Purveyor of Death-Threats;
Harasser of Women;
Intimidator of Witnesses;
Purveyor of Death-Threats;
Harasser of Women;
Intimidator of Witnesses;
FORMER POLICE CHIEF SAYS
On How We’ve Been Diverted.
Part 2 of Graham Power’s interview for Voice For Children has been posted, and it can be watched here:
In the interview, Mr Power – Jersey’s recently retired Chief of Police – makes some dramatic and very blunt observations on just what has taken place in Jersey – and just how the Ministers of Jersey’s government have conducted themselves.
And in addition to Mr. Power’s observations – I can reveal below, some simple, brief evidence that shows just how spin-doctoring the entire child abuse disaster was always the core – the central – objective and priority of Jersey’s public authorities.
In the interview, when referring to the fact that so much time has been spent focusing on allegations against the police investigation, instead of on the child abuse, Graham Power says:
“We’ve all fallen into a trap….we’ve all fallen for it again……we’re talking about the abuse inquiry – and not talking about the abuse……… You’ve got to give Ministers credit where it’s due. They have very skilfully and very successfully deflected the agenda……”
“…..The agenda has to be brought back – to talking about the abuse……..because if you follow some of the accounts given by some of the victims – you are dealing with what is effectively state-sponsored paedophilia that occurred over decades.”
Mr. Power goes on to say:
“What is particularly disturbing is the number of people who I recall said – “look, I drew this to the attention of the police, I drew this to the attention of the authorities. It was all swept under the carpet, nothing was done about it. Too many of the offenders were too well connected, they knew enforcement people, and it was just made sure that I wouldn’t get any justice.””
Of course – those observations are correct. Making a huge – diversionary – “controversy” – usually based upon nothing of any substance – is one of the text-book devices in the armoury of the propagandist – or spin-doctor, as we call them today.
It is a common and favoured tactic of the Jersey oligarchy. For example, regular readers could cast their minds back to the summer of 2007, when I first exposed the systemic failure of Jersey’s public authorities to protect vulnerable children. What was the big, high-profile, “issue” then? The “story” that consumed the Jersey media – with undiluted focus?
Not the fact that here were many evidenced examples of concealed – recent – child abuse. Nor that here was the government of Jersey – in the 21st century – oppressing a Social Services Minister for trying to protect children.
No – “the story” was – ‘how terrible – that this dreadful politician was “undermining staff morale” – by holding them to account for failing to protect children.’
So yes, it is easy for any thinking person to see just how the real – the important – issues, can be hidden beneath a load of fake, manufactured diversionary spin.
But as important as it is to not lose focus on the core issue – we also need to recognise and understand just how it is we have been manipulated.
Because the vast child abuse cover-up by Jersey’s public authorities did not happen by accident.
It didn’t even happen through only the collusions of a few low-grade spivs.
It was planned – it was calculated.
You paid for it.
Cathy Keir is the very expensive spin-doctor employed by the Jersey Chief Minister’s department.
She worked for Frank Walker. She works for Terry Le Sueur.
A former BBC Jersey – and BBC South-West hack.
Some readers may remember the news footage from when Walker decided – at the height of the Jersey child abuse controversy – to call a press-conference – for the sole purpose of lying about me, in an attempt to disguise his inadequacy and the utter failure of his leadership in respect of something so rudimentary as opposing child abuse.
I was asked to attend by the international media, and attempts were made to remove me by one of the Jersey oligarchy’s thugs, including the snatching of chairs from my hands, before I was able to sit down. Walker predictably lacked the courage to have a head-on debate with me, and ran away after a couple of perfunctory questions from the journalists.
The event was a shaming disaster for Jersey’s public authorities. No respectable government on the face of the planet would have acted in such a way, at such a time.
This disastrous and ill-judged PR stunt was the idea of Cathy Keir.
Although the full, bleak horror of it doesn’t come across on the film – an abiding memory of the occasion was the spectacle of one of Keir’s subordinates shouting at – and interrupting – internationally respected journalists – and trying to tell them what they could – or could not – ask her beloved leader, Frank Walker.
The journalists, behind the cameras, just kept turning their heads, to look at each other, with expressions of wide-eyed disbelief at the amateurish and tasteless conduct of the Keir PR strategy.
Jersey tax-payers fund her – and the entire spin-doctoring operation that has so “very skilfully and very successfully deflected the agenda.”
A good use of your hard-earned taxes?
But the spin-doctoring and manipulation didn’t stop back then.
Let me invite readers to cast their minds back to the despicable episode when Graham Power was subjected to what has since been confirmed as an unlawful suspension.
November 2008 – a matter of a few days – terribly conveniently – before the election of 29 members of the Jersey parliament. What better timing – to help persuade confused voters that all of this “fuss” about child abuse was just some “nonsense” dreamt-up by an “out-of-control” police force?
What better way to convince Jersey voters – just at this crucial moment that – actually – the traditional oligarchy politicians were reliable after all – and weren’t responsible for the corrupt and wicked concealment of decades of child abuse?
So Graham Power was subjected to an immediate suspension – with the absolute abandonment of due-process – and with no opportunity to defend himself.
But – according to the Jersey oligarchy – and in particular, people like Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis – the suspension simply had to be conducted immediately.
I’m sure anyone who has followed the matter will remember – vividly – just how it was repeated – again – and again – that the suspension enacted against the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force was an “emergency” decision – taken in only the preceding 24 hours or so, because of the sudden receipt of some supposedly critical report.
Of course – other revelations and published evidence have since shown that “official” version of events to be false; Frank walker and Andrew Lewis have been proven to be liars; Bill Ogley and David Warcup proven to be crooks.
But – here is another dimension to the whole – disgusting and reprehensible – saga.
I publish below an e-mail from the Jersey Chief Minister’s spin-doctor – Cathy Keir.
The e-mail was written to convey the States of Jersey policy on “precautionary suspensions”.
The “precautionary suspension” under consideration was that to be conducted against Graham Power.
This on the 24th September – nearly two months before the illegal suspension was carried out.
Nearly two months – before the supposed “sudden” and “emergency” suspension was enacted.
Setting aside the obvious questions – of just how it was your government – your politicians – were able to lie to you – to your parliament, by falsely stating the unlawful action against Graham Power had not been long-planned, and was instead an “emergency” action – ask another question:
Just what the hell is a spin-doctor doing – being involved – at least two months earlier – in plotting and conspiring to unlawfully remove from authority your Chief of Police?
Ponder that question – and you might begin to understand a little more clearly – just why the Jersey government Ministers “have very skilfully and very successfully deflected the agenda”.
From: Cathy Keir [mailto:C.Keir@gov.je]
Sent: 24 September 2008 12:51
To: [addressee name removed]
Subject: Info as requested
If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message.
Here is information, as requested, re States policy on precautionary suspension.
‘Precautionary Suspension 24-09-2008.doc’
Cathy – Communications Unit
Chief Minister’s Department
Cyril Le Marquand House
PO Box 140
T: +44(0)1534 440430
THE MAN THE JERSEY GOVERNMENT
Interview with Graham Power QPM:
A Chief Constable
And Citizen’s Media.
Graham Power, the recently retired Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force, has been extensively interviewed by Jersey citizens’ media site, Voice For Children.
Mr. Power is the first Chief of Police in the history of Jersey to take a professional, rigorous view of the need to enforce child protection.
He was also the first – and so far, only – Chief of Police in the island of Jersey to recognise the role of the police as to fairly and objectively enforce the law – especially in ways that protect the weak from the strong – rather than to simply ignore the great mass of serious crime engaged in by Jersey’s traditional ruling elite and their vassals.
A very stark truth is revealed about Jersey’s authorities – in the fact that Mr. Power became the first ever Jersey Chief of Police to be suspended – suspended unlawfully.
Only in Jersey could an organisation under very serious criminal investigation – the States of Jersey – “solve” that “problem” – by simply suspending the Police Chief.
Similar, in many ways, to the fact that the Jersey parliament became the only legislature on the face of the planet – that would sack a Social Services Minister – for trying to protect vulnerable children.
As has been observed so many times before, Jersey’s public authorities – and the entrenched local oligarchy who control them – constitute little short of a de facto mafia.
But as with criminal regimes around the world – the Jersey oligarchy is threatened by the democratisation of media.
Graham Power – and the citizens’ media of Jersey – are making British history.
When else has no less a figure than a nationally respected Chief Constable, willingly engaged with a few ordinary citizens with laptops – in order to fight a corrupt and lawless local political regime?
And is it not truly remarkable – that the ordinary people of Jersey and elsewhere cannot find this kind of dynamite reportage in any of the traditional media?
Not even the BBC – who have a bloated, expensive operation in Jersey, that produces remarkably little quality output for that resource.
Here is the link to part 1 of the interview with Graham Power QPM.
The gravity and implications of what Mr. Power says will be clear to any thinking person.
AND “THE JERSEY WAY”.
Jersey’s Attorney General:
One Law for their side,
Another for the rest of us.
Here’s a link to a second interview I did for Voice For Children.
I have been interviewed by Voice for Children.
It can be watched here:
Is it possible in Jersey?
If you are poor?
Or on the “wrong” side?
Read the informed opinion of one Jersey Advocate.
Regular readers will know that following the Jersey oligarchy destroying my career through illegal repression by what passes for a criminal ‘justice’ apparatus in Jersey – they remain determined to jail me for a lengthy period of time – for the unpardonable ‘crime’ of trying to protect my former constituents from rape, serial-killer rogue nurses and child abusers.
Throughout this oppression – I have had to resist the full, unlimited might of Jersey’s politicised prosecution and judicial oligarchy without legal representation.
The thought occurred to me some time ago, that as this war has to be fought – I would use the opportunity to achieve as many broad advances for ordinary people as possible. One of those would be finally securing affordable – and effective – legal representation for all who need it.
To that end, I’m challenging the current law that guarantees a monopoly to Jersey lawyers. At present, if you need a lawyer to represent you in a Jersey court – you cannot, for example, employ an English barrister to speak on your behalf. Only a Jersey Advocate enjoys ‘rights-of-audience’ before Jersey courts.
I wrote about this subject in some detail in my blog-posting of the 4th January, titled ‘Legal Representation in Jersey’.
Predictably enough – the Jersey Law Society – the lawyer’s union – are mobilising against my legal challenge, and to that end recently wrote to all their members.
However – at least one Jersey lawyer – Advocate Philip Sinel – understands why I should have felt it necessary to challenge the present exclusive right of Jersey lawyers to practice before Jersey courts.
Reproduced in full, below, is Advocate Sinel’s response to the Jersey Law Society.
It amounts to a damning critique of the present – inadequate – system of ‘legal aid’ in Jersey – and of the deep and predictable hostility of the judicial establishment – towards anyone who upsets them.
Essentially – Advocate Sinel says that any Jersey lawyer – even if I could afford one – that did, by some chance, represent me effectively, would incur lasting hostility from the judicial establishment. He says: –
“The inevitable consequence of making a proper job of Mr Syvret’s representation would be to engender discrimination and hostility from the judiciary and others in this jurisdiction for evermore.”
That is – of course – true.
And we all know it.
Advocate Sinel points out – by way of contrast – that Baker & Partners are being paid a very substantial amount of public money to prosecute me. He also asks just how much public money has been channelled each year to the UK legal chambers of 7 Bedford Row – the pet legal practice of the Jersey judicial establishment?
7 Bedford Row being, of course, the legal chambers from which Advocate Stephen Baker originated.
Advocate Sinel’s letter is reproduced below – and it, and its publication, are of great significance to the cause of justice in Jersey.
What Advocate Sinel has written will, of course, infuriate many people in the Jersey establishment. But he is no political revolutionary; on the contrary, he is a very successful commercial litigation lawyer. The profound irony of the situation is that, if only a few more successful figures from law and finance in Jersey had exhibited the wisdom and courage displayed by Advocate Sinel in stating obvious – but usually unspoken truths – the Jersey establishment would never have got itself in the damaging and disastrous mess it now faces.
After all – is it really so ‘radical’ – or ‘ dangerous’ – to expect effective political opposition – and reasonable access to effective legal representation – and a non-politicised judiciary – and some meaningful funding for legal aid – in a modern, 21st century, democratic society?
By E-mail and Post:
Advocate Jane Martin
The Law Society of Jersey
PO Box 493
3rd March 2011
Dear Advocate Martin
You sent recently a letter to the profession, asking for details of the numbers of Advocates, because you had been called upon to assist the Court, presided over by Sir Christopher Pitchers, in relation to allegations made by former Senator Syvret, as to the inadequacy of resource available to Defendants in this jurisdiction. Your email made reference to our exclusive rights of audience being under attack.
I very much hope that you will be presenting Sir Christopher with a balanced and accurate picture of the position. My views on this matter include at least the matters following.
Those responsible for upholding civil liberties in this jurisdiction are almost exclusively members, of what I might term, the Criminal Bar. As crime is almost completely unremunerated this acts as a profound disincentive. The fact that monies are not made available under the legal aid system for the majority of criminal cases has, to my mind, a severely detrimental effect upon calibre of representation and the amount of choice (frequently none at all) afforded to Defendants in criminal trials.
I would now like to move on if I may, to the specifics of former Senator Syvret’s position. It is unlikely that anyone would want to act for Mr Syvret on legal aid or, for that matter, privately. The position is that the Government has a blank cheque in respect of its use of tax payers’ monies, not that the tax payer has been consulted, and it can spend hundreds of thousands, or indeed millions, on this prosecution.
Any member of a firm obtaining a legal aid slip for the defence has in effect immediately won the lottery in reverse. The costs of providing legal representation to former Senator Syvret would be prohibitive and would remove hundreds of thousands of pounds from the relevant firm’s balance sheet. To which I must add that any practitioner who dealt with the realities of that case, in the manner that they should be dealt with, would of course highlight inefficiencies, if not worse, within the system of Government in Jersey.
My experience of such actions is that they lead inevitably to judicial discrimination and persecution of the practitioner (see for example Mayo v Cantrade  JLR 173 and  JLR 106), Sinel v Batonnier  JLR 93 and Sinel v Horsfall  JLR 41. Thus it is that any person acting for former Senator Syvret would be intimidated before they started, and if they were not intimidated, that would point to an absence of perspicacity on their behalf. The inevitable consequence of making a proper job of Mr Syvret’s representation would be to engender discrimination and hostility from the judiciary and others in this jurisdiction for evermore.
It might perhaps at this stage be wise if the whole of the profession thought through the consequences of the system that we presently work under, namely that those who could, and indeed would and should, fulfil an important and legitimate function within our Society are deterred by at least the factors set out above. To which we must of course add that the Crown have unlimited resources in relation to any prosecution, to which the Defendants have no access. The prosecution have the Police, the Defendants do not have private detectives or a budget for intelligence gathering, or for that matter external Counsel. To my mind, the system in Jersey is a very long way from providing an equality of arms or anything akin to it. Likewise there is no provision for providing senior members of the Bar to those accused of serious crimes, or where points of universal application arise.
I also request by this letter that you ascertain from the relevant authorities how much of the tax payers’ money is paid to Number 7 Bedford Row every year and what the rationale for those payments is. It seems to me that a lot of money is being paid abroad, therefore it does not go into the local economy and, in particular, it bypasses the local legal profession when those monies could be better directed to growing and remunerating our colleagues.
In relation to former Senator Syvret, the question that he is raising with the Court, upon which you wrote to the profession, would not have been raised at all had he been given the ability to choose a suitably competent and qualified remunerated lawyer. His request to that end was flatly refused by Advocate Fitz.
Mr Syvret made through me a request of those responsible for providing funding in this jurisdiction, that a budget be made available for legal representation so as to give him some form of equality of arms (for a number of reasons, I did not do so on the basis that it would be this firm that necessarily represented him, as I felt that he should properly be able to look at a reasonable number of alternatives, including those who have more of a criminal practice than those in this firm). He was denied access to any funds in marked contrast to others. As I have said before, the Government is clearly paying a very great deal of tax payers’ money in relation to this prosecution to Baker and Partners.
The other point of concern in relation to this matter is this; that a number of the charges brought against former Senator Syvret relate to the manner in which he utilised information which he gained whilst fulfilling his function as an elected representative of the people of the Island in order to criticise the Government. Cases of that nature necessarily raise matters which are of great public interest and of universal application, it would be of the benefit of the Island if Mr Syvret was in receipt of an appropriate degree of legal assistance.
I very much hope that you will take this opportunity to publicise the need for us to nurture and protect our own and that we will not be saying that all is well. All is not well within the Island or within the profession.
There are many good reasons to preserve our exclusive rights of Advocacy if we can properly serve the Island’s interests.
As the recent case In the matter of MM  JRC 002 demonstrates, we cannot yet attend our own affairs competently. We are a long way from becoming that positive force for legal and judicial evolution which we could and should be. That long journey should start by addressing the present position with candour.
Advocate Philip Sinel.