Monthly Archives: January 2012


A Criminal Enterprise.

Jersey’s Public Authorities – Exposed.

Read the latest damning revelations here:

Local independent journalist Rico Sorda continues, at the link above, his apocalyptic exposé of how Jersey’s corrupt mafia regime sabotaged the child abuse investigations and corruptly and criminally suspended an honest Police Chief.

In his article, Mr. Sorda says this:

“Between September 2008 and November 12th 2008 …….some of the Islands most senior figures were up to things that I don’t even know are legal.”

Let me use my experience of Jersey’s public authorities to answer Mr. Sorda’s uncertainty.

The actions of the island’s most senior figures were not legal.

And I’m not referring merely to their actions being ultra vires, in some civil sense.

The actions of senior figures such as Bill Ogley, Frank Walker, William Bailhache, David Warcup, Andrew Lewis – and the rest of them – were criminal.

The actions of these people differ in no qualitative way from the actions of a set of gangsters, running various syndicates and protection-rackets.

And as they and their ilk are what has hitherto passed as “the law” in Jersey – then plainly the rule of law has collapsed in this Crown Dependency.

Certain inevitabilities flow – inescapably.

And as we await the arrival of the rule of law in Jersey, let us reflect upon just a few of the words of Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, from his latest statement – which should be read in full on Rico Sorda’s blog.


Quotes from a Statement by Graham Power, QPM; the full text and accompanying article can be read here: 

“We know from the review and report by Brian Napier QC and other documents that the Minister never saw a Review report from the Metropolitan Police (although I understand that some States Members at the time believe that he may have indicated otherwise.) What the Minister saw was a letter from the then Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, which purported to summarise what the Met had to say. This exchange is well described in the Napier report and interested parties should read it in full. In brief Napier found that Mr Warcup’s letter did not accurately reflect the content of the Review by the Met and in particular he did not convey to the Minister the caveats and reservations in the report which, according to the advice of the Solicitor General, would have rendered it unusable for suspension purposes. It is now clear from the Napier report and from other revelations that, contrary to whatever impression the former Minister may have given at the time, the only relevant document which he appeared to have seen when he implemented my suspension was the letter from Mr Warcup and the incomplete and selective summary of the Met Review which it contained. The day after Mr Warcup submitted his letter to the Minister he was promoted to Acting Chief Officer with a significant increase in salary and pension. A few days before the publication of the Napier report he resigned.”

And –

“Finally, there is one additional point which may be of value to those interested in the case. The Chief Officer of the Islands Police is not an employee of the States. He is in the words of the Islands Attorney General an “Officer of the Crown” who is sworn by the Royal Court to “Serve the Queen.” The means by which the postholder can be suspended or removed are prescribed by law. It is not an employment process but a legal process which is subject to review by the Courts. The legal and constitutional implications of such an act are significant. If such a process was implemented or supported on the basis of evidence which was fabricated, amended, mis-represented or falsified in any way, or if any relevant evidence was wilfully destroyed, that would be a grave matter and ought to have significant implications for those involved.”


A Liar and a Crook

David Warcup – a liar and a crook. There was no “damning Interim Met Report”.

The “document”, as described – peddled – and used – by Jersey’s public authorities to undermine the child abuse investigations – and suspend the good Police Chief Graham Power – did not exist.

The supposed “damning criticisms” – did not exist.

Chief Executive Bill Ogley, Attorney General William Bailhache, Chief Minster Frank Walker, Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis – and Deputy Police Chief David Warcup – all lied.


That all of Jersey’s relevant public authorities should have engaged in such a criminal conspiracy to pervert justice – and deprive the vulnerable, weak and abused of proper and fearless protection, is such a startling collapse in the very rule of law,  as to be without precedent in the modern, peacetime democratic  world.

Another remarkable fact – and it is a tragic fact in so many ways – is that the necessary work to expose the rampant corruption of all aspects of public authority in Jersey, has had to be done by amateurs, by concerned good citizens.

Not one mainstream media in Jersey,  not one traditional journalist – I repeat, not one single traditional journalist in Jersey – has even touched the task of examining the evidenced corruption of the very rule of law in the island.

Even though many of them have been – at various times during the last four years – handed  evidence on a platter by me and other whistle-blowers.

There is no excuse – there is no hiding place.

And it is even worse than that.

The press-conference given by Warcup and Gradwell  – and all of the attendant spin – that corrupt exercise, now exposed to have nothing but a pack of lies at its centre – was not merely passively reported by Jersey’s failed mainstream media. The island’s media were active participants – along with the Chief Minister’s “Communications Unit” – in the development and build-up to those events.

Although most residents of this island will not know, or understand this fact yet – the community of Jersey has been fortunate, in that there were  “a few good men” – who have stood firm, done the right thing, and have striven to defend justice and the rule of law. Men like Graham Power, Lenny Harper and Rico Sorda. I’m very proud to stand amongst such company.

I publish below the e-mail I sent on behalf of my constituents to the corrupt cop  – the child-abuse concealing criminal – David Warcup, in September 2009.

Let the truth prevail.


E-Mail by Stuart Syvret to David Warcup – 9th September 2009.

—–Original Message—–
From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: Wed 09/09/2009 11:04
To: David Warcup
Subject: The Corrupt Conduct of David Warcup

Mr. Warcup.

I listened to the BBC Jersey radio news this morning, which – belatedly – was reporting the guest posting written by Mr. Lenny Harper, and published on my blog.

Mr. Harper, being the recently retired former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, and the man who led the historic child abuse investigation.

Mr. Harper wrote the blog posting in response to the concerted and co-ordinated attempts by Mick Gradwell, who has just retired from the SOJP, to rubbish the historic abuse investigation, undermine its credibility, attack the credibility and integrity of abuse survivors, and in doing so, assist the Jersey oligarchy in concealing the true and full extent of child abuse in Jersey.

Mr. Gradwell’s comments were riddled with lies, distortions and misleading omissions. It was that catalogue of falsehoods to which Mr. Harper was responding.

What has prompted me to write to you was the astonishing comment attributed to you by BBC Jersey, which consisted of words to the effect that, “The arguments and personal disagreement between the two former officers of the SOJP – Mr. Harper and Mr. Gradwell – was nothing to do with you.”

This was plainly a desperate attempt on your part to distance yourself from the controversy – as though it were, in fact, nothing to do with you.

Mr. Warcup – it is everything to do with you.

You and Mr. Gradwell have failed to secure prosecutions of a significant number of very well-evidenced child abusers.

In fact – it is worse than this; you and Mr. Gradwell pro-actively supported and worked with Attorney General William Bailhache in minimising the cases that came to court.

You – Mr. Warcup – are a pro-active member of the Jersey establishment’s cover-up.

You have, for example, pro-actively supported and assisted in the concealing of the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice which was committed by senior civil servants and the then Council of Ministers, in engineering my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister in 2007. That conspiracy was made a formal criminal complaint by me – against these demonstrable conspirators, who were striving to conceal the criminal conduct of the States of Jersey in respect of institutional child abuse.

You have failed to investigate the matter fully, no charges have been brought, you have refused to give me copies of my many formal statements given to the police – and you have failed to keep me – the complainant – informed of “progress”.

You have also – in a further example – shown yourself to be content to carry on being employed by the SOJP – notwithstanding the evidenced, provable fact that the Chief Officer of the Education Department – Mario Lundy – is a very serious child abuser – having spent much of the 1980’s – along with his predecessor, Tom McKeon – savagely battering and torturing vulnerable children in Jersey’s child secure unit, which they used to run.

Are you proud of your “achievements” Mr. Warcup?

Are you content that Jersey’s Education Department is led by a man who is a child-torturer?

That example – as you well-know – is but one of dozens of abusers who should have been brought to justice.

You and Mr. Gradwell have been content to assist the Jersey oligarchy in minimising the scope and scale of charges that should have been brought.

I think you need reminding of the infamous and notorious press-conference you gave – along with Mick Gradwell – in November 2008 – in which you issued a five-page press-release, which contained several demonstrable lies – and during which you both – both – set about doing all you could to rubbish the integrity and credibility of the prior two years of police work in conducting the investigation.

I repeat – you were then – and have been since – a pro-active participant in the Jersey oligarchy’s cover-up.

It is – therefore – totally dishonest – and simply literally incredible – for you to attempt to now distance yourself from Mr. Gradwell’s remarks.

Mr. Gradwell, in his extraordinary diatribes of lies and abuse directed at fellow officers, made reference, however inaccurately, to certain things being “unprecedented”.

I will tell you what is unprecedented, Mr. Warcup, because I took the trouble to research the matter following your infamous press-conference.

It is unprecedented for two senior police officers, to come into a major police investigation, which had been on-going for two years – and then to call a press-conference for the express purpose of undermining, attacking, destroying the credibility of, and ruining the effectiveness of the previous two-years hard work.

The actions of you and Mick Gradwell were “without precedent” in British policing.

And let us recall another extraordinary feature of your actions. At that press-conference you publicly stated – to a national press presence – that you had destroyed certain evidence – because ‘you’ didn’t consider it ‘credible’.

Are you not aware – Mr. Warcup – that destroying evidence is a very serious criminal offence?

It is a criminal offence that you have committed.

Mr. Warcup – let me spell it out to you – as it apparently eludes you – you are in a situation in which you are leagues out of your depth.

You find yourself as a pro-active member of a criminal conspiracy to conceal child abuse and other crimes.

You may have imagined that selling your “integrity” to the Jersey establishment would be a safe option – given they control all power in Jersey.

You failed to take into account the gravity and magnitude of the situation – all of which will now be exposed fully – in microscopic detail – before the Commons Justice Committee – and in court in London during the civil action against the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.

If there is any justice and decency in this world – you will – in the coming months – find yourself without the protections of the Jersey authorities – as they too will be held to account.

At the end of your career, Mr. Warcup – you are a criminal.

You have engaged in numerous conspiracies – with the Jersey authorities – to pervert the course of justice. You have also committed misconduct in a public office.

At least two-thirds of your officers despise you, and regard you as a component in the establishment’s cover-up.

You have twisted and perverted your job as a senior police officer from what it should involve – enforcing the law, and protecting the weak and vulnerable – and turned it into a role in which you abuse your powers to protect powerful and influential criminals.

You – Mr. Warcup – are a bent cop.

You were a pro-active participant in the plainly unlawful, improper and Political suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power. An exercise which is another example of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

You have betrayed my vulnerable constituents.

You have betrayed many, many victims of child abuse.

You have shamed the office you hold and the good name of the police.

Mr. Warcup – you are a liar and a crook.

My constituents and I require your immediate resignation.

You are disgusting – and an utter disgrace to the uniform you wear.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Stuart Syvret.

States of Jersey.


John Averty – and Jersey’s Politicians

On Monday 11th July, I published a posting titled, ‘MEDIA CORRUPTION: Politics, Police, Power’.

As so much of that article remains pertinent, I thought I’d re-post it.

In that posting I considered the unravelling of much of the hitherto un-acknowledged media corruption in the UK. The abuse of media power – its relationship with corrupt elements in the police – and the seethingly toxic influence over politics – finally being exposed, to an extent.

I also went on to consider just how much worse – far worse – the situation was in Jersey.

The island having only one “newspaper”, owned by the Guiton Group – the Chairman and Chief Executive of which is a former Senator – one John Averty.

It so happens that today – after a secret debate – the vast majority of Jersey politicians voted to re-appoint John Averty as the Deputy Chairman of Jersey’s Financial Services Commission.

Jersey politicians, of course, being well-placed to make an objective and fearless judgment – concerning THE boss – of Jersey’s ONLY “newspaper”.

Jersey’s Financial Services Commission is the regulatory body – the “reliability” and “probity” of which is supposed to convince the world that Jersey’s multi-billion dollar off-shore finance industry is ethically and objectively regulated and policed.

Overseas investors and clients of Jersey’s off-shore finance industry – and governments and regulatory agencies around the world – are expected to trust the Jersey Financial Services Commission; trust it to show zero-tolerance of unlawful actions, to have no truck with villains, and to ensure that anyone undertaking any finance related business activity in Jersey is capable of passing a “Fit and Proper Person Test”.

Good luck with that.



Politics, Police, Power.

In the world of British media and political power, questions always present, but not often addressed – like the unspoken disappointments and tense resentments in a bad marriage – are erupting with all the dignity of flung crockery bursting out of windows and paint-stripper poured over a spouse’s car as they flee to the home of their latest bad choice.

Can the severing of the bond – the divorce of two so symbiotically-linked playas, media and political power – be looming?

Don’t you believe it.

Not for one instant.

Managing – massaging – public opinion has always been central to the obtaining and holding of power – even back in the day when your spin only had to be a convincing enough shaman dance to persuade the rest of your tribe that going to club-in the heads of your rivals would please the gods and bring better hunting, or convincing your vassals through some faux-piety that running their swords through the yeomen of the neighbouring county was pleasing, even to God.

What chance, then, of shaping and mobilising that crucial commodity of public opinion in an age in which persuasion is your only tool, and political-correctness-gone-mad prevents your lieutenants from using the historical method for recruiting the men of a village, the simple expedient of burning down a couple of houses with the warning that this will be done to all of them (by the ‘enemy’, naturally) unless all stout fellows help you kill the neighbouring robber-baron so that you, instead, can gather the tithes from his peasants? Why, with God’s help and victory, back in those days, you may even not have to raise quite so much tribute from your vassals.

But no – in an age when it takes some kind of Churchillian effort at inspiration to make people set aside the pizza box and the four-pack of Stella to get off the couch long enough to register to vote, those who would wield power need – absolutely need – every scrap of publicity, persuasion, threats, lies, omissions, distortions, propaganda, funfair-barking, beguiling hucksterism and grifter hackery to be found, swarming around, out there – in the market-place of influence.

Politicians of all stripes, who are now fleeing the contagion of Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, are running, whimpering and tearful into the arms of the Guardian, the Telegraph, the BBC and Channel 4 News – seeking, there, a respectable relationship to replace the indentured whoredom into which they sold themselves – stripping, laying back – and thinking of the million votes that would be theirs once Mr. Murdoch – urges satisfied – clicked his fingers and delivered to them the approval of an audience conditioned into thinking there is something important – and newsworthy – in celebrities snorting coke, vicars shagging their congregations, and the waxing habits of lesbian soap-stars – edifyingly revealed through up-skirt camera shots.

Publicity, image, spin – call it “news”, if you will – is power.

Political party ‘A’, could be the biggest accretion of villains since FIFA – and political party ‘B’ could be decent, brave and competent. But if political party ‘A’ are in that mutually beneficial power-relationship with the media – then it is political party ‘A’ that you will vote for – along with most other people – and which will be elected. And if you protest ‘no’, you ‘have more discernment than that’ – then you do indeed posses the IQ of a Sun reader.

Political party ‘A’ will be depicted to you, and everyone else – week in and week out – as a marvellous, far-sighted organisation – comprised of paragons of virtue – and guaranteed to make the value of your home and your wages increase. By way of contrast, political party ‘B’ will be exhibited as a divided, chaotic, incompetent, “dangerous” shambles, which will wreck the economy if let anywhere near the reins of power. And, of course, should party ‘B’ look like getting close to winning an election, then the ‘dirt’ – kept in reserve as a kind of media-baron’s insurance policy – will be shovelled on a few prominent members; affairs here and there, the odd unsavoury acquaintance, a bit of election expenses fiddling, cheating at golf, that kind of thing.

The fact that senior figures in party ‘A’ have been taking massive bribes into BVI trust-funds from arms manufacturers, investing in the sale of crystal-meth in Utah, and paying rent-boys to tie them up and defecate on them – will not damage your opinion of party ‘A’ – because you will never get to know of such habits and practices.

At least, that is, for as long as party ‘A’ carries on remembering what is good for it – and the policies of government continue to suite the purposes of the media Bosses – and their advertisers. For should party ‘A’ get above its station, and start thinking that it is the real foundation of power in the country – its leaders will be made an offer they can’t refuse. One which will see their poll ratings sleeping with the fishes – quicker than you can say “back to basics”.

But the manoeuvres of the media need not be quite so outré, at least, not on a day-to-day basis. There is a whole armory of weapons to choose from – ranging from the minor and subtle – such as only giving three paragraphs on page 15 to the launch of your major policy initiative – all the way up to those photos of your party Chairman sniffing coke from the buttocks of a Bangkok lady-boy.

Fascinatingly, one of the things that makes the influence of modern media so powerful, is just how infrequently the hacks have to resort to lies. Although the thing that, occasionally, attracts a lot of attention – amongst the many tactics of the press, such as prominence – terms – omissions – pitching – framing – straightforward lies are the rarest and least of it. One of the most relevant truisms of media and PR, is that old reference to the “oxygen of publicity”. Fewer more effective ways exist of artificially shaping and rigging political dialogue, than simply giving no publicity at all, to people, arguments – evidence – that might cause the very ground to shift beneath the feet of the two “opposing” factions you have trained so well – as they go through their charade of “disagreement”, as obediently as performing dogs. When you have put so much time and effort into framing the issues in such a way that both political parties support the under-regulation of your business empire, and support policies that allow you to dodge hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate tax each year, one of the last things you want is a third party gaining prominence; one that points out the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of the two dominant “opposing” parties and the reality of the stagnant consensus that exists between them.

For decades – centuries even – thus has been the power of those who get to control what people know – don’t know – and what they think. The opinion management industry has always been with us. It has always been the power-behind-the-throne. But – we live in interesting times. Suddenly – the traditional – often very great – mercantile transactional value between the errant sleaze-bag and the news-man – of withholding, or publishing ‘the dirt’ – has dropped faster than the credit-rating of Greece. That whole – ancient – trade in the commodity of what the public do – or do not – get to know, has been rendered redundant by the internet.

Just like every kind of threat to society the Daily Mail ever warned you about – citizens’ media has arrived – led by its Orchish vanguard, bloggers; surely the horsemen of the apocalypse – who will abolish the pound, give you cancer, hand over the Crown to Brussels and – quake in fear – bring down house-prices.

Now, of course there is an awful lot of crap out there, in the blogosphere, to be sure. Some of it deeply unpleasant and, not infrequently, barking mad. But can we have so little faith in the average reader, as to reckon them incapable of distinguishing between the reasonable, civilised and evidence-based – and on the other hand, tortuous meta-conspiracies involving shape-shifting space-alien lizards in league with Zionists who organised the world banking collapse in order to accelerate the Bilderberg group becoming the one world government – which, once achieved, would see Rupert Murdoch abandoning his disguise of the last eighty years, and resuming his natural appearance of a five-eyed crocodilian carpet-bagger from the region of Alpha Centauri?

Actually, thinking of the vast readership the News of the World had, I begin to wish I hadn’t posed that rhetorical question. Just as people get the government they deserve – so do people get the media they deserve. Let’s face it – the Jersey Evening Post remains in business – a journal openly and strenuously in support of the criminal concealment of child-abuse – so there can’t be much hope for society moving beyond its interest in nymphomaniac PAs and under-sexed gorillas any time soon.

One can’t help but wonder at what might be the substance behind the many dark hints of “worse to come” in the phone-hacking scandal?

What could be worse than giving a terrified family the impression their missing child was still alive, by deleting their frantic phone messages from her voicemail?

I confess my imagination does not go that far.

However – I can speculate as to what the London media world and the Westminster village might mean when they say “worse” to come.

What I suspect, is that it has been routine for certain media operations to access – by one illegal means or another – the private communications between members of the public and their elected representatives. We already know that certain cabinet ministers had their commutations hacked by News International. Let me suggest that if such things were possible – listening in to the messages of actual cabinet ministers – something – or some agency (bribed policemen perhaps) – a great deal more sophisticated than a mere guess at a factory-set pin of 0000 must have been involved.

The Independent newspaper has already described this scandal as “Britain’s Watergate”. It would indeed be that – worse – if News International has been routinely accessing – bugging – the private communications amongst and between members of a cabinet, their civil service advisers – and between MPs and their constituents. After all, as massive as it was, Watergate was one small band of crooks, albeit working for an incumbent President, burgling the offices of a rival political party. How much worse – a transnational corporation effectively illegally accessing and stealing the private data of an entire incumbent administration? The private communications between actual members of the legislature and their constituents?

My speculation could be wrong, of course, but if correct – or something similar – it would explain why Rebekah Brooks has not yet resigned or been sacked. Whatever her malodorous conduct, it would be unwise to conclude that she is anything other than a very clever and ruthless ‘operator’. It is entirely implausible that she did not know what was the origin of the stories the News of the World ran when she was in charge. Who, but a complete fool, could imagine the editor – with whom the buck stops – being handed dynamite and extraordinary stories – and not asking for the verification trail?

Why was someone like Tony Blair so desperate as to attempt to get labour MP Tom Watson reined-in when he was first going at the phone-hacking allegations?

Could it be that one of the real reasons – perhaps even THE real reason – why the first Met Police investigation was pulled prematurely and failed to get to the truth, is that Blair and his inner-circle were briefed as to the full scale of the crimes once that early investigation was underway, perhaps even by Brooks, and Murdoch himself – and that glimpse over the precipice – no-doubt made all the more terrifying by the inevitable ‘aces’ held by Murdoch – made the authorities run screaming from the scene of the crime, just wishing it all away?

No matter how irredeemable things have become, still Murdoch stands by Brooks – surprising, no, given that he has not hitherto been noted as the sentimental type, especially when it comes to his business interests? Brooks, of course, will have done nothing whilst in the pay of Murdoch, without making certain there was an “audit-trail” of authorisation – or, at least, knowledge – back to him or his son. After all, a girl’s got have an “insurance policy”. If Brooks goes down, she takes the Murdochs with her. So, naturally, they’re all in it together.

And if any man was to have accumulated enough “insurance policies” of his own – enough to enable him to defy the government and law and parliamentary democracy of an entire nation, that man is Rupert. Just imagine – what dirt he must have upon hundreds of important people – members of parliament, civil servants, police officers – and members of the judiciary, note? Such material is, no-doubt, spectacular. But it would fade into insignificance – compared to evidence that the previous British government knew of his hacking of members of parliament – and thousands of constituents, members of the public – and of the cabinet – and of Whitehall – but yet had the dogs called-off – because they were frightened of him – and what he knew about them.

Such a situation would represent nothing less than the breakdown of democracy and the rule of law.

Let me put it this way: given what we know – that which is already in the public domain – there is a prima facie case for the charging and prosecution of Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch. Should they not be charged – and the retribution be confined to some scapegoats like Andy Coulson and Les Hinton – it will be difficult to come to any conclusion other than that Murdoch did, indeed, achieve utter power over the British establishment and the institutions of state.

Would the British establishment – civil servants, politicians, police officers, judges – ever let things get so “out of hand” as to have Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch on trial? Perhaps they already have – but just aren’t aware of the implacable momentum yet.

But on the other hand, no matter how great the mutual hatred may sometimes be, history shows us that those in power quickly forget their differences, and close-ranks, when the threat they face is to the entire paradigm within which they operate. As they all stand to lose from this crises – we can be quite sure that all of the institutions involved – politicians, police, prosecutors, judges, media – will be doing all they can to find a way of damage-limiting the situation in a manifestation of the very culture that is now laid bare.

Some commentators suggest these events represent some epochal shift in the nature of the relationship between media power and politicians. Well, if that view is right, then we have indeed advanced beyond all lesson of human history. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Just as Murdoch has so cynically tried to use this crises as an opportunity – appearing remorseful and shutting the News of the World, but in the long-term, saving himself a considerable sum of money by expanding The Sun in to a seven-day operation to regain the market – so have politicians of all persuasions sought to make a virtue out of the necessary and unavoidable responses they must make; none of which – you can be quite sure – will leave them with any less of a direct access to the power of the media. Assuming Murdoch’s empire survives, politicians and their spin-doctors will be queuing-up to kiss the ring of the ‘new’, ‘improved’, ‘caring’, ‘sensitive’ re-branded News Corp oligarch – just as soon as the sacrificial heads on spikes have rotted away – and the public have re-discovered their taste for self-asphyxiating rock-stars and the varying ‘breast-jobs’ of social avatars. And, why – if the death-star does not survive – then the willing lips of the politicos will be slavering for the ring of whatever suzerain next replaces the old emperor.

Only the most despicable of shameless hypocrites and political shysters would use the wretched and disgusting spectacle of the deleting of desperate family messages left on the mobile phone of a murdered child, for no better purpose than the re-cementing and re-branding of an already dangerously exclusive relationship with corrupt, overly-powerful media interests, in which each party mutually re-enforces the position of the other.

Still – I suppose things could be worse; we could be seeing politicians and journalists who had been corruptly acting in-league to actually cover-up child abuse, band-wagoning on the tragedy of Milly Dowler’s family, for nothing better than the sick motivation of undermining child-abuse investigations. That – truly would be disgusting – beyond all remedy.

Jersey Senator Ben Shenton and the Jersey Evening Post contrived, last Friday, to produce a front-page lead article that managed to bare-back on the News of the World scandal, further attack the Haute de la Garenne investigation, smear the police, repeat as though fact demonstrated falsehoods, display another example of diversionary faux-anger at the investigation in order to keep people’s attention from the fact children were raped whilst under the “protection” of the States of Jersey – and to depict contact with national media (rather than exclusively the Jersey Evening Post) as ‘bad’ and ‘unhelpful’ to the victims.

But as we’ve been confronted with the toxic relationship between UK politicians and media power – who could wish for a more timely reason to take a look at the Jersey equivalent – a too powerful media empire – and the political whores who grovel in fear and abase themselves before the wretched organ, craving the favour granted to a few ‘chosen-ones’ such as the Shenton Clan; a regular supply of positive, prominent, yet vacuous stories, in which previously Dick Shenton – and now his son Ben Shenton could display their empty demagoguery to the mutual benefit of themselves and the Jersey media Bosses.

And in grim irony, the Shentons and the Guiton Group – and the contemptible role played by both in Jersey’s child protection failures – could not be a more fitting study of political power, media corruption – and the necessity of bloggers – and the shared imperative that traditional politicians and media have in denigrating and repressing internet journalists.

In yesterday’s Observer, Henry Porter writes, “over more than three decades, no one dared question the perversion of politics by and for Rupert Murdoch.”

The following is equally true, “for over more than ten decades, no one dared question the perversion of politics by and for the Guiton Group”. That is, no one until I came along. And if there were any doubt as to the true power of the Guiton Group, just look at what happened to me. For in Jersey, it isn’t only politicians who have a toxic relationship with the newspaper monopoly; Jersey’s sole prosecution service, the Law Officers’ Department – also has a very mutually beneficial “understanding” with the media Bosses. Just as do certain elements in the police force.

For several years now, oligarchs like Shenton and the local mainstream media have striven to put in place an artificial distinction – between what they term the “accredited” media – the cosy status quo favourable to them all – and that of citizen media – which is challenging – and beginning to break the power of the traditional media.

People like Shenton and certain other Jersey politicians have done all they can to prevent independent journalists, such as bloggers, from filming scrutiny panel hearings, whilst letting the local TV station, who they are almost as in thrall to as the newspaper – film at will. Likewise, the local oligarchy politicians – and the Jersey Evening Post – never miss an opportunity to disparage political social media.

The spin – the lie – inherent in such depictions, is that the “accredited” Jersey media – basically, the corrupted power-source of the entrenched local oligarchy – are ‘reliable’, ‘honest’, ‘accurate’ and ‘fair’ – and, by way of contrast, bloggers are unreliable, nasty, dishonest – and a threat to society every bit as bad as some kind of cross between Stalin, an EU Commissioner and the German football team’s goalkeeper.

But – oh dear.

When we compare and contrast the two competing media – Jersey bloggers vs. the Jersey Evening Post – the comparison is as that between the Guardian – and the Sunday Sport.

In fact, that is unkind to the Sunday Sport; B52 bombers found crashed on the moon – and double-decker buses found at the south-pole – were altogether more responsible uses of print-media, than the conduct – when it mattered – of Jersey’s only “newspaper”.

The island’s independent web-based journalists have published article after article of informed, incisive reportage – backed-up with page after page of published, documentary evidence; clearly a disreputable enterprise supported by such obvious anarcho-commie fellow-travellers as the former Chief Constable, and the Deputy Chief Constable of the Jersey Police Force.

Perhaps there just were not enough column-inches in Friday’s JEP to include such incidental information, as the fact the two senior Police Officers have produced several affidavits concerning the true nature of law-enforcement and power in Jersey?

Maybe the editorial judgment was that the readership would have just been – so – incredibly – bored – by learning that over many years – decades, in fact – survivors of child abuse – and other victims – and whistleblowers – had gone in desperation with their stories to the Jersey Evening Post, Jersey’s only “newspaper” – only to be dismissed and ignored?

Perhaps, the JEP’s condemnation of the News of the World – and the imperatives of their local advertisers, just didn’t leave enough page-space – to mention the stacks of apocalyptic documentary evidence of child abuse cover-ups, handed to the paper, by me – and which they contrived to ignore?


Who knows, it could be that the very busy journalist – just did not have time – to include in his article – the fact that Ben Shenton was handed, by me, detailed evidence of the criminal concealment of child abuse by Jersey Health & Social Services senior civil servants when he became Minister, after me – and which he and his Assistant Minster, Jimmy Perchard then proceeded to ignore?

Possibly – the entire archiving-system of the Jersey Evening Post, crashed – thus preventing its journalists from accessing – and reporting – the stark fact that Ben Shenton’s father – former Senator Dick Shenton – was the President of the old ‘Defence Committee’ – the political body in charge of policing in Jersey – back in the day when Jersey’s police force was under overt political control – and decisions were made to not fully investigate many cases of child abuse?

It can only have been forgetfulness – surely – that prevented the paper from asking Senator Ben Shenton just how he reconciled all of the obvious – stark – familial conflicts of interest – with his continuing rabid hostility to properly investigating Jersey’s evidenced decades of child protection failure?

Only a cynic, surely – could possibly speculate as to just what “old-school” connections there may be – between Guiton Group Boss – former Senator John Averty – and dominant political demagogue, former Senator Dick Shenton?

The man who – for years and years – exercised political control over policing in Jersey.

The man who tried to say to former Deputy Police Chief Lenny Harper, “a little bit of corruption never did any harm.”

The man who would have had many – many – profoundly serious questions to answer, had the “traditional” approach to policing in Jersey been exposed and held to account, as Graham Power and Lenny Harper dutifully attempted.

So, although the Jersey Evening Post – the island’s only “newspaper”, doesn’t quite go in for the bonking vicars and kiss-n-tell roastees, familiars of Premiership football-players – it does – for all of its Daily Mailesque “respectability” wallow in a gutter of filth and ethical turpitude at least as foul as UK tabloids – at their very worst.

Put it this way – the News of the World doomed itself through an atrocious violation of the family of a murdered child. But at least it could be said of the News of the World, in mitigation, they were rigorous in their exposure of child-abusers; in that sense, they were ‘on the right side’.

By way of contrast – a shattered and wrecked survivor of child abuse, one of my constituents who telephoned me in early 2008, and recounted how, when a child, they had been stripped, save for a T-shirt, and then leered at through the glass of a small window in a basement cell of the Haute de le Garenne complex by one of their attackers who said to them, “will I do you now, or later? Nah – later” – spoke to the Jersey Evening Post a few years later – and were ignored.

That attacker remains working in a senior Health & Social Services post – where they have access to vulnerable people.

The female survivor – aged 12 at the time – was raped by him.

That concealment – is but one example of the corrupt failure of the Jersey Evening Post, its parent company, the Guiton Group – and its shareholders.

Yet – so far – they have been immune from the just consequences of such crimes; immune for over a century; immune – just like they were, for profitably peddling Nazi propaganda during the occupation in WWII.

But – when even the mightiest weapon of the most powerful Gods – the News of the World – can strike down the very titan who wielded it – shattering itself in a final blow upon its master – for just how much longer can the Guiton Group – and its boss, John Averty – and the Jersey Evening Post – and their oligarch clients – escape a similar reckoning?

All those decades – all those lies, omissions, distortions – the transactions with bent police officers – the corrupt relationship with a client group of privileged oligarchy politicians – the pork-barrel-politics of tax-payers’ money flooding to Guiton Group shareholders – the damning public-interest stories not reported – the blind-eye turned to the crimes of the powerful – certain fatal car-crash drivers not named – the de facto blackmail – the exercise of the real, political power, by a private, self-interested business, to the detriment of the broad good of the community – is it really sustainable?

Sadly, it may well be – given the historic relationship between politicians, and the media-men who decide their destiny. Unless, that is, Jersey’s bloggers can persevere, and be unto the Jersey Evening Post, what ‘The Guardian’ was to the malignancy that was the News of the World.

You may think that you – voting members of the public – determine the political destiny of this community – but you don’t. Jersey’s media Bosses have already decided the outcome of the forthcoming general election in the island.

As a commentator said on one of the national TV news programs this past week when discussing News Corp, “today’s media is little more than a legalised protection-racket.”


Though I’m not sure we could use the word ‘legalised’ any more.



The Long Struggle Against Murderers

When the System has Failed.

“It was about 8 o’clock. I reached for a layout pad. This was in the days before on-screen make-up and I literally wrote down with a thick pencil the words “Murderers” and underneath it the sub-deck: “The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us”.

“After about five minutes on my own, I walked back onto the floor. The ‘Murderers’ page was made up with an alternative front page next to it. The mood was electric. ‘Let’s go,’ I said. ‘You can always come and visit me in jail…’”

Paul Dacre, Editor, Daily Mail.

It shouldn’t be this way – but sometimes it takes courage – and long, long fight – to bring the worst of criminals to justice.

When I first entered Jersey politics, as a genuinely motivated young man of 25, I knew the Jersey polity was, essentially, a corrupt and stagnant crypto-feudal oligarchy – so I never expected things to be easy. But even I never expected that fighting for the public interest would cause me to have to become Jersey’s first political prisoner since the Nazi’s were overthrown.

I’ve just been released from Jersey’s prison after two months – convicted and sentenced for supposedly breaking the data protection law and “contempt of court”; charges brought by an overtly corrupt and politicised prosecution system and upheld by courts, the judges in which are friends and colleagues of those parties whose failures and malfeasances I have exposed.

The political oppression I have had to endure will continue – I fully expect to be subjected to further charges  – and jailed again, probably repeatedly until I have been finally driven into exile from Jersey permanently.

Although – as is now evidenced – there were many unofficial reasons for the illegal massed police raid and search conducted without a search-warrant – it is an auspicious occasion upon which to remember the “official” reason for the political repression.

I say auspicious because today has finally seen the conviction of two of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence – eighteen long years since that crime.

And in no small measure, the convictions have happened because of the Daily Mail and its Editor, Paul Dacre. The unstinting campaign of the paper included its world-famous and brave headline of February 1997, which – over photographs of the five men – said, “Murderers: the Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us.”

The cowards didn’t sue, of course – knowing perfectly well that the Mail would have had no difficulty in showing to a jury of decent people that, on the balance of probabilities, they murdered Stephen Lawrence.

Nevertheless, the stance of the Daily Mail, which is not, I confess, a paper I find myself agreeing with often, exhibited tremendous courage and ethical clarity. Mr. Dacre could very easily have ended up in prison for contempt of court.

The forensic breakthroughs, and changes in law that have finally seen justice done would not have happened, had the case not been pursued so implacably by the Mail.

As a part of my journalistic and political work – and in accordance with my public duty – I made a public-interest exposure of the case of a rogue nurse who the Jersey authorities had very compelling grounds for suspecting of clinical mass-murder. But rather than investigating the case properly back then, the plug was pulled on the 1999 investigation as a result of police incompetence – and more significantly, a politicised decision of Jersey’s then Attorney General, Michael Birt, to bury the case so as to protect Jersey’s public authorities from an immense controversy and scandal.

I named the male nurse in question – and in doing so, I made the public-interest judgment that he may well sue me for defamation – but I was confident of winning the case; and even if I didn’t, the public good required he be exposed in any event. And what made public exposure even more important, was the profoundly disturbing failures by Jersey’s authorities in the case.

What happened is that the individual in question did not sue me; he had no need to – as Jersey’s authorities – desperate to cover-up their failures and malfeasances in the case – decided they would silence me on his behalf. So it was that I was prosecuted for supposedly breaking the data protection law – even though the law in question explicitly permits public interest disclosures.

Throughout the malicious prosecution conducted against me, a variety of abuses of process have occurred; for example, conflicted judges, the prosecution refusing to disclose evidence that was necessary to the defense, judges deeming the entire defense case “inadmissible” just as soon as it became clear the prosecution had no answer to it, the prosecuting lawyer repeatedly and evidencedly lying throughout the proceedings, key evidence being dishonestly withheld from the defense such as the 94 page statement by former Police Chief Graham Power – and the existence of a vital witness being withheld from the knowledge of the defense.

I am devoting most of this posting to the statement made today by Paul Dacre, which is reproduced in full below.

In respect of my case, I will just explain one simple point.

By happenstance, the vital witness I referred to above – one of many patients of the nurse I exposed – became known to me after the prosecution and subsequent appeal. I advised them to go to the police and give a formal statement of their concerns, which they did, in October 2011.

Having taken this statement, the police commissioned an independent clinical expert to review the patient’s notes.

I too, at a far earlier stage, had also asked a doctor to be my expert witness and write detailed reports based upon an analysis of the police evidence from 1999. The general thrust of the reports of this expert was that not only could foul play not be ruled out, but that there were also very compelling evidential grounds for concluding that the 1999 investigation into the rogue nurse had been both incompetent and had been halted prematurely. My expert witness and I spent three months working on my defense case, with the full knowledge and agreement of the prosecution and the court. My defense expert witness submitted his reports to the court and prosecution.

Three days later, the prosecution and the magistrate suddenly decided that none of the expert’s reports and supporting evidence would be “admissible” any more.  

They simply had no answer to them; the prosecution case had collapsed.

So, what did the new expert clinician, very recently commissioned by the police, conclude in his detailed examination of the concealed witness’s patient notes?

“In my view on the basis of the medical records seen, the most likely cause of the ——- ——- —— was —– —- —– complicated by rapid-onset ——- ——-. This may well have occurred as a result of pathophysiological mechanisms. However, the management of the ———- was far from straightforward and the possibility of foul play could not be completely ruled out.”   

And that is just one patient – amongst dozens and dozens and dozens – where foul play might have occurred.

I did attempt  – whilst I was in  prison – to make a strong appeal on the basis of this dramatic new evidence – and other, equally dramatic evidence that had also been improperly concealed from me, such as the 94 page statement prepared by former Police Chief Graham Power. I was given less than 24 hours notice of the court hearing – and was driven down to the court in hand-shackles the next morning. Obviously, I had had nothing like adequate time or facilities to prepare this application.

The case was heard by Christopher Pitchers – an English judge who had – late into the earlier proceedings, eventually been forced to admit that he had had dinner with Michael Birt – the former Attorney General whose failure I had exposed – and William Bailhache, the Attorney General who had ordered the illegal massed raid and subsequent prosecution against me.

Christopher Pitchers was effectively sitting as an appellate court judge, on his own judgment. Having already decided to support the prosecuting lawyer even though he had confessed to repeated lying during earlier hearings – and having already determined that, as far has he was concerned the justification of exposing the rogue nurse was “inadmissible” – it was no great surprise that this appeal was also thrown out.

I and my London advisers are looking forward, with great fascination, to the written judgment.

Meanwhile – the campaign – the campaign for effective and functioning justice – and the safe and strong protection of the public from dangerous criminals and a defective law enforcement apparatus continues.

It took fifteen years for Doreen and Neville Lawrence and the Daily Mail to secure justice and the public good, in the face of an intransigent and stagnant system.

Eventually, we in Jersey will also win our battle.

No retreat – no surrender.


Taken from the Daily Mail, Tuesday 3rd January, 2012.

“For 15 years, the Daily Mail has led a remarkable campaign for justice for Stephen Lawrence.

Starting with the February 1997 front page which named Stephen’s killers, this newspaper has broken a series of stunning exclusive stories on the case.

This has included chronicling the moves to reform double jeopardy laws to allow his killers to stand trial again, the setting up of the public inquiry, the scandal of how bungling police officers escaped sanction, the key findings of the Macpherson report, the Yard’s decision to close the case in 2004 and the sensational forensic breakthrough in the case four years ago which paved the way for the new prosecution.”


“This is a glorious day for Neville and Doreen Lawrence who after all the betrayals, injustice and tears have finally, after nearly two decades, secured justice for Stephen.

It’s a glorious day for the police, who – after the utter disgrace that was the original investigation – have through sheer bloody perseverance and brilliant detective work wiped out this blot on the Yard’s history and shown that British policing at its best is still something to be proud of.

It’s a glorious day for British justice which shows that, while mistakes can be made, our judicial system does provide redress for every member of British society whatever their racial background.

It’s a glorious day for the politicians – particularly Jack Straw and David Blunkett – who, responding to the Mail’s campaign, commissioned the MacPherson Inquiry and reformed the centuries-old double jeopardy law – thus allowing the trial of two of the original suspects after a criminal action, a private prosecution and an inquest had failed to secure justice for Stephen.

And finally, it’s a glorious day for British newspapers, proving that the power of journalism, courageous headlines and relentless campaigning can act as a huge force for good in society and make a major difference to countless lives.

Quite simply, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that if it hadn’t been for the Mail’s headline in 1997 – “Murderers: The Mail accuses these men of killing” – and our years of campaigning, none of this would have happened.

Britain’s police might not have undergone the huge internal reform that was so necessary. Race relations might not have taken the significant step forward that they have. And an 18-year-old A-Level student who dreamed of being an architect would have been denied justice.

The Daily Mail took a monumental risk with that headline. In many ways, it was an outrageous, unprecedented step. But I’d like to think that as a result we did a huge amount of good and made a little bit of history that day.

In truth, however, I think that headline had almost subconsciously been brewing in my mind for some time because there had been a sense of rage building up in the Mail’s conferences over the sheer injustice of the Lawrence case.

Our crime reporters, who had spent months investigating the case and had a huge dossier on the suspects, were absolutely convinced of their guilt.

By sheer chance earlier in the week of the inquest, I’d had lunch with one of the Yard’s most senior police officers who said words to the effect that he’d stake his life on their guilt.

Four of the five, you will recall, had refused to provide alibis. The fifth had, but it didn’t stand up.

The suspects had been given every chance to disprove the charges against them but had refused every opportunity to do so.

For me, the most sickening thing was the arrogant contempt of the suspects in refusing to answer any questions at the inquest, citing their legal right to silence.

But it was the devastating report on that night’s TV news that the coroner’s jury had taken just thirty minutes to decide unanimously that Stephen had been unlawfully killed – the victim of a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths – that was the catalyst.

It was about 8 o’clock. I reached for a layout pad. This was in the days before on-screen make-up and I literally wrote down with a thick pencil the words “Murderers” and underneath it the sub-deck: “The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us”.

After about five minutes on my own, I walked back onto the floor. The ‘Murderers’ page was made up with an alternative front page next to it. The mood was electric. ‘Let’s go,’ I said. ‘You can always come and visit me in jail…’

I showed it to the senior sub-editors. There was a kind of nervous laughter but then contempt of court is drilled into every newspaper executive’s thinking. And this was contempt of a cosmic order.

They obviously thought I was mad. Someone muttered libel and I remember snapping – “The bastards haven’t got any reputation to lose”.

It was now that Eddie Young, the Mail’s lawyer and one of the shrewdest men I’ve ever met, became involved. To his eternal credit, he was unfazed by the headline.

He reinforced my feeling that the five had very little reputation to defend as is required in a libel case. Some had records and came from notorious criminal families with long histories of appalling violence.

Yes, if it went to court, the Mail would have to establish that the men murdered Stephen Lawrence, but since it would be a civil case, we would only have to prove that it was probable that they had done so, which we were confident could be done.

I, Eddie and my deputy retired to my room to rehearse the arguments. The mood, surprisingly, was very calm. Clearly, there were many powerful reasons against the headline. But there wasn’t one over-riding reason NOT to do it.

The paper was due off at 9.45 pm, and by now it was 9.30 pm – the loneliest time of the day for any editor when only one man can make a decision. Of course, I was desperately aware of the enormousness of what was being proposed. It’s not up to newspapers to accuse people of murder or act as judge and jury.

But if the suspects did sue, we would achieve what British justice had failed to do – get Stephen’s alleged killers into a court to answer questions.

After about five minutes on my own, I walked back onto the floor. The “Murderers” page was made up with an alternative front page next to it. The mood was electric. “Let’s go,” I said. “You can always come and visit me in jail…”

I went home and rang my wife to tell her what I’d done and how dangerous the men concerned were. As always, she totally backed me.

That night I took a sleeping pill. Despite it, I woke up at four o’clock in the morning – the time when all the decisions of the previous day suddenly assume terrifying proportions. I was drenched in sweat and convinced my career was over.

Next morning, the proverbial hit the fan. The whole media went into meltdown. TV carried our front pages but with the suspects’ pictures pixelated.

The Telegraph declared I should be jailed and carried a cartoon of me flicking ink at the Old Bailey’s scales of justice. For days, the story dominated the TV and radio news shows and even made international headlines.

The former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, pronounced his surprise and horror at the front page and accused me of contempt of court.

But other distinguished lawyers supported us, as did Doreen Lawrence who said the front page was “wonderful”. Her local MP, Peter Bottomley, and Frances Lawrence, the widow of murdered headmaster; Philip Lawrence, also weighed in on our side.

But perhaps the thing that thrilled me most was the intervention of a hero of mine, Britain’s greatest judge, Lord Denning, who congratulated the Mail on “a marvelous piece of journalism”, adding “it was a brave and courageous thing for the Mail to do”.

That week we published, for the first time, the devastating pictures and dialogue from a secretly filmed police video of the suspects which horrifically revealed their racism, violence and use of knives. These had never been published before because of legal restraints.

Three days later, the Prime Minister, John Major, backed the Mail. And on March 6th the fax machine in the room outside my office came to life with a letter from the Attorney General saying he had decided, after Lord Donaldson’s intervention, that there were no contempt of court implications for the Mail.

But the most heart-warming thing about those few days was the reaction of the Mail’s readers. For days, our phones went into meltdown with their calls and, God bless them, there was not one dissenting voice. To the last one, they supported us.

It was, I believe, a highly significant moment – the first time that many people in Britain realised that black readers were as important to the Mail as white ones.

Of course, that headline, while hugely significant, was only the first step. For the next few months, our campaign moved into overdrive. In June, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw ordered a judicial inquiry into the Lawrence case to be conducted by Sir William Macpherson. Jack, whom I’d known at university, told me that it was the Mail’s coverage that persuaded him of the necessity of this move.

In September 1997, we carried a major story saying that senior officers were desperate for new laws to allow the suspects to be re-tried for Stephen’s murder.

In December, we reported that the police watch dog had found conclusive evidence of appalling errors by detectives which had allowed Stephen’s killers to escape justice.

In July the next year, we disclosed a jury-nobbling scandal involving one of the suspects, David Norris, when he was controversially acquitted of attempting to murder another man.

In December, we revealed that a draft copy of the Macpherson report declared that the Lawrence murder probe was hampered by racism across virtually all ranks – the first indication of the devastating conclusion of institutional racism which would be unveiled in his final report.

In January 1999, in another front page exclusive, we revealed how not a single police officer would be disciplined over the botched investigation.

The following day under the heading “The Untouchables” we named and shamed the officers who’d been responsible for the shambles and revealed how urgent reforms of police disciplinary rules were being demanded by the police watch dog.

Throughout the Mail campaign, we highlighted the need for the double jeopardy law – which prevented an individual being charged with the same crime twice – to be reformed. Such a change would allow Stephen’s suspected killers – who had been charged in the family’s private prosecution – to stand trial again if new evidence emerged.

The 800-year-old law was finally reformed in 2005 by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, a man whom I’d come to like and respect. Many senior police officers and prosecution officials believed that this momentous change would not have occurred but for the relentlessness of the Mail’s campaign.

I always tell people who ask that the secret to editing is to be both bold and cautious. It’s knowing when to be which that’s the problem. That day in February 1997 I think we were bold in a way that the Mail can always be proud of.”

Paul Dacre, Editor, Daily Mail