Every Cloud Has A Silver Lining.

Some Questions For the Next ESC Minister.

Just a quick posting while I write-up my thoughts and observations on the catastrophic election results – which I’ll post later this evening.

But, in the mean time, every cloud has a silver lining; and in the case of the elections – the termination of Mike Vibert, presently Minister for Education, is the encouraging feature.

I’m sure readers will find the e-mail correspondence below this post fascinating – particularly the 10 questions which Bill Ogley will not answer.

The answer to each of the 10 questions, should, incidentally, be simply ‘yes’.

The e-mails are largely self-explanatory. I have arranged the exchange in chronological order so that it begins with my first e-mail of this particular thread, and concludes with my e-mail of today.

As readers will be aware – I have been striving for many months in an attempt to make Jersey’s civil service – finally – begin behaving in a proper and ethical manner insofar as the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster is concerned.

Bill Ogley is the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey; the top civil servant – who carries responsibility for the upholding of proper standards of discipline and accountability throughout our immensely expensive civil service.

And to those who criticise me for being too impolite – and not adopting a more co-operative approach to working with these clowns – I say, read and note the correspondence below.

It is but one, small example of the frankly corrupt degrees of intransigent self-interest which dominates “The System”.

Perhaps you’re happy – that vast fortunes taken from the pockets of tax-payers like you – flood into the bank accounts of employees who will dissemble in an attempt to protect colleagues?

Bill Ogley – close friends with Mario Lundy – and Mike Pollard – the lying Chief Officer at Health & Social Services – husband to Jane Pollard – Fixer-in-Chief in Bill Ogley’s Human Resources Department. The same Jane Pollard who participated in the unlawful sacking of Simon Bellwood – and the same Jane Pollard who excised crucial passages from the States of Jersey disciplinary rules – in order to substantially weaken them.

All civil servants who – contrary to oligarchy assertions that ‘everything in the garden is rosy these days’ – are – plainly and on the evidence – maintaining the culture of concealment which enabled the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

Of the 6 Senators you elected yesterday – 5 of them will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with expensive, unethical cover-up merchants like Ogley & the Pollards.

Still – you pays your money – and you takes your choice.

Look out for Election Special #7 later this evening.


—–Original Message—–
From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 24 September 2008 13:27
To: Bill Ogley
Subject: Suspension of States Employees under Investigation for Child Abuse
Importance: High

Mr. Ogley

In a recent e-mail, you explained why you would not now discuss the cases of individual employees.

Very well – let us set aside specific questions concerning specific individuals and instead address some hypothetical policy questions.

You will, presumably, understand that these issues and questions are a mater of some significant public interest and importance. And all that is sought is a description of the policies of the States of Jersey as employers, and of your actions as head of the civil service in certain, hypothetical, situations.

I have been reading the States of Jersey’s “Human Resources Policy Manual” – which deals with such matters.

Firstly – it cannot be but noted that there are some remarkable differences between the document as posted on the States of Jersey intranet site today – and the document as previously drafted. Whilst it is certainly understandable that employment and management policies will evolve over time – the excising from the current document of the following section cannot be regarded as anything other than astonishing:

“Reasons For Suspension:

Suspension from duty, prior to a disciplinary interview/hearing is not a form of disciplinary action but a precautionary measure which may be appropriate in one or more of the following circumstances; (number 1 to 4)

1: When the action complained of requires the immediate removal of the employee from the workplace pending a decision concerning any disciplinary action to be taken;

2: When the behaviour of the employee requires investigation and is of such serious nature that it is unacceptable for the employee to remain at work;

3: When the behaviour of the employee is such that they are a danger to themselves or others;

4: When the Manager regards suspension as appropriate i.e. if gross negligence is alleged or when an employee has committed the most recent of a series of negligent acts for which a warning or warnings have been issued.”

This quote is taken from the earlier document “Civil Service Disciplinary Procedures: Appendix A.

But, for mystifying reasons – Jane Pollard, a senior States HR manager – and wife of Health & Social Services Chief Officer, Mike Pollard – has removed this passage from the said Appendix A in the present document. She is listed as the author in the current document’s electronic data.

I say mystifying – because the reasons for, and the use of, suspension are, to all practical degree, immutable – and are found in this, or very similar form, throughout HR management policies across both private and public sector employers.

So having established that such guidance on the use of suspension is ‘best-practice’ – and cannot have become ‘obsolete’ – will have to put it’s removal down to one of life’s little mysteries.

However – in the reasonable assumption that your department still uses such common guidance – notwithstanding its omission from the document on the intranet – I’d like to ask you – as the head of Jersey’s civil service – a few hypothetical questions.

Before asking those questions – I’ll quote some passages from the present document in order to set the context:

Human Resources Policy Manual; Section C: Conditions of Employment.

“Section C4
This policy applies to all Civil Servants

Civil Service Disciplinary Policy and Procedure

The intention of this Policy is to correct inappropriate behaviour rather than punish individuals. However there is a firm statement that breaches of the disciplinary rules will result in formal action being taken. The policy emphasises the need to ensure that a full and proper investigation takes place into allegations of misconduct prior to a decision being taken to progress the matter formally under the Procedure. Suspension from work is required in certain circumstances and must always be for the shortest possible period of time. The formal disciplinary sanctions available are: a Formal Verbal Warning; a First Written Warning; a Final Written Warning, (with or without additional penalties) and Dismissal, with or without notice.”

Moving on through the document, it says this:


2.1 Gross Misconduct is generally seen as misconduct that, if established, justifies the Management in concluding that the employee’s actions have destroyed the employment contract between Manager and employee and made any further working relationship impossible. (Emphasis added.)


3.1 If it is established that an employee wilfully disregards a contractual obligation or fails to observe an expressed or implied contractual requirement or a reasonable instruction or rule, an act of serious misconduct occurs. (Emphasis added.)

3.2 Repeated serious misconduct would render the employee in question liable to a charge of gross misconduct.

Appendix B of the document says this:



3.1 Acting in a discreditable or disorderly manner or in any manner, whether on or off duty, likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the Public Service. Behaviour of a very serious nature may also be deemed to be gross misconduct. (Emphasis added.)

The document goes on:


4.1 Gross Misconduct describes exceptionally serious offences, examples of which are given below, and where the States consider that the breach may warrant summary dismissal even though the offence may be a first breach of discipline and an earlier warning has not been given. (Emphasis added.)

It goes on to list certain offences, of which I quote a few:

4.3 Assault

4.5.1 Any verbal or physical assault or deliberate provocation to another employee or member of the public arising out of employment with the States of Jersey. Offensive language or unacceptable behaviour towards colleagues or members of the public. Assault may also be a form of Harassment or Bullying. (Emphasis added.)

4.4 Harassment, Bullying and Discrimination

4.6.1 Any form of harassment, bullying or discrimination, including sexual offences, verbal abuse or intimidation aimed at a member of staff, customer or member of the public. (Emphasis added.)

4.5 Negligence

4.5.1 Any action, omission or failure to act which threatens the health and safety of a member of staff, customer or member of the public. (Emphasis added.)

The document also contains the following – greatly weakened, but still relevant – description of the use of suspension:

4.1.2 Suspension may be appropriate when:

4.1.3 The employee is accused of gross misconduct;

4.1.4 It is necessary to suspend the employee in order to carry out a full and thorough investigation;

4.1.5 A potential risk exists to other employees, customers or the public.

Having established the above-cited employment and disciplinary policies of the States of Jersey – I would now like to ask you the following – hypothetical – questions:

1: Would you, hypothetically, consider the inflicting of repeated, savage, violent assaults upon vulnerable children in care – over an extended period of some years – by a States employee to amount to Gross Misconduct?

2: Would you, hypothetically, consider the routine abuse – through violent batterings – of children by a States employee to have “destroyed the employment contract between manager and employee”?

3: Would you consider that a States employee, whose job involved the “care” of vulnerable children, to have “broken a contractual obligation”, or “failed to observe an express or implied contractual obligation” – if the person concerned had – hypothetically – been routinely punching, kicking and otherwise battering children in his “care”?

4: Would you consider that a hypothetical States employee who not only violently assaulted children in his “care” over a period of years, but had also witnessed, tolerated and encouraged similar conduct by colleagues – to have acted in a “discreditable manner”, whilst “on duty” and exhibited conduct likely to bring “discredit on the reputation of the public service”?

5: Would you consider, hypothetically, that “exceptionally serious offences” – which qualify as “Gross Misconduct” – to include “verbal and physical assaults” and “unacceptable behaviour towards members of the public” – in this case vulnerable children?

6: Would you, hypothetically, consider the routine action of grabbing children by the throat, lifting them from the floor and holding them against a wall whilst the hypothetical employee screams foul and obnoxious abuse at them to amount to a form of “harassment and bullying” and “verbal abuse or intimidation”?

7: Would you consider such, hypothetical, violent child abuse – and the toleration of similar conduct by colleagues – to exhibit “negligence” given that such action would “threaten the health and safety of a customer or member of the public”?

8: If you were – hypothetically – aware of a States of Jersey employee facing a variety of well-evidenced accusations against him – of the kind described in questions 1 to 7 – and you – hypothetically – knew that the Police Force regarded these allegations as serious and robust – to the extent they were seriously investigating the matter – would you suspend the employee in question?

9: Indeed – if the case against the States employee was so serious that the Police Force were to issue to you a disclosure notice that the hypothetical employee in question was a prime suspect and under active investigation – would you suspend the employee?

10: If – hypothetically – an employee facing the serious and evidenced allegations as described in questions 1 to 7 – were to still be in a job in which there existed the opportunity to be in unsupervised contact with children – you would, presumably, suspend them immediately?

I, my constituents – and I’m quite certain the vast majority of decent people – would, without hesitation, say that the answer to all of the 10 questions above was simply “Yes.”

What are your answers?

The public who pay your wages would certainly expect your answers to be “yes”.

And given the generally accepted view of “suspension”, as quoted towards the beginning of this document, suspension would certainly be immediate under such circumstances?

Let me remind you that:

“Suspension from duty, prior to a disciplinary interview/hearing is not a form of disciplinary action but a precautionary measure”.

And suspension may be invoked – for example:

“When the behaviour of the employee requires investigation and is of such serious nature that it is unacceptable for the employee to remain at work”.

Presumably, a hypothetical States of Jersey employee – who faced a variety of allegations of sustained, violent child abuse – of sufficient seriousness for the Police Force to have issued a Disclosure Notice to the States of Jersey – that it would be regarded as “unacceptable” for the hypothetical employee in question “to remain at work”?

I do not expect your answer to take long to deliver. After all – the 10 questions I ask on behalf of my constituents only require you to write the word “yes” 10 times.

I look forward to receiving your answers.

Thanks you for your assistance.

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey.
From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 24 September 2008 19:54
To: Bill Ogley
Subject: RE:


Well – what’s it to be?

Are you going to answer the legitimate questions of an elected member – questions which merely require the undemanding answer “yes”, to be given 10 times?

Or do I have to go to the national media to explain just how I can’t get answers to such rudimentary questions concerning child protection and the States of Jersey – even given all that has occurred?

Should I not have your substantive response by midday tomorrow – I will be forced to presume you wish to continue to be a part of the culture of concealment of child abuse.

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey

From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 25 September 2008 11:32
From: Bill Ogley
Sent: 25 September 2008 09:59
To: Stuart Syvret
Subject: Suspension of States Employees under Investigation for Child Abuse

It would be inappropriate for a civil servant to engage in speculative and tendentious correspondence with any politician and I decline to do so.
Bill Ogley

To: Bill Ogley
Subject: RE: Staff Accused of Child Abuse
Importance: High

Mr. Ogley

The assertion you make in this brief e-mail is manifestly absurd.

It is entirely appropriate that you – the immensely expensive head of Jersey’s civil service – employed by the island’s tax-payers – should answer perfectly reasonable questions to an elected representative of those who pay your wages.

Jersey is embroiled in a child abuse scandal of international proportions.

Yet you seriously imagine that it is “inappropriate” to answer hypothetical questions concerning the employment policies of the States and of your management practices – in connection with a subject as important as child abuse?

You are plainly – along with a number of your senior colleagues – living in some kind of dream-world.

Let me explain something which has obviously eluded you.

An elected representative of the public asks you reasonable, topical and highly relevant hypothetical questions concerning the States of Jersey’s approach to dealing with staff accused of child abuse.

Now, pay attention – you have no choice other than to answer.

The luxury of deciding which questions you will or won’t answer is not a benefit of your position.

Answering these questions is your job.

Answer my questions – or resign. You must do one or the other.

Senator Stuart Syvret

[No reply received to the above e-mail of the 25th September]


From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 16 October 2008 15:22
To: Bill Ogley
Subject: Suspension of States Employees under Investigation for Child Abuse
Importance: High

Mr. Ogley

Now that there is going to be regime change at the Education Department – I’d be grateful if you would now answer all of the questions in my e-mail of the 24th September.

And – to be perfectly specific – confirm to me that ALL and ANY States of Jersey employees who are known to be under Police investigation for any offence related to child abuse will now be suspended forthwith?

Should this not occur – then during the election of a new ESC Minister – these issues will have to be dealt with in the chamber in the form of questions to the candidates.

I look forward to detailed answers.

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey

19 thoughts on “REGIME-CHANGE AT ESC:

  1. st-ouennais

    In the ordinary run of things you would expect a seniour States HR person to be a member of an appropriate professional body. Such a body would of course have a code of practice and conduct for its members Is the HR person a memebr of such a body and is what you write consistent with thier codes?

  2. Anonymous

    I am trying to think of a States member who is foolish or mad enough to take on the ESC portfolio.
    It pretty much finished Mike Vibert as a politician.
    Anyone who takes it on will have to bear in mind that few if any of the senior officers in the department are trustworthy and the Council Of Ministers has a standard of collegiate behaviour far below that of the UK Cabinet and in fact would not disgrace a barrel full of starving rats at times.
    So no support there 😀
    I reckon wee Jimmy Perchard fits the bill nicely with the right balance of egotism and stupidity not to see the rope until it is too late.

  3. voiceforchildren

    As a parent of 2 children under the “care of esc I demand the ansewrs to all of your questions put to Bill Ogley.

    If any of them come back as “no” I shall be mentining it to the national media.

  4. Stuart Syvret

    Voice for Children

    There is no prospect whatsoever of me getting answers to the 10 questions.

    To reply ‘no’ to any of them would be manifestly absurd and wholly indefensible.

    The only credible answer to all 10 questions is ‘yes’.

    But if Ogley were to say ‘yes’ – to any of them – never mind all 10 – he would be cutting his own throat.

    Because – as is well-evidenced – him and his little claque of immensely expensive grifters and crooks have, in fact, tolerated all of the malfeasances as described in the questions.

    Of course – what makes the situation truly appalling is that these bent “Humphreys” can carry on with complete impunity – because they know that if the going gets tough, they’ll always be supported by our cretinous politicians – who will be prepared to lay down their careers – rather than hold to account someone who’s costing tax-payers £200,000 a year – notwithstanding the fact they spent much of the early part of their careers beating-up vulnerable children in “care”. And worse.

    So – we’ll get no answers.

    Even more so – now that the people have spoken – and said such conduct is just fine by them.


  5. Anonymous

    can we set up a petition demanding answers. I am happy to canvas at the school gates. There are about 17,000 children and I am sure all parents would want these assurances

  6. Anonymous

    st ouennais. You had all my households votes. Go for deputy. As for jane pollard and HR codes ofcconduct, allegedly she got her job without it being advertised. Just slipped her in. I believe ml’s wife is also going to be slipped in. Keep it in the family,eh.

  7. Anonymous

    Stop pussy footing around with these cretinous Gob S…s. vibert should have suspended Lundy and now Ogley refuses to do so. the whole thing stinks. This more than jusifies the national media getting involved, and we all know the redtops do investigative work which often gets praise from the police, who sometime have limited resorses. I say go ahead, and you wont be shafting Jersey internationally you can hold your head up high and be assured you have so many people behind you.

  8. Anonymous

    Who exactly is Bill Ogley anwerable to – If he reports to POLITICIAN Frank Walker, you may care to address said correspondence to FW for the attention of BO.
    With reference to the missing section in the manual – could it have been removed to be updated following the Bellwood case – I cant beleive they would be so stupid to just removed it?

    This whole thing just becomes more bizarre……………..

  9. Anonymous

    Stuart, you wrote on an earlier message;
    ‘I’ve wasted the best years of my life in Jersey politics as it is – I’m sure not going to spend the rest of it as being everyone’s favourite token rebel – like some kind of performing monkey’

    I know it’s a bad day but you should always remember that you (often alone) have done this island an invaluable service throughout your career by telling the truth.
    It must often have seemed that no-one was listening or cared but look at your support in the previous elections. Ordinary, working people are intimidated from “rocking the boat”, we all know what happens to ‘troublemakers’ in this financial fiefdom and most of us feel powerless to do anything.

    You represent me, my family, my friends and so many more people on this island who hate the shysters who have sold our home to international tax dodging.

    By speaking out you have shown up their lies and deceit. If you hadn’t been there it wouldn’t have happened.
    The millionaires who govern us would have a completely free ride to do whatever they like and to destroy whoever would try to question the “Jersey way”.
    Well if the “Jersey way” will allow child abuse (and possibly murder) to be hushed up in case it should harm our reputation then it should be shown in all it’s corruption and seediness to the world.

    No-one else has stood up in the states and apologised to the abused, not one. No one backed you when you committed the unpardonable sin of criticising Reg Jeune. They are corrupt or cowards and are seen as such by most of this island. That’s why there is voter apathy here. “Vote for me, or him, you won’t be able to tell the difference”.

    When all is said and done you will be able to look back and know you did what was moral and right.
    Will walker, ozouf, routier and co be able to do that? Will they look back with pride at the way they tried to cover up child abuse allegations? Or feel a warm glow inside their heart when they remember how they impoverished the weakest people in society to give the finance business a tax break?

    It might not seem like it some days, but you have done well for this island and it’s people and I wish you would stay on.

  10. ratleskutle

    Stuart, why were the elections when you first got into the States, so different? I wasn’t in Jersey at the time but I remember people telling me that loads of new people had got in and that there was a great feeling – real change. but that hasn’t happened since. Please have a look at my analysis of the senatorials. I plan to write more tomorrow

  11. Anonymous

    Now its time for the states to come clean on the child abuse matter? or does this go right to the vey top ! we pay these peoples wages / we have a right to know the the truth, and mr walker if u are reading this ? find some decency no more cover ups ? a top civil servant is being proctected buy u and other ministers? shame on u.
    All u seem concerned about is the financial side banks etc! and wealthy reidents, the normal working person does not matter one bit to u!!
    What a great job u have done on ruinning this island for self gain and maybe a gong from the queen at christmas . the true people of jersey will never forget how u and your corrupt gang of muppets have let us down Shame on you frank walker

  12. Anonymous


    Another poser asked this question. Who is Ogly responsible to?

    I have a source who works closely in or around that department and I am informed that Blank Frank is absolutely, without doubt, Ogley’s poodle.

    There is a feeling that this guy is answerable to no-one, cannot possibly be sacked and has Blank Frank yapping around his heels saying ‘oh yes bill, no Bill’.

  13. Stuart Syvret

    Le Marquand Vs. Kinnard

    You’re quite right about Kinnard being a failure at Home Affairs – in most respects.

    However, she did bring about hitherto unknown (to Jersey) advances in policing – such as giving the Police complete operational freedom so that they be free of political interference – just as is every Police Force the length of the country.

    Le Marquand wants to take the Jersey Police back to the bad old days – of direct political control – and the old ‘hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil’ approach when it comes to anything which might be problematic or damaging to the establishment.

    If the States of Jersey Police Force were under the traditional style of direct political control – none of the historic child abuse investigations would be happening.

    So – as useless as Kinnard was in many respects – Le Marquand will be far – far – worse; in fact into the realm of the actually dangerous.

    If we had a remotely competent Assembly, various grandees would be taking him to one side and saying, ‘look, Ian, we know you really want this job – but sorry – you’re just too conflicted to touch Home Affairs.’

    But nobody will, of course. It’s almost as though the oligarchy wish to make themselves appear ever more absurd in the eyes of the real world. Let’s face it – the various speeches by the Bailhache Brothers could only have been written with the clear objective of inflicting suicidal damage on their reputation.


  14. Anonymous

    Well all very interesting stuff…..

    Ogley will never be sacked…….Pollard (either of them) will never will never be suspended (I understand they knew each other on the mainland)……H&SS senior Civil Servants will never be called to account…..they are all, quite literally, in bed with each other…..

    same old same old…


  15. Anonymous

    Sounds a lot like Ireland then, with another cover up of abuse of vulnerable children.

    Someone mentions Kinsey and Co.

    Perhaps Jersey is just one fly in the spiders web, worldwide?

    After all Jersey had German connections and so had Kinsey.

    Kinsey states all children enjoy sexual abuse as do women love being raped, and his disciples have been preaching this world wide from the fiftees.

    Germany is about to legalise paedophilia- so then all these old predators will be in the clear.

    Ireland has removed from statute- rape of any child.

    The abusers will have free access to abuse and rape any child or woman, just like the barbarians of thousands of years ago.

    Wow, we are civilised.

  16. Anonymous

    Stuart – if you are so right and all others are so wrong, why don’t you give up your seat and go for re-election? Let’s see just how many people are willing to support you from within the general population. Mind you, I suppose that if you failed to get re-elected it would be everyone having been ‘nobbled’ by the ‘oligarchy’!
    I assume you will not even allow this comment to pass your myopic, self-centred filter!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.