Monthly Archives: November 2009




You’ll Love This:

Simply Beyond Parody.

More of your Tax Money

Wasted –

On Protecting

The Unemployable.

Regular readers will recollect that earlier this year – in a last act of anti-democratic desperation – the senior ranks of Jersey’s civil service – a body culturally wholly unused to any form of meaningful scrutiny and accountability – told the jerking, twitching puppets in Jersey’s Council of Ministers, that they really didn’t like all this “being held to account” business.

“That if they wanted to conceal child abuse – then lie about it for years – that was their right”.

“And if they decided they didn’t like an elected Minister – it was their right to lie and have him sacked”.

“That they simply couldn’t have – it was just utterly intolerable – and beyond the pale – for politicians to demand of them, “what on Earth do you think you’re being paid for?”

So that titan of leadership and states craft – Terry Le Sueur – said “yes Sir – what do you want us to do, Sir?”

And the representatives of the senior civil service said, “we want you to spend a load of tax-payers money to employ an “expert consultant”– who will produce a report – that will enable you to introduce Stalinistic measures – to crush those who dare try and hold us to account.”

I exaggerate – but only a little.

So – Terry – jumping as high as he was told – employed one Christopher Chapman – to produce a “report” – into some monstrous “external party” – who was being so unreasonable as to expect that public sector employees shouldn’t rape little girls – and other employees shouldn’t cover it up.

You really just couldn’t make this up.

Today was issued the resultant report – by Chapman – a man who seems to possess no grasp whatsoever of functioning democracy – and nor to have ever heard of the civil remedy of defamation.

In between times – working on my various projects here in exile – I get a little bored occasionally – but I can always rely upon the Jersey oligarchy to provide me with entertainment.

And today I was furnished with just such laugh.

Did you know that your democratically elected politicians – the guardians of the standards of public service – the safekeepers of your hard-earned taxes – are not allowed to criticise civil servants any more?

Because it makes them stressed.

It’s a “health and safety at work” issue, you know?

It’s all well and good – getting angry and aggressive towards civil servant child-rapists – but just think about the poor dears’ health?

I mean – it must be psychologically taxing enough as it is – being a child abuser – without some obnoxious, foul aggressive politician coming along – and ‘outing’ you for your crimes.

Yes – of course. That means we will have to change the law. These people must be protected from such “bullying and harassment”.

We must be reasonable with employees.

You’ve murdered 13 frail elderly people – in a two month period? But that was the result of your ‘post traumatic stress disorder’ – so you can’t possibly be criticised for it. Such criticism can only be the act of a vicious and cruel thug.

Especially as your “health” issues are so bad – you had to invent the ‘post traumatic stress disorder’ in the first place.

What we must do is – immediately – change the laws.

We must scrap all that nonsense of parliamentary privilege – so elected representatives can’t criticise the civil service any more.

And we must strengthen the Crime and Disorderly Conduct Law’s provisions against “harassment” – so the police can knock on the door of anyone irresponsible enough to expose public sector malfeasance – and issue them with an anti-harassment warning.

And we simply can’t stop – in the name of civilisation – at only applying to politicians such provisions designed to protect abuse-concealers, liars, child-rapists, money-wasters and crooks in the civil service.

Oh no.

We must apply it to all blogs – across the world wide web.

And just occasionally attempting to harass a blogger in connection with one or two postings just doesn’t go far enough, either.

What we must do is empower and require the state – the Data Protection Commissioner – to keep a permanent, complete record of every singly posting and comment that appears on all blogs – no matter that it cost millions.

That way – the state will have a readily accessible record – to which the authorities – and serial-killers, child-rapists – and those who have concealed their crimes – can turn – to see who has said what about them – and then pay them a visit.

And just to make doubly sure we safeguard against democracy – we must provision unemployable (through no fault of their own, obviously – it’s the stress) civil servants, with many millions of pounds of tax payers money – to fund defamation actions on civil servant’s behalf against politicians who dare criticise them.

That – and introducing new rules to enable the suspension or expulsion of any elected member who calls a lying, dangerous civil servant – a lying dangerous civil servant.

How much of that do you think I’ve made up?

It’s parody, right?


A gross exaggeration?



Most of the core issues – and policy responses I describe above – are there – for real – in Chapman’s report.

I’ll provide readers with a few examples later.

But before doing so – let’s just encapsulate what the report’s all about.

You see, for many, many decades – centuries even – the notion of accountability and checks and balances – was simply non-existent in Jersey.

A few of us have striven to change that – and we’ve been helped by the tide of history.

The Jersey oligarchy’s media monopoly has waned – and its demise has been massively accelerated by the advent of citizen media.

So suddenly, the traditional suppression and control methods of the Jersey establishment stopped working – and the oligarchy – in a frankly pitiful lather of panic and fear – have been thrashing around with increasing desperation to find alternative means of controlling everything.

They’ve crippled democracy by the misapplication of rules in the legislature.

They’ve introduced draconian and readily abusable data protection laws – with no countervailing freedom of information law.

They’ve oppressed elected Ministers – quite illegally.

They’ve harassed dissidents.

They’ve tried to introduce an amendment to the data protection law that even Mussolini would have been embarrassed by.

They’ve misused the police force to arrest opposition politicians and search their homes – without a search warrant.

And when the politician being prosecuted has destroyed the prosecution case – they attempt to solve this problem – simply by having his defence case deemed “inadmissible” – at the 11th hour.

But – at least with one of our politicians – me – all this has failed; failed utterly.

So now we have the latest desperate attempt – the latest act of totalitarian lunacy and extremism – from a grouping of people who just can’t face the fact – It Is Over.

The Chapman report.

Before picking through some choice quotes from the report – let’s cut to the chase – and use it – and other facts and events – to quickly and very easily– prove I have been right – and these clowns have been wrong.

It’s very, very easy.

The Chapman report – which was commissioned with the sole purpose of oppressing me – and protecting child abusers and those who have concealed them – quotes some of the – supposedly – “bullying and harassing” observations from my blog postings.

Let’s consider a couple of those quotes.

Here Chapman refers to my observations on his commission, and quotes from one of my blog entries: –

“He attempts to misrepresent the investigation as a ‘horrifying attempt to crush democratic public control – to intimidate, harass and silence your elected representatives’ and ‘fix another layer of armour-plating over the bloated collection of expensive, unethical and incompetent shysters that cost you millions each year.’

Well – the only two words I would take issue with in that paragraph are “attempts” and “misrepresent”.

The investigation was, in fact – quite plainly – “a horrifying attempt to crush democratic public control – to intimidate, harass and silence your elected representatives’ and ‘fix another layer of armour-plating over the bloated collection of expensive, unethical and incompetent shysters that cost you millions each year.”

Don’t believe me?

Just read the resultant Chapman report.


But – I digress.

You want to know how right I am?

You want to see the truth starkly illustrated?


Chapman, referring to one of my blog postings – at paragraph 6.5 of his report – says this of me: –

“In the body of the blog he describes the Chief Executive of Health and Social Services as a ‘lying, lazy, incompetent ethically bankrupt shyster who conceals child abuse’. Senior civil servants are dismissed as ‘poor, maligned, benighted, moronic slackers.’

All entirely fair comment. Indeed – it’s another proud achievement of mine – to see such unusually true words in a States of Jersey report.

However – to take a few steps back into the Chapman report – and examine its genesis – and ask the question, ‘who was involved in its beginnings and the driving of this exercise?’

Let’s quote that earlier part of Chapman’s report:

“3.1. On 15 May 2009 the Health and Safety Inspectorate of the States of Jersey wrote to Mr M Pinel, Head of Employee Relations advising him that further to a meeting that had taken place with Mr Pinel and Mrs J Pollard, Assistant Director-Human Resources, it had come to the attention of the Inspectorate that the States Employment Board (the SEB) was not doing enough to protect its employees in the workplace.”

Did you spot that?

“And Mrs J. Pollard”, Assistant Director – Human Resources” (who is, incidentally, applying for an essential employee designation – even though there are dozens of decent local civil servants who could do the job far more effectively and ethically.)

“Mrs. J. Pollard”.

Now – do we remember the Chief Executive of Health & Social Services – who I described as – “a lying, lazy, incompetent ethically bankrupt shyster who conceals child abuse”?

That being a Mr. M. Pollard.

Husband of Mrs. J. Pollard.

Mike Pollard – husband of the Jane Pollard – who has mobilised the entire might of the States – and vast sums of your tax-money – to oppress your politicians – who speak the truth about clowns like her husband.

Great, Eh?

And Christopher Chapman would have you believe that all is fine and dandy with accountability in Jersey’s civil service – and if only one used the “correct mechanisms” – and made a formal complaint – Mrs Jane Pollard – would have sacked her husband – Mr. Mike Pollard.

Well – the “correct mechanisms” didn’t work – but a great deal of belligerent, aggressive and challenging scrutiny did.

Which is why – the Mike Pollard – that – according to Chapman – I so unreasonably maligned, but who must be a fine chap – has been sacked.


By the States of Jersey!

How bad do things have to be?

This bad: he and a number of his colleagues – who are still in post – like Richard Joualt, Michala Clifford and Richard Lane – engaged in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice concerning what was – unambiguously – a corporate manslaughter.

In truth – they all should go. But even Mike Pollard would have survived – if politicians like me and Bob Hill had not subjected the soi disant “independent investigation” to very heavy scrutiny.

The fact we did – and the organisation has had to go some way towards producing the goods – as opposed to a complete whitewash – is what saw the end of Mike Pollard.

So – to Chapman’s quote of my earlier reference to Mike Pollard – we can now also add – incompetent, dissembling, justice-perverting, manslaughter-concealing crook.

Err – that’s in addition to the child-abuse concealing.

Want examples – to re-enforce my earlier quote – so kindly reproduced by Chapman?

Read my two blog postings – both of Wednesday 9th April 2008.

They are titled:

“Child Abuse in Jersey, # 1 & # 2

And Why it Persists:

Mike Pollard: a Case Study.”

Chapman – and those who pay him – with your taxes – believe – apparently – that democratically accountable politicians shouldn’t hold these lying, self-serving clowns and grifters to account.

Maybe you agree with them?

If so – good luck.

Jane Pollard failed in her Chapman-aided efforts to save her husband – Mike Pollard’s – job.

I was right.

He was a dangerous clown.

Chapman was wrong.

Even the States have had to sack Pollard.

Was I right – or was I right?

Chapman’s position is absurd and broken – and literally incredible – even on it own terms.

But – what of the rest of the toxic nonsense in his report?

Perhaps we’ll take a detailed look at it during the next week or so – and the Jersey media’s – predictable – response to it.

But there are some key features of the Chapman report that deserve attention immediately. For example, the introduction.

“1.1. The States of Jersey Employment Board was advised in May 2009 that correspondence dated 15 May 2009 had been received from the Health and Safety Inspectorate on 18th May 2009, in which the Inspectorate had notified the Board –

(a) that it had received information that led it to conclude that the Board was taking insufficient action to support employees who were suffering harassment and associated stress in the course of their duties; and, that as a consequence the Board might be failing to discharge its duties under Article 3 of the Health and safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989;

(b) that the Inspectorate had concluded that the Board should take active steps in early course to assess the scale of the problem affecting its employees in order that steps to manage the problem could be identified and implemented effectively;

1.2. The Board resolved to appoint an independent person to carry out an Inquiry with the following original terms of reference –

(a) to consider the extent of alleged staff harassment by a local States Senator and the effect this is having on the personal health and welfare of the staff affected and their ability to perform their jobs competently;

(b) to consider the means through which the alleged harassment is perpetrated;

(c) to determine the effect this is having on the general culture, work environment and the self-confidence of staff other than the alleged victims; and,

(d) to make recommendations to the States Employment Board on how best to arrange for the alleged harassment to be addressed.”

There are several striking features of this introduction. For example – the stark manner in which it proceeds – simply as though it were a given fact – that the Employment Board and the Health & Safety Executive, possess the locus to intervene in the political realm – and usurp the voting public – and dictate to your elected representatives, what criticisms they can – or cannot say – on your behalf.

If a democratically elected representative is not speaking and acting in a manner that is acceptable to people – the answer lays in the ballot-box.

It’s called democracy.

It’s what we fought World War II for.

Our grandparents did not fight and die in order to allow a self-serving – and frequently dangerous and incompetent – tail – to wag the dog.

But – by far the most telling and revealing phrase in that introduction – a phrase that must make any decent, thinking person wretch – are the words “the alleged victims”.

These being the “alleged victims” of my supposed “bullying”; the immensely well-paid – armour-plated civil servants – who can call upon Jersey’s Council of Ministers and tax-payers money to defend themselves with nonsense like Chris Chapman’s report.

But – what about THE VICTIMS?

Boys who were savagely battered?

Orphans who were held down whilst States of Jersey employees poured Dettol down their throats?

How about little girls – orphans – being made to masturbate States of Jersey employees?

What about the senior civil servants who concealed those monstrous crimes?

What about those frail elderly vulnerable people – who were murdered by nurse M – whose crimes were then covered up by senior civil servants and Law Officers?

Teenage boys – who were savagely battered whilst in Les Chenne? Who are the greater victims – those children – or the men who battered them – and who went on to become the Chief Executives of the education department?

What of my acquaintance “Paul” – who was so terrified of speaking about the abuse he suffered – having never told anyone else – he had to arrange a late night assignation to meet me in a back-ally – in the pouring rain – around 2.00 am one Monday morning – where – after bluntly explaining to me how he had – as a pre-teenage boy – been sodomised during a three year period by States employees – then spent 10 minutes crying on my shoulder?

I was going to – now – write some further, detailed analysis of Chapman’s report – it certainly isn’t challenging from an intellectual perspective – but I can’t, not now – because it’s just too much emotionally.

Thinking again about those poor children upsets me.

It always does.

Which is where my rage – my anger comes from.

I’ll have regained my strength – and will give the report the savaging it so well deserves – tomorrow perhaps.

I have to be a bare-knuckle street-fighter when it comes to politics.

I have to have a will of steel. Because no one else will do it.

No-one – apart from my partner and a few close friends and allies – my constituents – and my cats – looks out for my welfare – for my well being.

No massive bureaucracy – funded with millions of tax-payers money – stands ready to defend me – to protect me from what are corrupted and criminal oppressions.

I have to live with what I have learnt – though it enrages and upsets me.

And attempting to fight for justice simply brings down upon my head the entire might of the oligarchy.

But – tomorrow morning – I’ll be fighting on.

I’ll just be getting on with it.

Just as should 98% of decent civil servants – instead of allowing their numbers to be used to defend a handful of Godforsaken wretched crooks who are a stain upon the good name of public service.





Jersey’s Data Protection Law:

Just Who Is It “Protecting”?

Panic, Fear and Errors of Judgment

By a Regime Nearing The End.

Some people who read this blog just can’t help but feel I exaggerate in my description of the ruling power claque in Jersey as an ‘oligarchy’.

People in Jersey – and from around the world – sometimes e-mail me and write to the effect, ‘look, we know that political establishments tend to rot – and very much more so when they’ve been in power for such a long time – and especially, without opposition or scrutiny – as in Jersey. But can things really be as bad as you suggest? Can there really be no functioning checks and balances? Can your ruling oligarchy really be so corrupt that they will conceal major crimes – and use and abuse laws – and, basically, stop at nothing to retain power?’

The answer is, of course, ‘yes’.

But I can understand the sheer disbelief that decent people experience when contemplating the conduct of the Jersey oligarchy.

It has always embodied the arrogance and hubris that any establishment will develop after experiencing decades of omnipotence and invulnerability.

But during the last few years – other factors have fuelled and driven the Jersey gang; driven them on to even greater displays of madness.

Fear and panic. A growing realisation that the tide of history has caught up with them – and that, inevitably now – there is going to be a reckoning.

And they know that the final product of that reckoning – perhaps in five years time – may well mean a number of Jersey oligarchy politicians, members of the judiciary, certain police officers and senior civil servants – finding themselves behind bars at Jersey’s La Moye Prison.

Rampant corruption; too many examples of conspiracies to pervert the course of justice to be easily counted; misconduct in a public office as the standard practice; in certain cases, child abuse.

Suddenly – after over 800 years of an entrenched invulnerability – that not even the Nazis dented – The End is approaching.

And a terrifying and terrible end it will be for some of these oligarchs.

Multi-millionaire posturing clowns in fancy-dress – with all the trappings of the state – high social status and luxurious lives – spending their old-age in jail.

It is a destiny they will stop at nothing in an attempt to avoid.

And when such fear and panic grips people – their judgment deserts them.

They begin to make wholly irrational, disastrous and crazed errors.

Which is why we see so many examples of scarcely believable, extreme and lunatic conduct on the part of the Jersey oligarchy.

For example: –

Attempting such a major cover-up of the Jersey child abuse disaster – even though hundreds of people – survivors, witnesses, families, whistle-blowers – and two-thirds of the police force – know of the abusers – and the cases against them?

Senior civil servants being protected in perverting justice and criminally obstructing a Minister in carrying out his statutory duties?

Manipulating and forging e-mails – as part of a lying spin-campaign designed to manipulate the national media?

Being an organisation under serious criminal investigation for decades of concealed child abuse – and attempting to solve this ‘problem’ – through the lunatic action of simply suspending the Jersey Police Chief?

Using the Chief civil servant to participate in the suspension of the Police Chief – with the civil servant then destroying the contemporaneous notes – and proceeding to lie – a fact now proven – about the suspension procedure ever since?

Engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to conceal a corporate manslaughter at Jersey’s hospital?

Using the police to mount unlawful, banana-republic type surveillance and raids on opposition members of the island’s parliament – locking them up – and turning over their home – without a search warrant?

Attempting to conceal the fact that the oligarchy failed to prosecute a mass-murderer in 1999 – because it would have been bad for the establishment’s image to have made public the crime of killing at least thirteen people in the hospital.

Prosecuting an opposition politician for having exposed this fact – and then – embarking upon the Kafkaesque action of having his entire defence case deemed “inadmissible” – at the 11th hour – just as soon as it’s realised the prosecution has no answer to it?

All recent examples of the conduct of the Jersey oligarchy.

Catastrophic errors of judgement – one and all.

When we contemplate such things – what we are witnessing is the last, desperate, irrational, terror-driven thrashings of an animal in its death-throes.

And those are only a few examples.

There are many others.

And the disastrous mistakes just keep coming.

Which brings me to the proposed amendment to Jersey’s data protection law.

There has been some discussion in the comments under my last posting of the proposed amendment.

When this amendment was issued some time ago, I briefly skimmed it, and recognised instantly just what a toxic, anti-democratic – and, frankly unlawful – piece of legislation it was.

But – I confess – had it not been for my recent experiences – I probably wouldn’t have recognised it.

When you’re a member of a legislature, dealing with hundreds of thousands of pages of reports, policies and legislation in the course of a year – it isn’t humanly possible for each member to microscopically examine every single page.

What tends to happen is that certain members take a certain specialised interest in specific areas of policy, and focus on those, knowing that other members will be working on the other subjects.

Whilst I try to take in a broad range of policy areas, and do try to specialise in certain subjects, such as the environment, taxation, economic policy – and child protection – I had not – until the last couple of years or so – taken a close interest in the data protection law.

Oh, certainly, I had read it, was aware of its purposes, and understood the generality of it. But I couldn’t have quoted specific passages of the actual legislation.

It wasn’t until around the spring and early summer of 2007 that I began to take a closer interest in the law.

I did so – because that was the time I was uncovering much of the child abuse disaster – and attendant child protection failures – and had begun writing some blunt e-mails to civil servants – demanding to know what the bloody hell they thought they were being paid for?

It was at this point that Emma Martins – Jersey’s data protection commissioner – began the campaign of harassment and intimidation against me on behalf of her fellow senior public sector employees.

Suddenly – every single e-mail I wrote to the senior staff in my department was examined microscopically for any potential inadvertent ‘breaches’ of the data protection law; I began to get threatening letters from her; she was determined to help them – and her very good friend Bill Bailhache – to conceal the historic child abuses – and in particular, certain current gross child protection failures.

For example, in one case, warning sign – after warning sign – that a child was suffering grotesque sexual abuse – had been missed – for month after month – before the abuse had finally been recognised and the abusers arrested.

I was so angry at this I demanded a special case review. The resultant report revealed a catalogue of systemic failure in the island’s child protection apparatus. I responded to the staff in question with an e-mail expressing my profound anger at the failure.

But of those staff – one of them, shouldn’t have received my reference to the case.

As far as Emma Martins, Bill Bailhache and most of the senior staff at Social Services were concerned – bingo!

This was all the ammunition they needed.

What would, in the UK, have been a scandal of national noteworthiness – months and months of failures on the part of various staff to see the warning signs of abuse under their noses – and would have been on the front of the newspapers – and would have ended careers – could now safely be buried – under the – obviously – far more important story. ‘Syvret breaks data protection law!’

Emma Martins ensured that her report into the supposed breach of the data protection law was in the hands of the Jersey Evening Post – and published – before I was even aware of its completion. That – you see – fitted in very well with the oligarchy spin-campaign.

The story duly appeared – across two pages of The Rag, as I recollect – in a story very carefully crafted to convey as little as possible – other than “the message” – Syvret breaks data protection law.

And what is fascinating about that episode is just how easy it is for those in power to manipulate public opinion. At the time, the average Jersey person had no understanding at all of what the supposed breach of the law was – just that it must have been something really really terrible and dreadful on my part – because The Rag made a huge story of it – and that nice Ms. Martins said so – and after all, she is the daughter of Bergerac actor John Nettles – so it must be true.

So what was this dreadful crime?

In e-mailing a number of staff – demanding answers in respect of their gross failures to protect the child from months of appalling abuse – I inadvertently included one staff recipient – who technically shouldn’t have been copied-in. One of the child’s teachers, as I recollect.

I have to say, it was a remarkably successful example of opinion management by Martins, the civil servants, The Rag, Bailhache and the rest of the oligarchy.

On the basis of the facts – what would the average member of the public be more concerned about?

The fact that I accidentally sent an e-mail to someone I shouldn’t have – in the course of doing my job?

Or – a number of very highly paid “professionals” – employed at vast public expense – for their supposed expertise in child protection – failing to spot many, many obvious signs of abuse – and thus causing the child to suffer months more of abuse that could have been avoided – had the “professionals” done their jobs, even vaguely competently?

I think we can safely conclude decent people would be far more angry about the latter – if only they knew the facts. No danger of that occurring – in Jersey.

So – at that point I began to take a closer interest in the data protection law. And I needed to – because the episode I describe above wasn’t the last of the matter.

Martins from that day to this – at the behest of her friend Barking Bill – has persisted in harassing me on supposed data protection grounds – in ways she has not done to any other States member.

For example, one of the charges I face is not being ‘notified’ under the data protection law?

There are 53 elected States members.

According to the most recent figures disclosed to me – I am only 1 – of 24 – elected States members to not be registered under the law.

So that’s 24 supposed criminals – out of the 53 elected members.

I’m not giving prizes for answering the next question, OK?

Of those 24 – how many of them have been subjected to continuous harassment by Emma Martins and Bill Bailhache?

How many have been arrested, charged and are being prosecuted?

That’s right.



It’s actually even better than that. So far – I’ve only referred to the elected members. What about those members of the assembly who aren’t elected – for example, the Bailiff, maybe?

You’ll like this; quite splendidly – amongst the miscreants is no less a figure than Mick Birt – who isn’t data protection notified.

I trust the ten-strong police raiding-squad will be around at chez Birt tomorrow morning.

So – readers will understand that I have taken a special interest in the data protection law.

Which is why, when I opened the envelope containing the latest propositions for debate – and saw an amendment to the data protection law – I seized upon it – frankly, knowing already that whatever it intended – it certainly wasn’t going to be good.

What I read in the ‘Draft Data Protection (Amendment no. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-‘ was so monstrous I was almost surprised.

I’ll quote the relevant parts of P.147 below this posting, but it’s worth taking a close look at some of the text.

This is how the relevant part of the amendment is described: –

“A provision to provide the Commissioner with powers to serve information notices on other relevant persons in addition to data controllers and processors.”

Let me just try and explain what that means in plain English.

It means that if Emma Martins decides to investigate if you possess any information that might be embarrassing, problematic or damaging to the government – or someone like Bill Bailhache asks her to – she can serve a notice on you – demanding you reveal any information that might be relevant to her ‘investigation’ – even if you are simply an ordinary member of the public – who has never had any kind of official involvement in handling data in your life.

And if you have such a notice served on you – and you don’t comply with it – then you could be subjected to the same treatment I received.

That being – you step outside of your front door one morning.

You are greeted by a squad of ten cops – who then arrest you under Article 29 of the Police Procedures & Criminal Evidence Law. (the Jersey equivalent of PACE.)

They then take you under arrest to the police station – and lock you into a tiny windowless police cell for the best part of seven and a half hours.

Having relied upon Article 29 of the PPCE Law – the police then search your entire property – from top to bottom throughout the day – including children’s bedrooms and their computers.

They take your computer and copy its hard-drive – and they take and copy every singly paper document you have in the house.

Hands up anyone who considers such power to be compatible with a free society and functioning democracy?

Here is the fuller official explanatory note from P.147: –

“Article 2 amends Article 43 of the principal Law by expanding the category of persons from whom the Data Protection Commissioner (“Commissioner”) can require information for an investigation whether data processing is being carried out in accordance with the data protection principles or otherwise in accordance with theprincipal Law. Currently Article 43 allows the Commissioner to serve notice requiring such information only on the “relevant data controller” (or data processor acting on behalf of the data controller). The amendment allows the Commissioner to serve notice on any person provided that the Commissioner regards the information sought as being relevant to the investigation and reasonably believes that the recipient of the notice has such information. The Commissioner is required to give reasons in the notice for thinking that the information sought is relevant.”

Just let me draw your attention to this passage: –

“The amendment allows the Commissioner to serve notice on any person…”

“Any person”.

That’s you – you grandchild – your sister – your mother – your son – your frail and elderly aunt in the residential home (assuming Nurse M hasn’t got there first) – journalists – and, of course – your politicians.

Many States members – not just me – get leaked public interest information; information that we then use in the island’s parliament to ask awkward questions – and to keep departments and their Ministers on their toes.

Holding the executive to account in this way is fundamental to the job of a politician and to functioning democracy. And doing so is often profoundly embarrassing to the powers that be.

But some kind of catch-all, Stalinistic power to intimidate, harass and threaten ordinary people who my have come across some information which shows wrong-doing on the part of the government – would, of course, bring a halt to effective opposition.

Which – when we get down to brass tacks – is the purpose and motivation behind this amendment.

And don’t imagine – for one instant – that the caveats and exemptions in the law and the amendment would be effective safeguards.

As long as Ms Martins “reasonably believes” – perhaps because Bill Bailhache has told her so – that you possess some data – and that she or her paymasters want to “investigate” the matter – she can serve a disclosure notice on you, in which she will give some general, catch-all grounds for her belief that you possess the information she seeks.

You will then have to disclose any such information in your possession – or – face the consequences.

Those consequences are described in the main body of the law – but can, more easily, be understood by looking at my experience.

But, surely, there are safeguards in the law – exemptions which would prevent such Stalinistic conduct?

There are words – on the page – and they may as well be railway bridge graffiti for all the substance they possess.

For example – handling information for the purposes of journalism is supposed to be protected.

Not – apparently – in my case.

Likewise – there is a very clear and unambiguous exemption which protects the handling and releasing of information for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime.

Has that protected me from covert surveillance, unlawful arrest – and prosecution – for exposing a serial killer?

Not even close.

In fact – so meaningless are the mere words with which laws are written – as far as the Jersey oligarchy is concerned – I can’t even run a public interest disclosure defence based on the detection and prevention of crime exemption.

I don’t mean the court might decide to reject such a defence – I mean – I can’t even use it – in the first place.

Because – you see – my public interest disclosure defence is watertight and overwhelming.

They have lost. I have won. Game-over. End of.

Or – at least it would be – if the “safeguards in the law” that are supposed to reassure you – meant anything at all.

And just to conclude with another stark illustration of just how much reliance you can place upon what the States of Jersey says in its legislation – consider this.

Each law has to come with a signed statement from the relevant Minister, to the effect that the legislation he or she is proposing is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now incorporated into local law.

And – here is that statement – as found in P.147: –

“European Convention on Human Rights

In accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 the Minister for Treasury and Resources has made the following statement –

In the view of the Minister for Treasury and Resources the provisions of the Draft Data Protection (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- are compatible with the Convention Rights.

(Signed) Senator P.F.C. Ozouf”

So – according to Senator Ozouf – and those who have advised him – the provisions of P.147 are fully compliant with human rights requirements.

How close does P.147 get to meeting the requirements of the ECHR?

It’s not even in the same solar-system.

One of the fundamental, rock-solid principles of the European Convention on Human Rights – that runs through, and underpins the entire convention – is the concept of “proportionality”.

This principle indicates that it is accepted in the convention that governments have to pursue policies, introduce laws – and enforce those laws – in ways in which will, sometimes, conflict with a person’s rights.

The gold-standard test of whether a government or other public authority has gone too far – and has breached a person’s rights – is that test of proportionality.

It is not – even remotely – “proportional” for a government to seek to introduce a catch-all, Stalinistic power that equips the government to demand to know what knowledge or information ordinary, private citizens may possess.

It is true that there will be occasions when an authority will have a “legitimate purpose” in seeking to discover information in possession of individuals – for example, information relevant to criminal activities, perhaps.

But if so – there are already extant, focused laws that deal with such circumstances.

This attempted amendment to Jersey’s data protection law is so misguided – and, frankly unlawful – it can’t be viewed as anything other than yet another catastrophic error of judgment.

An extreme act of folly by a failed regime – desperate to intimidate people into not holding information which exposes the oligarchy’s wrongdoings.

The consequences of panic by the inadequates of the Jersey oligarchy – who are impotently raging against the dying of the light.


Excerpt from P.147 – amendment to Jersey’s data protection law.


Lodged au Greffe on 16th September 2009 by the Minister for Treasury and Resources

Article 43 amended

In Article 43 of the principal Law –

(a) for paragraphs (1) and (2) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs –

“(1) If the Commissioner –

(a) has received a request under Article 42 in respect of any processing of personal data; or

(b) reasonably requires any information for the purpose of determining whether a data controller has complied, or is complying, with the data protection principles, the Commissioner may serve notice on any person requiring that person to furnish to the Commissioner, in a specified form (if any)and within a specified period, specified information relating to the request or to compliance with the principles.

(2) An information notice shall contain –

(a) in the case referred to in paragraph (1) (a), a statement –

(i) that the Commissioner has received a request under Article 42 in relation to the processing,

(ii) that the Commissioner regards the specified information as relevant for the purpose of determining whether any processing (whether or not carried out by the person on whom the notice is served) has been or is being carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Law and the Commissioner’s reasons for regarding the specified information as being so relevant, and

(iii) that the Commissioner reasonably believes that the recipient of the notice has the specified information;


(b) in the case referred to in paragraph (1) (b), a statement –

(i) that the Commissioner regards the specified information as relevant for the purpose of determining whether a data controller (whether or not the person on whom the notice is served) has complied or is complying with the data protection principles and the Commissioner’s reasons for regarding it as so relevant, and

(ii) that the Commissioner reasonably believes that the recipient of the notice has the specified information.”;

(b) for paragraph (11) there shall be substituted the following paragraph –

“(11) Nothing in paragraph (1) prevents the Commissioner from serving notices under that paragraph on more than one person, including on both a data controller and a data processor.”.





Top-Secret Minutes

From Operation

“Salvage Mick Birt’s Knighthood”!

In yet another amazing example of fearless and public-spirited ingenuity on the part of my moles, the Quite Vile Blog has been able to obtain the detailed minutes from a meeting of the Gold Command Group, who are leading and co-ordinating the Jersey oligarchy’s strategy to destroy me – and thus salvage Michael Birt’s Knighthood.

But – before we examine a section of this unique and fascinating insight into the innermost workings of the Jersey oligarchy and their ‘Friends at Court at Whitehall’ – notice of some forthcoming postings.

As remarked in a comment, I had deliberately not written about the States debate on the question of whether to establish a Public Inquiry into the management of the Health & Social Services Department. I took the view we would just wait – and see.

Sure enough – the proposal was rejected.

A result so immoral and imbecilic, that you’d have had a hard time getting a room full of Palermo Councillors to support it – even if each of them was blindfolded, handcuffed, and had a Beretta to the side of their heads.

So – later in this coming week, hopefully – after the Hansard of the debate is fully available – we’ll be taking a very – very – close look at this latest act of self-inflicted disrepute by the States of Jersey.

Also – when time permits, I’m writing a letter to the Jersey Evening Post in response to the predictable mish-mash of disinformation, diversion, lacunae and lies we have so come to expect from Jersey’s only “newspaper” – The Rag.

They won’t print it of course – so in due course – it will be posted here.

Further – in the course of preparing the legal papers for serving upon the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, I’m obviously writing a detailed account of my case, the facts involved, how and why things have reached this state of affairs – and the various gross abuses of the policing and judicial procedures we see being engaged in by the Jersey oligarchy.

As readers have asked for a straight, and easily understandable description of the situation – because people aren’t getting such facts from any of the Jersey media – I will abstract the key points from the legal case, and post it as a guide to the situation.

I guess, that will be around next week some time.

But – before then – contemplate the very latest exclusive scoop from the Channel Islands’ leading news source!

You know – I know – we all know – none of the Channels Islands’ traditional media – especially BBC Jersey – would report any of this material; real news and dynamite scoops not, apparently, being of interest to Jersey news editors.

So here – in yet another apocalyptic exclusive for the Quite Vile Blog – I reproduce the first few items from the leaked minutes.

There is simply too much of it to publish in one go, so during the next week, readers will be able to ponder the remaining sections.

But – to be going on with – here is Part 1 of our exclusive.







Present: –

William Bailhache. (WB)
Michael Birt. (MB)
Sir Philip Bailhache. (PB)
David Warcup. (DW)
Dave Minty. (DM)
Mick Gradwell. (MG) (By video link)
Emma Martins. (EM)
Bill Ogley. (BO)
Cathy Kier (CK)
Terry Le Sueur. (TLS) (attending on Behalf of Chief Minister Senator Ozouf)
Bridget Shaw. (BS)
Stephen Baker. (SB)
Lieutenant Governor. (LG)
Agent X: Ex Cathedra. (AXE) from the Department of Justice, representing the “Friends at Court at Whitehall”. (FACAWs)

Items Discussed:

1: Signing of minutes.

2: Consideration of mission statement.

3: Status up-date.

4: Team-OSMBK discussion and assessment.

5: View of the FACAWs.

6: The ‘Syvret’ issue.

7: Opinion management up-date and discussion.

8: Strategic assessment of options.

9: Budgetary considerations.

10: Fix date of next meeting.

1: The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a correct record, and duly signed by William Bailhache (WB).

2: Consideration of mission statement.

William Bailhache (WB) began by reminding members of Team-Operation Salvage Mick Birt’s Knighthood (OSMBK) that the exercise had grown out of the Program for Limiting Effective Plebeians (PLEBs) which had been initiated by several of the current members of OSMBK, following Syvret’s success in the 2005 general election.

WB stated that the present exercise constituted the third attempt to oppress Syvret since PLEBs had been initiated. The first attempt to neutralise Syvret followed his writing of a satirical open letter. However, that attempt had been abandoned when it was realised most members of the public regarded the letter as an accurate and amusing depiction of power in Jersey.

The second attempt had proven more effective, in that it did succeed in removing Syvret from Ministerial Office, but this had only been viable because Syvret had been foolish enough to discover that the senior management of his department had very badly failed in respect of child protection. Obviously, this serious tactical error on Syvret’s part, of expecting them to be carrying out their jobs effectively, resulted in the entire top-tier of the island’s civil service uniting against him.

WB continued, however this was only a partial success as Syvret continued to be a significant threat to the oligarchy’s hegemony, and, in particular his activities were making it extremely difficult to maintain the Culture of Concealment, with particular regard to the child abuse.

WB reminded those present that Team-OSMBK had been formed when events took on an altogether more serious and urgent nature. This had occurred when Syvret had published on his blog, in March of this year, a 1999 police report he had obtained.

The report revealed that a male nurse appeared to have murdered 13 frail elderly people during a two-month period on Corbiere ward of the hospital, during 1999. The investigation had not been effectively pursued, for the customary reason, and it had been felt at the time there was no need to inform the relatives of the deceased of the strong likelihood their loved ones had been murdered.

However, whilst somewhat embarrassing, by far the most significant and problematic aspect of Syvret’s publication was that it suggested that the then Attorney General, Michael Birt (MB) was, in some way, accountable for the discontinuation of the murder investigation.

The custom and practice of traditional Jersey oligarchy Attorneys General had always been to minimise prosecutions for serious crimes, when such prosecutions would be damaging, or in some other way, problematic, for the establishment. MB had, when Attorney General, followed this standard procedure.

However, MB had had the misfortune to have had at least four of his “not in the public interest” non-prosecution decisions resurrected; co-incidentally, all by Syvret.

The four non-prosecutions in question being: –

(a) Not prosecuting the States of Jersey for the criminal act of dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly toxic municipal incinerator ash into the sea-porous land reclamation sites around St. Heller.

(b) Abandoning the prosecution of Jane and Alan McGuire, even though they had spent over a decade committing monstrous acts of child abuse against orphans.

(c ) Not prosecuting Jack Hydes, Frances Hamon, John Le Breton and Piers Baker for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and for concealing child abuse.

(d) Not prosecuting nurse M for multiple prima facie counts of murder against frail, elderly people. This case appeared particularly problematic for MB, given he had played a role in the group decision made on the 20th May, 1999, to the effect that the families of the relevant patients wouldn’t be told or interviewed in phase 1 of the investigation. It was also recognised as especially problematic for MB that, although Nurse M had been remanded in custody for a number of other, serious charges, MB, as Attorney General had decided to not oppose bail, so Nurse M was released from custody, two days after the launch of an investigation, based upon powerful prima facie evidence, that Nurse M was, in fact, a serial-killer.

WB informed the meeting that whilst tremendous latitude was given in such matters by the Friends at Court at Whitehall (FACAWs), it had been felt that the customary and automatic granting of a Knighthood to MB may be hampered somewhat by such ‘clouds of controversy’ hanging over him.

Whilst no indication had been given that this problem would influence the conferring of the Knighthood, it had been agreed that it was better to be certain, and thus seek to exculpate MB before Christmas 2009.

It had, of course, been recognised that the salvaging of MB’s knighthood had a double advantage in that it would also produce, as a consequence, another opportunity give effect to the objectives of Operation PLEBs, namely destroying Syvret.

There had, therefore, been complete unanimity that OSMBK would be launched.

WB concluded that, although an all-out attempt to eliminate Syvret involving all arms of the state had been initiated, it was still proving surprisingly difficult to bring the exercise to a successful conclusion.

WB invited acting Chief of Police, David Warcup to provide the status up-date.

3: Status Up-date by DW.

David Warcup (DW) informed the meeting that Operation Salvage Mick Birt’s Knighthood (OSMBK) had suffered a serious set-back since the previous meeting.

He stated that Syvret had escaped from Jersey on Monday the 19th October, and that the escape had been effected two days before the pivotal judicio-prosecutory manoeuvre – namely the ruling that Syvret’s entire defence case – previously accepted as admissible for the preceding three months – be now deemed inadmissible.

This action – simply ruling the entire defence case inadmissible – would have secured a conviction for the Establishment.

However, Syvret had recognised this tactic, and had fled to London.

DW offered the assessment that SB and BS had, perhaps, revealed too much of the hand during the last directions hearing Syvret attended.

BS responded to this by saying no blame could be attached to her as she simply followed the instructions of SB, as the transcripts show, and asked why the police had not prevented Syvret from escaping?

DW responded, saying that, as has been previously noted by the group, Syvret was under 24 hour-a-day surveillance, and although MG was no longer based in Jersey, Mark Cane and Julia Jackson continued to oversee the monitoring of Syvret.

However, there were limits to what even DW and the SOJP could get away with. If Syvret had revealed any indication that he was leaving Jersey and not planning to return, the SOJP might have had some semblance of an excuse to arrest him at the airport.

But as Syvret had not discussed his plans via any electronic means of communication, and had purchased a return ticket for the Wednesday morning, effecting an arrest at attempted departure would have been legally problematic – even with the obviously available support from WB and MB.

DW continued, the SOJP had three non-uniformed officers present at the airport in connection with this operation, but that two of them were recognised by Syvret.

DW conceded that the actions of the officers – pointedly sitting at a table next to Syvret in the coffee shop in the departure hall, staring at him, and saying, “hello”, may not, with hindsight, have been an appropriate tactic, given it had long been plain that intimidation and other types of psychological warfare had zero affect on Syvret.

AXE agreed with this last observation, and said some serious thought would have to given to this subject when Team-OSMBK reached agenda item No. 6.

DW continued. Notwithstanding this encounter, CID in co-operation with Customs – were able to delay the flight departure for one hour, thus enabling a comprehensive search of Syvret’s hold baggage. It had been expected to reveal two lever-arch files containing copies of the 1999 evidence disclosed to Syvret. Though Syvret would have had a legitimate purpose in taking the evidence out of the island in connection with obtaining legal advice, it would, nevertheless, have furnished OSMBK with sufficient excuse to arrest on grounds that the spin-doctors could have then peddled as legitimate.

However, no such material was found in Syvret’s baggage, thus disposing of the last opportunity to effect arrest.

The standard fall-back procedure of planting a quantity of cocaine in his bag was considered, as would be expected, but it was felt that this might be too implausible, notwithstanding the ‘Special Latitude’ applying to OSMBK.

However, a further profound problem was revealed later that morning via surveillance. After Syvret’s departure, it became clear he had electronically scanned every single page of the disclosed evidence, and, before departing for the airport, had e-mailed the resultant quantity of PDFs to several secure e-mail addresses, to which only he has access.

DW accepted that the resultant loss of control of the data could well be a fatal turn of events for OSMBK. It was now recognised the 1999 evidence destroys the prosecution case against Syvret and secures a watertight public interest disclosure defence. But worse, in respect of the objectives of OSMBK, the evidence demonstrates a criminal investigation failure even greater than Syvret had previously suggested.

DW accepted that the surveillance operation could have been more alert, and spotted the e-mailing of the PDFs before Syvret was able to escape, thus enabling his arrest.

However, DW remained strongly of the view that the SOJP could not always be expected to recover the serious errors of other agencies involved in OSMBK.

He pointed out that the terminal error had been committed by the prosecution in first agreeing that Syvret had a right to run a public interest disclosure defence. Had the prosecution not done so, the 1999 evidence would never have been disclosed to Syvret in the first place.

Not only would an ‘inadmissibility’ instruction to BS have kept this profoundly damaging evidence out of Syvret’s hands, it would also have protected the prosecution and the court from the immensely high-risk and unprecedented gamble of attempting to turn back time, and have the public interest disclosure defence deemed inadmissible, three months into proceedings.

SB intervened at this point, and reminded Team-OSMBK that permitting Syvret to run a public interest disclosure defence had been agreed by all, as it was felt important for cosmetic reasons that some kind of defence argument was available to him.

CK agreed with this view, stating that the credibility of the proceedings had already been difficult enough to maintain, given Syvret had been denied access to the vast majority of evidence he required as disclosures for his defence, prevented by the court from calling all but two of the witnesses he sought, and denied adjournments – even though he was self-representing and without legal advice.

CK continued, if, at an earlier stage, Syvret had been denied a public interest disclosure defence, the proceedings against him would have had no public credibility at all.

It was explained that whilst this was not a problem within the Jersey media, there were limits to what could be maintained at a national media level – even with the very substantial bribery slush-fund made available for use on certain freelance “journalists” by OSMBK.

CK also pointed out that whilst the manipulated and forged e-mails used against the Historic Child Abuse Investigation had been very effective, that strategy had become perilously close to being exposed at a national level, and may still be so.

DW concluded his status up-date by informing Team-OSMBK that he was not now certain how events would play out from a police force perspective. Obviously, had events been confined to Jersey, the policing element would have been able to act as predicted.

But now that the Met had been pre-emptively approached by Syvret, and MPs who were supporting him, and had agreed a single point of contact, and had indicated that no enactment of a ‘backed’ arrest warrant would be undertaken without due legal process, the chances of recovering the situation via customary policing interventions were now extremely limited.

WB accepted the status report, but expressed serious dissatisfaction at the turn of events.

He explained that the normal constraints on policing activity did not apply in Jersey, generally – and that in a “Special Latitude” case, such as this, the police would have been legally secure in respect of virtually any action they had taken against Syvret, short of machine-gunning him to death in the airport departure lounge.

However, WB continued, even that action may have been legally secure given that Syvret possessed a copy of The Guardian in his bag, and is a member of Greenpeace, thus justifying an ‘extreme prejudice’ anti-terrorism intervention.







10.30 ONWARDS.


Bill Bailhache’s Swearing-In

As Our Latest Unaccountable Feudal Baron.

Whilst it is difficult to know, with certainty, I would estimate that the great majority of decent people in Jersey do not like the ruling political establishment.

In fact, that’s probably another “offence” on the charge-sheet. A brazen breach of the Protection from Understatements (Jersey) Law October 2009.

People see incompetence, an absence of strategic thinking, a broadly very poor degree of senior management in the public sector – which frequently hinders, rather than helps, the front-line work force, ruination of our environment, increasing tax burdens on the less well-off and a States assembly in which the majority of members seem to lose all awareness of the public’s existence a week after the election.

In nearly all walks of island life – apart from a narrow grouping who find the status quo extremely beneficial – you come across dissatisfaction and exasperation with the States.

But here, our flimsy speculations founder upon the intellectual rock of the Jersey oligarchy.

‘What nonsense’ – our lords and masters say – ‘the great majority of people in Jersey are perfectly content with the political establishment. Why, if they were not, there would be political expression of that dissatisfaction. But look – a majority of the same type of States member gets returned at every election – and voter turn-outs are extremely low, less then 30% in some urban areas. That must be because people are broadly satisfied. If they weren’t – they’d turn out to vote.’

Whilst those of us familiar with Jersey know that around 85% of the population would not agree with that argument – we must concede, it possesses a certain crude logic.

We are, after all, a democracy; people could decide to try a different government, if they wanted. So why don’t they?

We never succeed in changing the Jersey government – because we are fragmented and divided.

We fail to see that certain issues which may anger us as individuals – inflation, job-insecurity, destruction of the environment, too much tax on the poor and not enough on the wealthy – and a hundred similar issues – are all symptoms of the same problem.

A shallow, short-termist and stagnant political environment which – for decades – has grown stupid and complacent through an absence of competition.

Some of us may protest to protect our coastline from over-development; some may protest at nurses not being paid a realistic salary; others protest to make the establishment deliver the Town Park; others still may protest at being taxed on basic food-stuffs; some will protest at the failures of our judicial system to protect abuse survivors and punish the guilty; many will protest against construction in the green zone – and any number of other causes.

What we are very poor at doing is recognising the interrelated nature of all such problems – and the need to unite to combat that which causes them – namely a failed, stagnant and unresponsive power-structure.

Which is why I hope a few people will come to the Royal Square at 10.30 – 12.30 this Monday morning – to take part in the public protest at the swearing-in of William – Barking Bill – Bailhache as Deputy Bailiff.

I could write at very great length indeed about this man’s many, many malfeasances.

I could also write at great length – cataloguing many of the monstrously brazen Political abuses he has made of his unelected position as Attorney General.

I could go into very well-documented examples of his various denials of justice to abuse survivors.

I could explain in considerable detail how this man is so, frankly, divorced from reality – to the point of being irrational – as to think it appropriate, desirable or sustainable to abuse his position and powers to engage in direct, calculated political oppression – of a kind that wouldn’t be out of place in the former East Germany.

I could point out his brazen breaking of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law – which is designed to protect your elected representatives from blackmail, menace, obstruction and threats.

I could refer to the fact that he – apparently – thinks that he knows best who should sit in the States assembly – your parliament – and if he thinks that you – the voting public – have “elected the wrong person” – he will “put right” that “mistake” by oppressing and obstructing your democratically elected representative.

I could point out just what a lying, posturing, paternalistic, self-regarding, dangerously megalomaniacal, neo-Victorian nincompoop and buffoon Mr. Bailhache is.

I could point out that – for the “utility” of employing this man – who lets-off real criminals – and instead oppresses your democratic freedoms – you will be paying him around £300,000 per year – plus vast final salary pension.

I could elaborate upon all of those things.

But I won’t.*

*Not today, anyway.

I won’t – because to do so would be to fall into the same traps that usually work for the Jersey oligarchy – namely:

‘Divide to rule’.


‘Get people narrowly focused upon a symptom – so they don’t see the real underlying cause.’

Because no matter what a toxic, power-crazed, deeply unpleasant and, frankly, dangerous man is Bill Bailhache – he is a symptom – not the cause.

The cause is the intellectually and ethically bankrupt, stagnant and unchallenged monopoly of power we have let the Jersey oligarchy enjoy.

And it is because such characters as Bill Bailhache are symbols and figureheads of that corrupt system – that we should protest against them.

Those who don’t follow Jersey politics in a close way may not have picked-up on the nuances – but make no mistake – the small protest that was mounted against the swearing-in of Mick Birt – protector of child abusers and serial killers – as Bailiff was like a dagger in the heart of the traditional oligarchy.

You see – protesting against people like Terry Le Sueur – or the Chief Minister, Phil Ozouf – whilst always a worthwhile thing to do – just doesn’t have any lasting impact upon the real forces of power in Jersey.

People like me – and the establishment States members are – when all is said and done – just here today-gone tomorrow politicians.

Convenient ‘safety-valves’ perhaps – upon who the public can vent their dissatisfaction and anger occasionally – whilst the real power at the centre of “The Jersey Firm” remains unseen, unchallenged – and simply carrying on as usual.

But, for the first time in 800 years – for there to have been a noisy public protest at the swearing-in of a Bailiff – when the usual course of events would have been for us ordinary people to be lined-up outside – in awe-struck deference at the sheer majesty of the clowns in fancy dress and their plastic pageant – shook the Jersey oligarchy to its core.

You see – being narrowly focused on our individual concerns – and certain symptoms of States failure – we would usually not see the real problem.

Instead we – the peasants – would be gathered in the Royal Square – expected to doff our caps at these oligarchy lynch-pins – grateful that they have taken on such a burden for us – and only charging us £300,000 a year.

Plus pension.

I mean – if they didn’t – well, who else would protect various States departments from prosecution for their variously corrupt and criminal failings?

Who else would shoulder the burden of giving legal advice to the oligarchy States members – to enable them to stitch-up the public interest and taxpayers – again?

Who else would use their Oxbridge connections in the British judicial old boys’ network – in order to ensure the Jersey oligarchy remain free of any democratic control or legal accountability?

Who else would sit there, in the States chamber – ready at a second’s notice – to come charging into battle like the Seventh Cavalry – to rescue the Jersey Establishment Party from a looming defeat?

So grateful – and ignorant – are we supposed to be, that we’re not meant to notice these oligarchy characters’ anti-democratic ascension into power.

We’re not supposed to notice their politicisation; we’re not supposed to notice the fact that they always protect the oligarchy from the broad interest of ordinary people; and we’re not supposed to notice the fact that we pay these people vast amounts of money to – essentially – oppress us.

But at Mick Birt’s swearing-in – for the first time, people did finally begin to focus their anger at the real core of power in Jersey. Which is why that small protest so rattled the Jersey Establishment Party.

They worry, that they are, perhaps, seeing the first stirrings of a growing awareness on the part of Jersey people that we have been taken for a ride; utterly betrayed – and that our various and fragmented problems are all just symptoms of a bent and rotten system.

Which is why the oligarchy are doing all they can to minimise public awareness of Monday’s protest.

Which of the Jersey media have reported it?

Has BBC Jersey given any coverage at all to the protest – and the reasons for it?

Perhaps they will interview one of the organisers at 7.10 tomorrow morning, to ask why the protest is happening?

Though, somehow – and I can’t for the life of me quite put my finger on it, but I just have this distant suspicion – I doubt it.

It is a Monday morning – 10.30 – 12.30 – and most people will be at work, so it’s difficult to get there – but if you do have a bit of time on your hands tomorrow morning – try and get along to the Royal Square. If you can’t make the whole 2 hours, 11.30 would be a good time to show up – or perhaps come along in your lunch break.

If the States and the Jersey oligarchy generally, have ever angered you – if you’ve felt betrayed by them – if you feel they’ve led Jersey to ruination – tomorrow represents a chance for you to express those views.

Express them at a time and place which will cause the maximum possible irritation and annoyance to the Jersey Establishment Party.


10.30 ONWARDS.


You know it makes sense.