Monthly Archives: October 2009




On the Uses – and Criminalisation

Of Sarcasm.

“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 steal bread.”

Anatole France.

“It is by acts and not by ideas that people live.”

Anatole France.

Well, I’m a hardened desperado now; on the run from what, I suppose, we must refer to as the “law”.

And the charges just keep mounting up.

Frankly, I’ve lost count.

But like a hardened street gangster – I display my crimes as brazenly as scars and jail-house tattoos.

Consider the effrontery:

I’m already facing a ten-straight stretch for breaking the ‘Sarcastic E-Mails (Jersey) Law (2.00 pm, 21st October) 2009’.

Yet, in an act of crazed defiance I trample the said law again – by quoting Anatole France’s – in-no-way-sarcastic – observation on the “majestic equality of the law”.

There – I’ve done it again.

By the time I’m apprehended, clapped in irons and returned to Jersey I’ll be facing straight life – no parole.

I imagine that’s what comes of reading too many people like France.

I’ll have to try throwing myself on the mercy of the court.

“It ain’t my fault Gov – I was led astray by all them bleedin wicked “finkers” – wat wiv their fancy “ideas” n’ leedin us in ta sarcasm – really Gov, just gimme anaver chance an’ I’ll always doff me cap from now on – innit?”

But – no.

I’m long beyond that stage now.

As such a hardened outlaw – almost as committed to crookery as a Wall Street investment banker – and – even – sink in terror at my approaching shadow – nearly as bent as a Jersey planning officer – I’m well into ‘you’ll never take me alive, copper’ territory.

Err – well, OK – at least not unless they take me be surprise again – with a ten-strong SWAT-squad.

Like last time.

But, damn “the law” – what would our gang-leader – Anatole France – have thought of our desperate stand?

What, might he have said, by way of “criminal” sarcasm, in belligerent defiance of the forces of ‘good order’?

You know – I actually think he’d have been challenged to capture the sheer, hypocritical abuse of power to be observed on the island.

Of course, Anatole’s sarcasm simply didn’t go far enough – just wasn’t capable of encompassing the sheer Milgramesque experiment in boundary-pushing we observe on the part of the Jersey oligarchy.

France may have paused, and begun forming a phrase something like, ‘the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from committing perjury….err.’

Or – ‘the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to conceal evidence….err, no, that doesn’t really describe the phenomena we are confronted with’

How about – ‘the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to abuse ancient feudal laws to drive out and bankrupt a family-run skip truck business’?

No – that just doesn’t fit, either.

‘What’, our leader might have asked, ‘is going wrong with my analyses here?’

Though a great intellectual, and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, our icon of sarcasm would have been defeated by the sheer asymmetrical lawlessness – the brazen abandonment of any pretence at “equality” – as exhibited by the Jersey oligarchy.

But only for a short while.

He would quickly have seen that fundamental to his famous observation on the ‘majestic equality of the law’ – was the basic premise that the law was, indeed, equal – but in a way that scarcely troubled the rich.

But even that fundamental – but sarcastically observed – ‘truth’ would be rendered null when considering what passes for the administration of justice in Jersey – where little attempt is made at even a pretence of ‘equality’.

Let us be grateful that France was not alive during the age of e-mail.

So gross would have been his crimes – the tribulations of Boris Pasternak would have seemed easy in comparison.

The ‘law’ in Jersey – in all its shameless and stagnant inequality.

It is in defiance of such neo-feudalistic conjuring-tricks with a few tatty pastiches of what, we’re told, is ‘the law’ – that I am here in London.

I’m extremely grateful for the quantity of support I have received – telephone calls, e-mails, texts, letters – and the similar messages to those providing me with help. I’ve always had confidence in people’s ability to think for themselves.

But our incubus – the Jersey oligarchy – who, alone, labour under the delusion they’re capable of being ‘clever’ – remain convinced that people are stupid – and can be conned into forgetting why I had to flee to London.

Namely – a prosecution and court system so brazenly corrupt that when the prosecution case was utterly destroyed by the defence case – they solved this somewhat inconveniencing fact – simply by seeking to have the entire defence case deemed ‘inadmissible’.

Makes one proud to be a Jerseyman, eh?

One can tell the Jersey oligarchy has entered some kind of ultimate ‘end-game’ of decadence, simply by examining the sheer poverty of intelligence on display in their criticisms of people like me.

Consider the Jersey media, and comments I receive on this blog. We have yet to encounter as much as one single cogent and intellectually robust argument against my position. Believe me – if the Jersey oligarchy possessed any such argument – they would have deployed it.

And they can produce no such argument – not because of any particular intelligence on my part – but simply because their position is enfeebled, wrong and indefensible.

Instead, the Jersey oligarchy is reduced to comment such as this:

Received on the 26th October:

“You really are an objectionable little man. What do you think gives you the right to ignore the laws of this Island. Should these laws apply to everyone else but yourself? (SeanF).”

Obviously – we see displayed in such remarks an underlying intellectual capacity so awesome as to be greater than that of Susan Sontag and Noam Chomsky – combined.

I’m frightened of confronting such devastating criticism – for example, by writing a very, very extensive – and tediously depressing – list of all those decades-worth of crimes – of every scale and type – committed by the Jersey oligarchy and its members – with apparent immunity from the “laws of the island”.

To do so would be cowardice on my part – in refusing to confront the implacable fact at the heart of such criticism – namely that such laws apply to ALL obstreperous, uppity plebs – including me.*

* (But, obviously, not senior oligarchs. Well, it goes without saying – innit?)

No, instead – in flight from such unanswerable damnation – I must turn to an altogether tamer example of criticism.

A comment was submitted by reader ‘JV’ a few days ago, and I promised we’d take a close look at it.

Received on the 23rd October:

“Dear Stuart

Just as a simple question that I hope won’t trouble you enough to answer.

When will things be enough before you fit back into the political mainframe and stop branching out on such a limb? I know there are answers to be had from the current political establishment, but what in your own terms will quench your thirst for political upheaval? What possible answers are there before you cease the legal proceedings and get on with the task of representing your constituents, and not yourself in the Magistrate’s court?

I am neither a supporter nor an oligarchy-supporter, although my education in Jersey would have you believe I am firmly routed in the Oligarchy; a fact that I am not too pleased has been banded around this blog far too often.

So in short, what do you hope to achieve from now on in? Clearly the hateful crimes committed in Jersey are a problem but what then? What political manifesto may you employ once this sorry tale has been put to bed? Or are you just a political troublemaker in a time when our thoughts should be on more pressing matters?


The first thing one must do in analysing such a positional statement, and the questions embedded within it, is to identify the premises that are being put forward.

What are the underlying assumptions – the ‘givens’ – the author would have us simply take as statements of established fact?

We might deconstruct the comment as claiming thus:

1: That I have unreasonable expectations of the political environment and culture of Jersey.

2: I am not engaged in mainstream political work, but, instead have split-off into some narrow path of irrelevance to the community.

3: That I am driven by a ‘thirst’ for ‘political upheaval’ for its own sake.

4: That there is nothing that would, or could, make me stop this campaign.

5: That the ‘legal proceedings’ are somehow of my initiative – and that I could ‘cease them’.

6: That what I am engaged in does not constitute representing my constituents.

7: That it isn’t clear what I ‘hope to achieve’.

8: That the ‘hateful crimes’ committed in Jersey are ‘a problem’ – and it is enough merely to recognise that fact – without fighting for justice.

9: That I have no other political manifesto apart from fighting against the Culture of Concealment – and that, somehow, just isn’t enough for a politician to be doing.

10: That I am merely a ‘political trouble-maker’ – wasting my time when I should be working on ‘more pressing matters’.

In what was not a sarcastic observation – so I hope I include this quote without it going on the rap-sheet – Anatole France wrote:

“It is by acts and not by ideas that people live.”

One can find any number of Jersey politicians who will propound such ideas as transparency, accountability, the proper rule of law, the good administration of justice, and working for the public good.

The ‘achievements’ of such ideas are there to be observed in the rackety, decayed junk-yard scrap-heap that is Jersey’s public administration.

Ideas are as spent upon the Jersey polity as the energy of Sisyphus was spent upon that boulder.

After 20 futile years of ideas – I have acted.

I have acted in an attempt to drive forward the changes oh-so-badly needed by the great majority of my constituents.

And we can use the ten premises propounded by ‘JV’ to examine why that is so.

1: The ‘mainstream’ political environment of Jersey is simply too rotten to repair. My expectations of Jersey politics are that it be honest, genuinely democratic, transparent, accountable, effective – and not riddled with corruption.

I don’t want to ‘fit back into that mainstream’ – I want to change it.

2: It is difficult to imagine a more centrally important task for a politician to shoulder than trying to address the complete absence of any effective checks and balances; in which victims of child abuse get betrayed by the authorities – and those who abused them remain in top-jobs.

A political and ‘judicial’ culture that is capable of driving into bankruptcy a small, family business with legal costs incurred through trying to defend themselves against the corrupt manipulations of senior oligarchs – is not capable of reforming itself.

One can hide from that conclusion no longer.

3: As described above, what I wish to see achieved is a modern, lawful, democratic community which is governed with a degree of intelligence, wisdom and ethics.

Not remotely an unreasonable or ‘extremist’ aim.

The ‘political upheavals’ I find myself involved in are not of my choosing; they occur because I am trying to do my job to the best of my ability – for example, trying to expose and prevent child abuse.

It is not my fault that so corrupted, decadent, lawless and anti-democratic are the Jersey oligarchy that they should regard trying to achieve child protection and punishing abusers, to be as some immense and anarchic threat to society.

4: I would very happily stop campaigning against the frankly embarrassing, bent, inept and literally incredible chimera that passes for the administration of justice in Jersey – just as soon as it is cleared-out and fixed.

If Jack Straw e-mails me in the next 30 minutes saying he’s accepted the mountain of unarguable evidence – and the UK will take direct control of the prosecution system, police and courts in Jersey for the next two years – whilst a functioning system is put in place – I’ll get on a plane back to Jersey tonight.

5: If ‘JV’ wishes these ‘legal proceedings’ were stopped – then we are of like-mind.

However – it was not me who decided that it would be appropriate to send around a squad of ten cops to arrest a democratically accountable representative of the people – lock him in a police-cell for seven-and-a-half hours – whilst the cops turned over the entire property from top-to-bottom – without a search-warrant – and then attempt to prosecute the politician – for doing his job in attempting to hold the executive to account.

It was Bill Bailhache – and his stooges Mick Gradwell, Mark Cane and Julia Jackson – who decided that – terribly PC of them – “health and safety at work” requirements meant they had to subject me to covert surveillance – and come around and jail me – in order to protect senior civil servants from the ‘stress’ of being scrutinised by a politician.”

And – no.

I did not make up that “health and safety at work” angle.

Some things are simply beyond the reach of sarcasm.

It has been admitted in open court by Stephen Baker that Gradwell had Cane and Jackson – two full-time cops – doing nothing except “investigate” me – for a sustained period of time – on “health and safety” grounds.

Oh – that, and because I was supposedly writing “defamatory remarks” on my blog.

It, of course, being yet another example of the amazingly improved legislative performance of the States of Jersey – that a covert law was so speedily introduced to make defamation a criminal law offence, as opposed to a mere civil law matter.

6: The events I have catalogued on this blog during the last two years – let alone the evidence of the last two or three decades – show that the entire body of public administration in Jersey has failed – in virtually every conceivable manner.

Simply consider the long-predicted economic melt-down about to engulf the island; are my constituents best served by me being crushed in debate every two weeks by such intellectual titans as Terry Le Main and Phil Ozouf?

Or should we recognise that the time has past for such charades – and that the coming economic hardship can only be ameliorated by sweeping away the whole, useless apparatus?

To quote Bob Dylan:

‘Let us not talk falsely now, for the hour is getting late.’

7: What this community needs is to be rid of the collection of idiots, posturing ignoramuses, crooks, spivs, shills, gangsters and halfwits who have brought Jersey to the ruination that now – inescapably – confronts it.

Trying to achieve that from within the perverted paradigm that passes for ‘normal politics’ in Jersey doesn’t work – and I wouldn’t be doing my constituents any good if I pretended that it did.

8: To those who criticise me for being so determined to carry on fighting for justice – to get the ‘hateful crimes’ exposed and punished – I would point out that certain States members don’t do anything – let alone campaign strongly for a single cause. Well, when I say don’t do anything, I concede that they turn up as lobby-fodder, to vote and speak as they are told by the oligarchy whips.

Even if the campaign for child protection was the only thing I did – it is difficult imagine a more necessary and worthwhile cause. It is not enough, merely to have recognised that ‘hateful crimes’ took place.

Justice must be delivered.

And – it will be. Trust me.

No matter that it take another decade.

9: My political ‘manifesto’ – the policies and changes I believe are needed for the good of this community – is broader and deeper than most States members combined could articulate.

I mean – how many other States members could say they have achieved such innovative and forward-looking legislation – that has made it a criminal offence not to turn up to, events you didn’t have to turn up to?

And should you not be suitably impressed by that – consider; I was able to have sarcasm outlawed – in a matter of days – without even being there.

Let no one ever again dare criticise my legislative skills.

10: The political culture and habits of Jersey are toxic. Plainly – what passes for ‘normal’ politics has left the island’s future a heap of smoking wreckage.

We have sold the future of Jersey – to a collection of spivs and carpet-baggers – for a mess-of-pottage.

What do we have to show?

A community in which a basic starter home for a family costs over half-a-million pounds; a community in which around 15% of the population live in relative poverty by EU definitions; we have ruined much of our environment; we have no economic ‘Plan B’ for the imminent end of ‘the gold rush’ – and we have no sovereign wealth fund – instead a microscopic strategic reserve – that wouldn’t meet one year’s public sector expenditure.

Being a politician – requires doing politics. And politics – at least the functioning kind – are usually ‘troublesome’.

The traditional approach to politics in Jersey – that it is far better to be “polite” than speak the truth – is largely responsible for our ruination.

Addressing those ten arguments brings us back to why I am here in London.

I am here because we have a public administration – a legislature, a judiciary, a prosecution system and a senior civil service – that is so useless, dishonest, corrupt – and, frankly, dangerous – that it fell to me – after, let it be noted, several attempts to address the issue through the ‘normal’ and ‘official’ channels – to publicly expose an individual who plainly poses a clear and present danger to vulnerable people.

A man the Jersey prosecution system decided could be released from remand in custody for other, serious, offences – two days after they had decided to launch a major investigation on the grounds of compelling evidence he is a dangerous serial killer.

I knew publishing the information would have all kinds of serious consequences for me and, sure enough – the oligarchy had to crush me – precisely because it is so well-evidenced that they failed.

Failed catastrophically.

You see, if there is one thing the Jersey oligarchy suddenly gets efficient at – it is crushing those who expose their intrinsic failure.

But not always successfully.

Who knows – if I can carry on evading “justice” amongst London’s criminal underworld – and perhaps even recruiting new gang members – and having a few turf-wars, I’ll be able carve-out my own Manor – and from the hub of a crime-empire – take sarcasm into another whole realm – previously undreamt of in the world of organised crime.

I can see the States of Jersey now – meeting every other day to pass new legislation.

Not wearing a tie? Mandatory two years.

Reading The Guardian? Ten years hard labour and a ‘re-education’ programme.

Describing ‘Tel Boy’ Le Main as a halfwit? Five years under the Protection from Understatements (Jersey) Law October 2009.

Asking a difficult parliamentary question? £50,000 fine – under the Health and Safety at Work (Unemployable Civil Servants: Protection) (Jersey) Law November 2009.

Just imagine the criminal satisfaction in causing so much chaos?

What a pity that – no matter what wicked goading – the Jersey oligarchy will remain too thick to introduce the ‘Saving People from their Own Stupidity and Hubris (In Bottom of Hole, Stop Digging) (Jersey) Law 2009’ – and the associated ‘Don’t Try to Put Out a Fire With a Can of Petrol ( Prevention of Oligarchy Self-Immolation) Regulations 2009’.

Whilst it is difficult for us to imagine what our ‘OG’, Anatole France, would have written concerning the ‘law’ – as practiced by the Jersey oligarchy – no such difficulty faces us when looking to another of his famous quotes:

“We have never heard the devil’s side of the story, God wrote all the book.”

When considering the eutrophic pond that is power in Jersey – a body of pestilential fluid so thickly freighted with algal scum the Nazis were able to sail upon its surface without causing so much as a ripple – a rank midden emitting a miasma of propaganda so toxic that even in the year 2009 it has drugged most of the population into believing that organised politics is something wicked and dangerous – we know what our gang leader would have said:

“We have never heard God’s side of the story, the devil wrote all the book.”

Oh such wicked sarcasm.

I hear the States of Jersey are re-introducing the death-penalty next week.





From a Secret Address

Somewhere in London.

“Beware of him that is slow to anger; for when it is long coming, it is the stronger when it comes, and the longer kept. Abused patience turns to fury.”

Francis Quarles

You know, I’ve often been told by Jersey oligarchy politicos – and their various users, aspirants, puppet-masters, assorted blackmailers and frightfully misguided supporters – that I was no bloody use as a politician.

And you know what? I’m beginning to think they must be right.

I mean, I’ve been away from the island for only a few days – and in my absence there has been a truly miraculous transformation in the efficiency of the States assembly and its ability to formulate and produce new legislation.

Just consider – when I flew to London on Monday, Jersey had in place the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.

Yet the island’s legislature had it repealed by Wednesday lunchtime.

Impressive, no?

But this dramatic acceleration of legislative activity just amplified as the day went on.

By Wednesday afternoon – it had suddenly become a criminal offence – not to turn up to – a court hearing – one didn’t have to turn up to.

I wonder if this innovative new legislation has – on Thursday, perhaps – been extended beyond the “judicial” environment.

Perhaps your elected representatives will now be subject to arrest warrants – should they not turn-up to the latest time-wasting, brain-rotting PowerPoint presentation?

It can, surely, only be a matter of time – Monday afternoon, perhaps – before the newly efficient and lightning fast States has expanded this new law to encompass members of the public?

For example – imagine just how much easier it will be for the oligarchy if – next time they issue an “invitation” to members of the public to attend the latest propagandising, opinion-management exercise – err – sorry, “participative public consultation” – and you don’t turn up, they can simply order your arrest?

After all, these manufacturing-consent exercises are expensive – and those oligarchy policies aren’t going to gain spurious credibility on their own, you know!

But the States have not confined their new-found vigour to only repealing the human rights law, and making it a criminal offence to not turn up to events you didn’t have to turn up to.

Oh no.

Did you know – it’s now a serious criminal offence to write sarcastic e-mails to a lawyer?

I suppose, now one thinks about it, it’s hardly surprising that the States enacted this new legislation on Wednesday morning – just as soon as this hitherto horrifying lacuna in the island’s laws had been recognised.

On Wednesday afternoon, the court was held, rapt, as Advocate Baker bravely lifted the e-mail from the bench, and, calling upon all his fortitude acquired over years of legal practice, began to read the toxic document. He had had to be locked in cells when meeting with his killer and drug-gangster client Curtis Warren – but even that could not approach the sheer terror and emotional damage Advocate Baker had to confront in reading the e-mail I had sent him.

The court sat in horrified silence – members of the public, and even hardened hacks, scarcely able to comprehend that a human being could be capable of such evil.

Imagine the public outrage – protests on the streets, no doubt – had Advocate Baker had to have stood in court – having suffered this atrocity – and there had been no law to shelter him from such violation?

And he’s only earned £500,000 from this case, so far. Had the States not introduced this new legislation, I’m sure public sympathy would have enabled Advocate Baker to raise the next two million from donations alone, without having to wait until his bill is settled by grateful taxpayers.

Let no one say again that the States of Jersey are slow to produce laws when a pressing public need becomes apparent.

It was obviously me – who had been holding them back all these years.

I used to sit before the laptop screen – and try to marshal the salient events of the last two years and six months into some kind of narrative – but I would be halted by the thought, “nah – that can’t be real; that can’t have happened. I’ll wake up tomorrow – in a respectable, democratic society – and realise it was all a tortuous dream – brought about by the Roquefort and Gorgonzola crepe I ate the night before.”

But no – events that would challenge the combined imaginative skill of Samuel Becket and Franz Kafka didn’t dissolve with the dawn light.

Instead, I realised that, yes, I did have to prepare for another court hearing – with a judge who is entirely happy and unconcerned at the fact the prosecution has – in the name of the Crown – committed at least – at least – three straightforward acts of demonstrable perjury.

So if what has taken place isn’t a dream – what other explanation?

Well – I could be totally in the wrong.

Perhaps it is normal for opposition politicians to get arrested at their home by a squad of ten cops – for trying to hold the executive to account – and then get locked in a police cell for seven-and-a-half hours – whilst the “under new management” officers then ransack the home from top to bottom – searching everything – without a search warrant?

What if that is, indeed, a more appropriate use of police resources – than investigating, arresting and searching the home and bank-accounts of the bribe-taking States member – against whom they know of comprehensive evidence – and willing witnesses?

Maybe it is standard practice for multi-millionaire drug dealers to have legal aid funded by tax-payers – yet, on the other hand, to spend millions of pounds of tax-payers money on the oppression of a dissident politician – and deny him effective legal representation – just to be on the safe side?

It really could be so – that it is the job of judges simply to do whatever they’re told by the prosecution lawyer – and whoever it is that mysteriously awaits in the judge’s chamber – to “advise” them during the multitude of otherwise inexplicable and mystifying “adjournments”?

I see now that we can safely assume from the vastly improved performance of the States of Jersey, that I just didn’t understand things – and had become deluded by paranoia of such a degree it was preventing me from grasping reality.

But – on the other hand, if it were paranoia – it would only be happening to me, surely?

I would be living in my own little bubble of unreality – alone – whilst no other person experienced such things.

There would be no Simon Bellwood.

There would be no John Day.

There would be no Graham Power.

And dozens of others like them in Jersey – who have incurred the wrath of “The Firm”?

The case of Graham Power is quite topical, now I come to think of it.

Mr. Power is the Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force.

In what was plainly a pre-planned – and unlawful – manoeuvre, worked-up by the core Jersey oligarchs – Graham was – without warning – suspended; he was not afforded proper due process; no remotely credible reason was given; to this day no faintly plausible grounds have been established to justify such extreme action; and he, too, has been subjected to a negative campaign of spin by the oligarchy.

In fact, the action against Graham Power serves very well as an illustration of “The Firm” at work.

Graham is the head of a Police Force that was conducting an extensive investigation into long-term corporate and institutional criminality – committed against children – by a large organisation – the States of Jersey.

In scenes that could only happen in Jersey, he was suspended from his post – with zero warning – by the then Home Affairs Minister, and the States Chief Executive.

Just think about that:

You have a very powerful and established organisation, which has been engaging in very seriously criminal activities for decades. After all those decades, you finally – accidentally, perhaps – get leadership of the Police Force of sufficient integrity, professionalism and bravery to investigate and tackle that long catalogue of shameful lawlessness.

But, it just so happens – that the organisation in question employs the police leaders; the men who are causing all this immense difficulty for ‘The Firm’.

So, in one easy step – ‘The Firm” rids itself of this troublesome criminal investigation – by getting a member of the board of directors (read Home Affairs Minister) and the ‘company’s’ Chief Executive (read Chief Executive to the cabinet ) to just go – and sack the boss of the Police.

The Chief Executive then destroys the contemporaneous notes of the unscheduled suspension meeting – and there you go!


Problem solved!


You see – if only the Mafia studied “The Jersey Way”, there’d be no need for all those assassinations. You godda a problem with the Police? Just make sure you employ them. Then you’d be able to terminate their contract in the literal – as opposed to the metaphorical – sense, just like the Jersey Bosses.

And – if you’re the Jersey Bosses – it doesn’t even matter that you’ve grossly breached the Police Chief’s contract – because, why – you own the courts, too!

And it doesn’t even matter that your suspension of the Police Chief was – plainly – a criminal act – a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – why, because the chief prosecutor is a member of ‘the board’ – and advised you on the illegal suspension in the first place!

But – here things begin to get a little difficult – and show that “The Firm” may well have had an Enron-quality board. You see – it wouldn’t have even mattered – previously – that evidence in your possession shows the Police Chief’s suspension to have been a pre-planned, criminal act – because you wouldn’t have had to disclose that evidence.

However – terribly problematically – because of the suspended Police Chief’s tenacity and ability – you’ve been required to disclose to him the binary data from “The Firm’s” computers – which shows that the supposedly contemporaneous letters informing him of what was, allegedly, an emergency suspension – had, in fact, been worked on for weeks before – thus proving the exercise was pre-planned all along.

Which is why I hope – I really do – that the States of Jersey haven’t overreached themselves in embracing the new, amazingly fast approach to devising and introducing fresh legislation – like they must have done last week.

Because if they have – well – it could all end in tears, couldn’t it?

Just as what appeared to be a simple and easy solution to their problem of being an organisation under serious criminal investigation – suspending the Police Chief – has proven to be a potentially terminal exercise in hubristic overreach.

Our oligarchy thought – as they often do, bless – they’d be “clever” – and define the electronic evidence sought by the Police Chief as “not existing in the form of information” – because “no one has looked at it” – a bit like Schrödinger’s cat.

Information in the form of a fuzzy super-symmetry that would only have its wave-function collapsed into particle-like existence – if you looked at it.

And who would be foolish enough to do that?

You see how advanced “The Jersey Firm” thought they were? They didn’t need tired old methods, like ‘sweeping dirt under the carpet’.

They thought they’d discovered the quantum cover-up.



“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

Milan Kundera.

“By forgetting the past and by throwing myself into other interests, I forget to worry.”

Jack Dempsey.

“Long for me as I for you, forgetting, what will be inevitable, the long black aftermath of pain.”

Malcolm Lowry.

“Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.”

Malcolm Muggeridge.

An E-Mail to the Jersey Judicial Establishment.

From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 21 October 2009 14:00
To: David Le Heuze; ‘Stephen Baker’; Jonathan Bertram; William Redgrave
Cc: William Bailhache
Subject: Forgetfulness.
Importance: High.

Dear Mr. Le Heuze, Advocate Baker, Mr. Bertram, Mr. Redgrave

I do apologise. You know, these exercises are so complex and demanding, the most obvious of things can escape one’s mind!

I can’t actually be in court at 2.00 pm this afternoon – as I’m in London – where I have come to seek and secure some heavyweight legal advice. Who knows – perhaps some expertise that might even approach Advocate Baker’s mastery of the subject?

Naturally, the people I’m hoping to secure advice from are very learned and very busy, so it has taken longer than I expected. Oh – I nearly forgot – I am also discussing the case with a number of Members of Parliament.

But – as this afternoon’s event is merely a directions hearing, there isn’t actually a specific requirement for the accused to be present.

Not – frankly – that it would make one atom of difference if I were present; Advocate Baker and the Jersey judiciary are going to undertake the extraordinary and unprecedented step of having the extant – and previously un-resisted defence case – that of public interest disclosure, based upon the catastrophic failure of the 1999 investigation into “Nurse M” – suddenly ruled “inadmissible” – because Advocate Baker and his Jersey oligarchy paymasters simply have no answer to the defence case – whatsoever.

Oh – silly me! I nearly forgot another reason for my presence in London. I’m in the process of finalising my legal action for personal damages against UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw, which I will have served in the next few days. After all, Mr. Straw himself has accepted, on-the-record, that he does carry responsibility for good governance and the proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies.

As I’m sure you’ll recognise – he has very badly failed to carry out those duties – in a number of cases – not merely mine. For example – there can’t be many places in the world that won’t prosecute a child battering maniac – preferring instead to leave him in charge of the Education Department.

But, I imagine, such decisions free-up resources to enable the very obviously necessary prosecution of an elected representative of the people of Jersey – for trying to stop their grandmothers getting murdered.

Once again – do please accept my apologies for forgetting to alert you to my absence earlier.

After all – we can all be very forgetful about the most obvious of things – can’t we?

For example like a judge turning up to hear a case – and having to borrow the relevant law book from the accused.

Or – oh so easily – the prosecution lawyer, allowing it to escape his mind that – in fact – he was aware of very significant items of evidence relevant to the defence – so didn’t declare or disclose them.

Fortunately, I was able to prompt Advocate Baker and remind him of the existence of that evidence, which he was then able to remember – for example – the fact that Mick Gradwell spent over half his time in Jersey doing nothing except “investigate” me and Lenny Harper.

And that Gradwell had two full-time cops – Mark Cane and Julia Jackson – doing nothing except investigate me – at the behest of Bill Bailhache – in a desperate search for something – anything – that could be used to side-track and discredit me.

You see – even though such evidenced facts are plainly of the most central importance to my abuse of process application – the prosecution unfortunately forgot about them.

It’s easily done, I’ll concede.

Indeed – why – only this morning I was e-mailed two further items of evidence – which the prosecution had forgotten – hitherto – to make me aware of – let alone disclose.

But – we’re all forgetful, once in a while – don’t you agree?

So once again, please accept my apologies for forgetting to alert you earlier to my absence.

See you in court next time.






An Evidenced Examination of the Conduct of Bill Ogley,

Jersey’s Chief Civil Servant.

No matter where one looks across the top-tier of Jersey’s civil service, one comes across examples of incompetence, ignorance, ethical bankruptcy, dishonesty, and even examples of straight criminality.

So much material exists, it can be easy to lose sight of the details in specific cases.

I thought, then, that it would be useful to focus upon one, evidenced example, and make something of a case-study of it – given its topicality – and importance.

And what I find fascinating about this type of politically controversial case, is that it isn’t a Left-wing vs. Right-wing issue. The kind of evidenced conduct I’m going to explain below would be regarded as wholly unacceptable, and counter to the public good, amongst all respectable politicians – be they Labour, Conservative or Lib-Dem.

Where, we will have to wonder, does that leave the Jersey political oligarchy?

But, before I take readers through that evidence – let’s catch up on recent events.

My apologies for still not producing the next substantive posting in my ‘legal advice from the web’ series.

Every time I think I’ve managed to engage with the sheer incredibility of events – something else comes to light.

Sometimes things so extraordinary that I have to manoeuvre my perspective into another whole paradigm.

Eventually – after months of frankly absurd refusals to disclose on the part of the Jersey’s political prosecution system – I gained access to some of the core evidence upon which they rely in prosecuting me for allegedly breaking the data protection law.

There are limits to what I can report now – but trust me – the word “sensational” is not out-of-place in describing the evidence that will be examined in open court during the prosecution.

Frankly – my guilt or innocence is going to be an irrelevance.

So sensational – I’d be seriously tempted to deliberately “throw” the abuse-of-process hearing – if I thought for one instant there was any danger of me winning it.

In the previous posting, I predicted the professional demise of certain senior public sector employees. And amongst that number I have predicted the departure of the subject of this posting – the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey – Bill Ogley.

Incidentally, congratulations to my sources; they were on-the-money concerning the demise of Mike Pollard. I was going to say ‘professional’ demise – but one could hardly associate the word with him.

So – what, then, of the other predictions?

I’m given to understand that the Verita report into the corporate manslaughter of Elizabeth Rourke is – surprisingly – actually going to be a reasonably accurate and professional report – insofar as it can be, within the bounds of the terms of reference – and its genesis.

But believe me – if the report is going to be thorough, good and fearless – these things don’t happen by accident.

If it hadn’t been for the immense scrutiny brought to bear on the Verita exercise by, firstly me, and then Bob Hill, I doubt very much whether the goods would have been produced.

Which brings me to Richard Lane. As has been remarked in earlier comments, one might not be surprised that a man of his age would be retiring. But the real question is this – can the establishment keep him in place until April – if the Verita report says what it should say?

No vaguely credible or responsible public administration could. On the contrary – they’d be ushering him out the door ASAP – just as they’ve done with Pollard.

But knowing our oligarchy, they’re probably hoping that by setting Pollard adrift, they’ll have made all the sacrifices necessary. But this time, things are not going to be so easy for them.

My sources also inform me that Richard Joualt’s ambitions to become the permanent Chief Executive of Health & Social Services are now toast.

There are some things even being a mate of Phil Ozouf’s can’t save you from – and being part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in a manslaughter case is just such an eventuality.

The real question concerning Joualt is, ‘will the States be able to carry on employing him at all – if the Verita report accurately depicts events?’

Again – were we dealing with a competent and safe public administration, the answer would be “no”.

But – as regular readers of this blog will be all too painfully aware – this is Jersey of which we speak. For example – where else would the authorities have placed someone in Joualt’s circumstances, in temporary charge of H & SS – as opposed to immediately suspending the individual concerned?

If you want to understand why Joualt, along with Lane, Rose Naylor and Michala Clifford cannot remain employed by the States, just read my blog postings of the 27th, 30th & 31st (twice) of January 2009.

Just how bad do things have to have been – to have united me and the Jersey Evening Post?


Which brings me to our case-study of the conduct of Bill Ogley.

In this posting I’m going to confront readers with some very clear, irrefutable evidence to support the case against Ogley and his senior colleagues.

This evidence will conclusively demonstrate the following facts:

That Jersey’s senior civil servants subvert democracy;

That the process of democratic accountability, all the way back to voters, can be utterly sabotaged by civil servants if they don’t like what the democratically elected politicians are doing;

That, in Jersey, senior civil servants will ruthlessly place their self-interest over and above the general public good, and even their specific duties;

That senior civil servants will lie;

That senior civil servants will conspire to protect each other;

That senior civil servants will engage in brazenly criminal actions, if that’s what it takes to protect themselves;

That they will casually engage in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice – even in a matter of such fundamental importance as child protection;

And that they will brazenly lie and deceive in anyway necessary to conceal those behaviours.

That’s quite some charge-sheet.

So let’s examine the evidence in our case-study.

As I wrote earlier, it’s easy to digress if one tries to take-in the entire cratered, smoking landscape of Jersey’s bureaucracy. So I’m going to try and be disciplined in this posting, and concentrate narrowly on our evidenced example.

A single example which illustrates clearly and powerfully the fact the leadership of the island’s civil service is utterly out-of-control, immoral, dangerous and dishonest.

Firstly, to understand the evidence we need to set the scene, and go back a couple of years – then follow events through.

In early 2007, I was the Minister for Health & Social Services.

It’s important to understand that a Minster for Health & Social Services is not merely responsible for the political oversight of the department. For in addition, the post brings with it a variety of legal duties and statutory powers. Amongst which is the legal responsibility for child protection.

For our purposes, let’s consider the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

This piece of legislation exists to promote, in a variety of ways, the welfare and safety of children.

And not only does it confer certain legal powers on the Minister of the day, it goes further, and places certain pro-active legal obligations upon the post-holder.

For example, to safeguard and promote children’s welfare – and to investigate dangers to children.

Paragraph (1) of Article 42 of that Law says this: –

“42: Minister’s duty to investigate

(1) Where the Minister –

(a) is informed that a child is the subject of an emergency protection order or is in police protection; or

(b) has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,

the Minister shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as the Minister considers necessary to enable the Minister to decide whether he or she should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.”

And, to take a further example, Paragraph 8 of Article 42 stipulates this: –

“8: Where the Minister is conducting enquiries under this Article, it shall be the duty of any administration of the States to assist the Minister with his or her enquiries (in particular by providing relevant information and advice) if called upon by the Minister to do so, unless it would be unreasonable to do so in all the circumstances of the case.”

That, then, is our first exhibit of evidence.

The Law – quite unambiguously – places a statutory obligation upon a Minister for Health & Social Services – who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer harm – to investigate the matter and take steps to safeguard the child’s welfare.

The Law also – again, unambiguously – places an unavoidable duty on any States department to assist the Minister in making such inquiries.

Certain facts and consequences flow from such Law.

For example – if a States department – or departments – fails to assist the Minister, then those departments are breaking the law.

And if a group of people colluded for the purpose of trying to conceal from the Minister, the fact that children were suffering harm, then those people would be engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It is a criminal offence to harm children – therefore knowingly attempting to conceal such crimes against children is a criminal act.

And if any person, or group of people who hold a public office – for example, politicians, civil servants, police officers, prosecutors, judges and so on – breaks the law in such ways – or seeks to hinder and obstruct a Minister from fulfilling their statutory obligations – then those people are committing the common-law criminal offence of ‘misconduct in a public office’.

Therefore, we have established the fact that a Minister for H & SS has legal powers and obligations to investigate child welfare issues if the Minister has reasonable cause to suspect risks to children.

And we have established that seeking to obstruct an H & SS Minster in carrying out those duties is a criminal act.

So, having laid out the theory – let’s look at events in practice.

In early 2007, I began to become aware of less than acceptable standards and practices in Jersey’s child protection apparatus. Whilst initially not appearing too serious, still I had cause for concern. So, carrying out my legal duties and obligations, I began to investigate these matters – as required to – in law.

And, gradually, the more I investigated, the greater and greater my concerns became. I networked through increasing numbers of whistle-blowers, survivors and witnesses, until – by around May 2007, I was forced to conclude we had a major, decades-old, systemic child protection failure on our hands.

Around that time, I did two things which terrified the relevant senior civil servants. I wrote a stark and angry e-mail to a multi-disciplinary team about a specific child protection case which I had asked to be investigated. The report I received revealed mind-bogglingly catastrophic inadequacies which had led to the suffering of a child going undetected for many months.

And, in July of 2007, I was asked a question in the island’s parliament about the children’s’ homes. Knowing what I knew by that stage, I concluded my answer by saying words to the effect, ‘if I’m being asked do I have any faith in the island’s child protection apparatus, frankly I have to say no, and I’m going to commission an independent, external investigation.’

In a stark example of all that is dysfunctional and stagnant in Jersey’s public administration, the relevant civil servants knew they had a shared culpability for these systemic child protection failures – and they knew they had a shared interest in burying the problems – brushing it all under the carpet.

Therefore the senior civil servants and certain politicians – in an attempt to keep it all concealed – set about engineering my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister.

An action in which Ogley was instrumental.

Now – as we’ve already established – to obstruct the Minister in his statutory duties – and to collude in an attempt to conceal criminal acts against children – amounts to a breach of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

And this is what a cohort of Jersey’s senior civil servants, and certain politicians did.

Engaged in unambiguously criminal conduct.

If Jersey were an environment in which the rule of law and administration of justice actually functioned properly – and we didn’t have a situation in which oligarchy characters like the directly and personally conflicted William Bailhache can decide – according to his political whim – who will be charged and who won’t – those who engaged in this criminal activity would have been prosecuted.

But, of course – and notwithstanding a variety of formal, criminal complaints from me to the States of Jersey Police Force – none of these people have been charged.

Indeed – since an unlawful political coup was mounted against the Chief Constable Graham Power by people like Ogley and David Warcup – I haven’t had so much as a single up-date on the “progress” of my criminal complaints.

Thus far, we’ve established that it is a criminal offence to obstruct the Minister, and to collude in doing so in order to conceal child abuse is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

And I have alleged that the senior civil servants, such as Ogley, Pollard, Jouault, Marnie Baudains and others acted in just that way, and committed criminal offences.

So, what evidence do I have to ‘stand-up’ my charge against them?

I won’t digress into the detail of the events of the summer of 2007; instead I’ll just state a couple of key facts.

None of us at that time – politicians or senior civil servants – were aware of the covert police investigation. At that stage, it still appeared to the oligarchy that I was the only person trying to address the child protection failures, so if they discredited and sacked me, they could carry on with the culture of concealment.

So desperate were they to shut me up that the Council of Ministers committed a further criminal offence, in ignoring the requirement of the States of Jersey Law to provide an effective opportunity for a Minister to state his case to the rest of the Council before a dismissal debate is tabled. Instead, they fast-tracked the process with an unscheduled meeting – of which I had only five days notice – and even compounded that by giving me less than 24 hours notice of the actual “case” against me.

This criminal act was fully endorsed and supported by Michael Birt, in his capacity as Deputy Bailiff. In making this decision – he failed to declare his conflicts of interest – in that he was the Attorney General who let the child torturing Maguires escape prosecution – and who failed to prosecute those other criminals responsible for concealing at least 15 years worth of child abuse at Victoria College.

He too, had every reason to want to see the child abuse scandals buried.

To resume our narrative – in November 2007 – after I had been removed from the post of H & SS Minister – I become aware of the covert police investigation, and that investigation goes public a couple of weeks later.

It had been very clear to me – and to survivors – that the Police had been a large part of the problem in years and decades gone by. But suddenly – we were faced with a police force that was actually doing its job properly. Having our faith established in the States of Jersey Police Force, under the leadership of Graham Power and Lenny Harper, I, and many others began to make our various formal statements of criminal complaint.

In that context, let us turn to our next exhibit of evidence.

I reproduce here an e-mail I wrote to Graham Power, Alison Fossey and Lenny Harper, on the 20th November, 2007.

This was the e-mail with which I notified the Police that I wished to make a formal criminal complaint against Pollard, Ogley and all the other involved senior civil servants and politicians.

“From: Stuart Syvret []
Sent: 20 November 2007 19:35
To: Power, Graham; Fossey, Alison; Harper, Lenny
Subject: FW: Letter from Mr. Pollard [Scanned]

Graham, Alison & Lenny

I am forwarding this e-mail to you. You may well have it already, but I thought I should send it directly to you.

I wrote this e-mail and sent it to all States members. Attached to it is a PDF of a letter from Mike Pollard, which he sent to all H & SS staff, dated 14th September.
I was on the brink of sending the detailed and very critical response to the Pollard letter, which I promised in the e-mail below. However, I have now held back from doing so because of your work.

To think at one time I trusted Mr Pollard and thought he was a conscientious civil servant. It didn’t take him long to “go native” that’s for sure.

I would like you to take this e-mail as early notice of a formal complaint I intend to make to you concerning the actions of Mr Pollard, and, indeed, of other civil servants who calculatedly sought to obstruct and impede my lawful work as H & SS Minister in respect of the Children’s Law. By seeking to cover-up clear service deficiencies and to engineer the dismissal of the only politician who was being critical of them is nothing less than an assault on the effectiveness of child protection.

I am happy to write a lengthy account of all my concerns and come to the station to give a formal statement. I understand the gravity of these issues and everything I have to say I will be more than happy to state under oath in court when the time comes.

I don’t know how much Pollard is involved with you? But do note – he, like so many other civil servants – shares the culpability for the failings and deficiencies of the system. Therefore very many – perhaps virtually all – of the senior staff and civil-servants who you would normally expect to be on the side of child welfare, now have a shared, common interest in covering things up and minimising the problems and the bad news.

The letter from Pollard is a good example of this. It is nakedly dishonest, misleading and dissembling. It is – prima facie – a component in the cover-ups. When you see the language he uses, when he says just how perfect and super-perfect is every single aspect of child protection in Jersey – well, it just makes me want to vomit.



I received a formal response to that e-mail.

A response to which we will return.

But before doing so, let me move forward in the chronology.

Being aware of a multitude of gross child protection failures – indeed, many examples of pro-active cover-ups, I continued to fight for the cause. One of the avenues of inquiry I pursued was trying to discover exactly what had, in fact, taken place behind the scenes during that 2007 summer of concealments.

It was my firm knowledge that in the days leading up to the 25th and 26th July 2007 –and on those two days in particular – senior civil servants, such as Ogley, Pollard, Marnie Baudains, Tom McKeon, Mario Lundy – and others – conspired and colluded to engineer my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister – for the express purpose of concealing their sustained, gross malfeasances in respect of child “protection”.

I have been helped in the task of investigating this issue by many people – but in this context I want to focus on the support given by the Connetable of St. Helier, Simon Crowcroft.

In an effort to obtain minutes – and other relevant information – Connetable Crowcroft sought answers to a number of questions he asked of the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur – and Chief Executive, Bill Ogley.

After much persistence, Simon eventually obtained a formal note written by Ogley, which purported to answer Simon’s questions.

I reproduce here the covering e-mail thread.

“From: Simon Crowcroft
Sent: 19 February 2009 09:37
To: Terry Le Sueur (
Subject: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

Hello Terry.

I refer to the above meeting and would appreciate your answers to the following qns pls:

1. Were any members of the CMB invited to stay behind after the closure of the meeting by Mr Ogley and if so which members?

2. What was the subject matter of this discussion?

3. Was any record kept by any member present of this section of the meeting?

4a. Did a meeting of the Children’s Panel take place on the same day?

4b. Was an agenda provided for this meeting and were minutes taken? (if you are unable to answer this qn pls refer me to the appropriate person to ask.)

Thanks in anticipation


Original Message
From: aascrowcroft
Sent: 24 February 2009 18:35
To: aascrowcroft; Terry Le Sueur
Cc: Stuart Syvret
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

Evening Terry

I’ve had no acknowledgement of this email so far. Pls cd you confirm it’s being looked into? Thanks.

Kind Regards

Simon Crowcroft.

Original Message
From: Terry Le Sueur
Sent: 24 February 2009 23:20
To: aascrowcroft
Cc: Bill Ogley
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

Dear Simon,

The questions are impossible for me to answer, as I did not attend the meeting in question. I will relay your enquiries to the Chief Executive for any comments he may have.


Original Message
From: Bill Ogley
Sent: 26 February 2009 08:48
To: Terry Le Sueur; aascrowcroft
Subject: RE: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

I will produce a note and send it to both of you.

Bill Ogley

From: Bill Ogley []
Sent: 26 February 2009 17:11
To: Terry Le Sueur; Simon Crowcroft
Subject: FW: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

As promised here is a note of my recollection of the events referred to. it is accompanied by the confirmed notes of the CMB meetings in June, July and August 2008.

I hope this answers all of your questions.

Bill Ogley

From: aascrowcroft
Sent: 28 February 2009 16:12
To: Stuart Syvret
Subject: FW: Corporate Management Board meeting of the 25, 07, 07

TLS has given me permission to release this info to you

Kind Regards
Simon Crowcroft.”

Which brings us to our next exhibit of evidence – the note written by Bill Ogley, as referred to in his e-mail above, of the 26th February 2009.

This is a formal note, written by a civil servant, in answer to questions put to him by a democratically accountable politician, the Connetable of St. Helier, Simon Crowcroft.

It is important to bear in mind that a politician is, effectively, the representative, the voice, or the delegate of the many thousands of people who voted for her or him. So when a politician is lied to by officials, obstructed and deceived – it is, in effect, the tax-paying public who are being lied to, manipulated and conned.

I reproduce here the relevant passage from Ogley’s note – the section where he actually addresses the substantive issue.



“…..I made no notes of what was a very informal conversation, and I do not know if any other Chief Officers would have done so. Given the nature of the conversation I doubt they would have but, with one exception, I have not asked them. The exception is that on two separate occasions Senator Syvret has said in the States that he had seen, been shown, or told of notes of a meeting of Chief Officers prepared by a Senior Police Officer.

On each occasion when I was made aware of these statements I asked the Chief Police Officer if he had made such notes, if so, what meeting was referred to and whether he had shared them with the Senator. I was told that he had not and I was not surprised by his response.

Did a meeting of the Children’s Panel take place on the same day? I do not know what the Children’s Panel is. At that time there was the Corporate Parent, the meeting of the three responsible Ministers, the JCPC, or there may be a different grouping that is being referred to. I am not a member of any such panels or similar groupings. In any event I do not know if any of these meetings took place on 25 July 2007.

Bill Ogley

Chief Executive to Council of Minister and Head of Paid Service

26 February 2009”

So – there we have it.

My claims, suspicions and conclusions are wrong – because Bill Ogley says so.

In respect of the fundamental points – according to Ogley –

1: The Chief Officer of the Police, Graham Power, made no notes of a meeting at which he was alarmed by the nature of the discussion amongst civil servants concerning the engineering of my dismissal as Minister.

2: Graham Power was asked by Ogley if he had written such notes and shared them with me – and Mr. Power told Ogley he had written no such notes.

3: Ogley is wholly unaware of any meeting of the Jersey Child Protection Committee having taken place on the 25th July, 2007.

In essence, those are the three, core claims made by Ogley in response to Connetable Crowcroft’s questions.

Let’s just remind ourselves of the stage the narrative of our case-study has reached.

A Health & Social Services Minister is legally obliged to protect children.

All States of Jersey departments are obliged to support a Minister in such work.

To fail to give such support is a criminal offence.

To seek to conceal from the Minister acts of abuse against children is a conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice.

Additionally, for public officials to act in such ways amounts to the common-law criminal offence of misconduct in a public office.

I allege that people like Ogley, Baudains, Pollard, Lundy etc have committed such criminal acts in obstructing me.

I have made formal complaints to the Police to that effect.

Others, such as the Connetable of St. Helier, have tried to help to uncover the truth by asking important questions.

Bill Ogley has responded to him – and asserted that there ‘is no basis for my allegations’; ‘that no child protection meeting occurred on the 25th July 2007’; ‘that the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, was not concerned by a meeting he had been party to’; and that ‘he had made no notes of such a meeting’.

Now, let us remember my e-mail – quoted above – of the 20th November, 2007, to Graham Power, Alison Fossey and Lenny Harper.

I said that we’d return to the formal response I received to that e-mail.

The response was dynamite.

Below, I quote the relevant passage – in which a Chief Officer of a Police Force formally notifies a politician, that he, and a Detective Inspector Colleague, both felt compelled to make formal notes of meetings at which they were present, when the engineering of the dismissal of the politician was discussed.

It is to the immense credit of both Officers that they recognised what was taking place for the disgraceful anti-democratic, and savage and harmful obstruction of child protection that it was, and recorded formal notes of what they’d witnessed.

Response to 20th November 2007 e-mail of Stuart Syvret:

“From: Graham Power
Sent: 21 November 2007 09:47
To: Stuart Syvret; Fossey, Alison; Lennie Harper
Subject: RE: Letter from Mr. Pollard [Scanned]
Sensitivity: Confidential

“…….I now have something else to communicate.

After some discussion with the other parties copied into this e-mail we have agreed that it is in the interests of fairness in respect of your possible complaint, and in the wider public interest that we should disclose that both myself and Detective Inspector Fossey have evidence which may be relevant to the matters you complain of. The evidence is in the form of notes made following separate meetings which we both attended on the afternoon of Wednesday 25th July 2007 at which matters relating to your position were discussed. These notes have been preserved and can be made available to any competent enquiry or investigation.


Yours Faithfully.

G. Power.

Graham Power
Chief Officer”

In case the gravity and magnitude of that eludes readers, here we have a witness – of no less authority and stature than the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force – making a formal, written disclosure to a politician that the Chief Officer and a senior colleague have both witnessed – and recorded in formal notes – meetings at which the ‘removal’ of the politician was discussed by civil servants and others.

In what kind of societies do incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats engineer the dismissal of democratically elected and accountable politicians?

In order to stop those politicians carrying out their legal responsibilities?

In order to stop those politicians from exposing child-protection failures and child-abuse cover-ups?

Certainly not functioning, lawful, democracies.

There is a stark and implacable truth bearing down upon Jersey, here.

We are a failed jurisdiction – in which democracy, the rule of law, the public good, the administration of justice – and common decency – have been buried beneath a landslide of conniving, foul, immoral, self-interest, decadence and hubris.

And we are locked-down into this position of lawless servitude and vulnerability by an accretion of anonymous spivs in London – the beneficiaries of the limitless  – and toxic – illegal briberies and naïve entrapments  gifted to them from Jersey’s treasuries by the island’s carcinogenic oligarchy.

But – the email from Mr. Power is not the only exhibit of evidence in our particular case-study.

Let us remember, Ogley, in his notes to Simon Crowcroft, wrote that he was unaware of any kind of child protection meeting having taken place on the 25th July, 2007. He said this:

“In any event I do not know if any of these meetings took place on 25 July 2007.”

Well, such a meeting – of the then ‘Jersey Child “Protection” Committee’ – did take place; a body which should, at that time, have more appropriately been known as ‘the Jersey Child Abusers and Civil Servants Protection Committee’.

That ‘emergency meeting’ – which did take place on the 25th July, 2007 – was a key component in the engineering of my dismissal. A letter was “approved”, demanding my sacking, for trying to meet my lawful duty – as per the Children (Jersey) Law 2002  – but, as the Jersey mafia preferred to put it – “undermining staff morale” for criticising the child-protection failures I’d investigated and uncovered,

Though the letter was signed by the then Chair of the JCPC – Iris Le Feuvre – it was, in fact, written by the Directorate Manger of Social Services – Marnie Baudains.

Baudains being THE Jersey civil servant with prime, direct responsibility for child protection – and thus direct responsibility for the gross failures I was exposing at the time.

It was that JCPC meeting of the 25th July 2007, at which Detective Inspector Alison Fossey was present – as stated in Mr. Power’s e-mail to me. Like Graham, after witnessing, and understanding what was taking place, she left the meeting, like any decent, thinking, ethical professional, not wishing to be a party to it, and filed her notes when back at the station.

But – according to Bill Ogley, “the meeting did not take place” – or, to allow him his sophistry, if it did – he “did not know” of it. So he claimed.

Well, that’s a dilemma, isn’t it?

Chief of the Police, Graham Power says that he and Detective Inspector Fossey were sufficiently concerned at what they witnessed at these meetings to record formal notes.

But Ogley says he is unaware of the child “protection” meeting – and, in any event, he asked Mr. Power if he had taken notes – and Mr. Power said ‘no’.

So – Ogley – or Power;  – one of these two men is lying.

Let us ask ourselves a simple question:

Who do we believe?

Graham Power – a man of impeccable integrity, of spotless professional record, a recipient of the Queen’s Medal for Policing – and who has incurred the corrupt wrath of the Jersey establishment for doing his job too effectively – and was suspended by an oligarchy politician – and suspended by Bill Ogley?

Or –

Bill Ogley – an evidenced liar, a man who will engage in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice to conceal child abuse and corporate manslaughter; who will engage in the criminal, Political suspension of Mr. Power – then shred the notes of the suspension meeting before they can be verified – and who will then persist in lying about these matters – to the extent of writing brazen falsehoods to the Connetable of St. Helier on the 26th February 2009? – And all the dramatic connotations which flow from that act, and what it means for safe, for real, democracy?

It is not a difficult decision – is it?

You’d have to possess the IQ of an artichoke to believe Ogley instead of Mr. Power.

Indeed – one doesn’t need to “believe” who is telling the truth – as though it were an act of faith.

Instead, let us consider our last exhibit of evidence for this posting – the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ministers – which took place on the morning of the 26th July, 2007.

I reproduce a couple of excerpts from those minutes:


(57th Meeting)

26th July 2007


Confidential: exemption
3.2 (a)(i),(xiii) and (xiv)
Child protection services: concerns expressed by Senator S. Syvret.

B1. The Council considered a report, dated 24th July 2007 and produced by the Chief Executive, concerning child protection arrangements in Jersey.”

The report in question was a product of the conspiracy by Ogley, other civil servants, and certain Ministers, to obstruct me in my lawful duties – that is, their conspiracies to prevent the lawful discharge of the Children (Jersey) LAW 2002.

Remarkably surprising that Ogley should have so little recall of the events of that period, given he is the head of the civil service, and thus the chief executive to the States Employment Board, who produced the report, upon the demand of the senior civil servants in question.

But – it gets worse.

Remember, Ogley is, according to himself – allegedly – unaware of any child protection meeting having taken place of the 25th July, 2007.

Which is rather surprising – given the CoM minutes go on to refer to the Le Feuvre signed/Marnie Baudains authored letter – arising from the JCPC meeting of the 25th.

A letter that was physically distributed at the CoM meeting of the 26th July – by Bill Ogley himself!

The minutes go on to say this: –

“The Chief Minister advised the Council that he had received a faxed letter from the Child Protection Committee (CPC), dated 25th July 2007, in which that Committee had contended that the recent actions of Senator Syvret had ‘very seriously damaged the good name of services and individuals’ concerned in the delivery of child protection in the Island. The CPC had also stated that it had lost political confidence in the Minister for Health and Social Services. Copies of the letter were circulated to Ministers for consideration.”

Remember – this is a letter which was handed out by Ogley himself on the morning of the 26th – arising from a child ‘protection’ meeting which had occurred on the 25th.

Yet – according to Ogley – in his note to Connetable Crowcroft – he is unaware of any such meeting having taken place on the 25th.

So what conclusion do we draw?

We can see from Ogley’s own note to Simon Crowcroft  – in contrast with the facts as described in the minutes of the Council of Ministers’ meeting – that the man is a brazen liar.

Moreover – Ogley’s account in his note to Simon Crowcroft of events in respect of the meetings at which the engineering of my dismissal was discussed, is flatly contradicted by the Police Chief Graham Power.

To summarise the evidence: –

In our case-study, we have established the legal position, and have cited the relevant law.

We have described the legal duties of the Minister.

We have described the concomitant legal obligations upon all states departments.

We have considered the corrupt events of 2007 – and the efforts of some of us to expose those actions.

We have seen the written assertions of Bill Ogley.

And – by way of contrast – we have seen the facts, as described in Graham Power’s shocking e-mail to me – and as described in the CoM minutes of the 26th July, 2007.

So where does this evidence leave us in our considerations of Jersey’s public administration?

We have a senior civil service who have conducted an all-out assault on democracy by politically engineering the dismissal of an elected Minister, because the Minister in question was exposing their child protection failures.

In acting in that way, the senior civil servants involved have committed clear-cut criminal offences, such as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

So brazen were the actions of the civil servants involved that not one – but two, senior police officers felt compelled to write formal notes recording what they’d witnessed and heard.

Our oligarchy politicians were enthusiastic participants in all the criminal conspiracies.

And in Bill Ogley – we have a liar and a criminal – who conceals child abuse and who helps to conceal corporate manslaughter – in charge of Jersey’s civil service.

A man who will blithely lie to your politicians who ask for the facts.

A man who engages in the criminal suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force – and then destroys the evidential notes – before they can be verified.

Would any competent, credible, reasonable body-politic keep this man in employment?


What, then, will the Jersey oligarchy politicians do?

The answer to that question, is another question:

Which force is greater – their stupidity – or their sense of self-preservation?