellent service on behalf of the children in your charge and to wish you all the very best for your future. We were delighted to learn that Mrs. Maguire will continue to work for the Committee in our developing Family Centre service and therefore would not be losing your services all together.

Once again many thanks for your 110% commitment and hard work, the proof of which will live on in the children for whom you have shown much love and care.

All best wishes

Yours sincerely

J. M. Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee.

JERSEY CHILD TORTURERS

JANE AND ALAN MCGUIRE

NOT TO FACE JUSTICE.

Bill Bailhache Lets Off

The Blanch Pierre Abusers

To Protect Michael Birt

And The Rest of The Jersey Oligarchy.

Well – although it was inevitable – the news is yet another savage abuse inflicted on the survivors by the Jersey oligarchy.

Jane and Alan McGuire – the two psychotic, abusing maniacs who tortured children for the best part of a decade during the 1980’s – will not be extradited from France – and will not face justice.

Forgive the brevity of this post – but I’m literally too angry to type properly.

I heard from my sources that a press-release, embargoed until midnight, will be issued by Bill Bailhache this afternoon.

I called survivors and asked them how they were.

What follows – you just couldn’t make up.

The survivors didn’t know.

They – the most important people involved in this situation – hadn’t been told of the decision.

Jersey oligarchy media had been informed of the story, and are waiting for this afternoon’s embargoed press release – before the survivors were informed that the two maniacs and thugs who abused them will not face justice.

This is abuse – all over again.

For the Jersey oligarchy – it’s far more important to get their spin-doctoring in-place first – rather than inform the most important people – the survivors; people whose lives have been wrecked by the States of Jersey.

You see – it’s a “convenient” time to make the decision public – as Birt is on holiday – so can’t be subjected to the media fire-storm this contemptible creature deserves.

The words disgusting, contemptible, sickening, disgraceful and dishonest just do not suffice to describe this conduct by Bill Bailhache and the Jersey oligarchy.

The survivors – having been informed by me, contacted the police – who reluctantly admitted that, yes, the McGuires would not face justice, and that their plan had been to call the survivors and inform them this evening.

That’s after the press-release will be in the hands of the media.

Yet the cops – under the “New Management” of David Warcup & co – were far more interested in how the survivors found out about the spin-doctoring of the decision.

The Jersey oligarchy – rotten to the core.

These people who have an iron grip on power in Jersey – have now delivered to the McGuires a hat-trick of corrupt let-offs.

1990.

1998.

and now we must add to the catalogue of shame and disgrace –

2009.

As I said – I’m too angry and upset to write at length now.

But be assured – in the coming days I will write in detail about this stinking betrayal.

In the mean-time – I must do what I can to support the survivors.

Stuart.