THE BAILIFF ATTEMPTS A DEFENCE.

Apparently – it’s OK for Bailhache & Walker to be Political –

But not anyone who happens to have a different opinion to theirs.

You know, I wouldn’t have thought it feasible, but nevertheless, my estimation of Phil Bailhache’s I.Q diminishes on an almost daily basis.

I guess it’s a bit like the Jersey oligarchy’s explorations of ethics; you think they just can’t get any lower – yet they do.

I’d like us to have a look at an e-mail from Phil Bailhache, which I reproduce below this post, and to undertake some fairly rudimentary deconstruction.

If you’ve read my previous post – or have been following the Jersey media – you will know that both Phil, and Jersey’s Chief Minister, Frank Walker, chose to use the island’s national holiday – Liberation Day – to make political speeches which, essentially, attacked and denigrated the abuse survivors, the national and international media, those, like me, campaigning on survivors’ behalves and the Police investigation.

All, it seems, some foul and unholy fusion of tabloid muck-raking, anarcho-commie agit-prop and police scheming to bring down the government.

The fact that we have around 150 credible child abuse victims of all ages; people who have undergone torment and ruined lives as a result of decades of a sustained culture of concealment on the part of Jersey’s public administration – apparently is a matter of an entirely second order when compared to damage to the island’s “image”.

Remember – according to these people, I’m “just trying to shaft Jersey internationally”. (F. Walker)

You think I exaggerate?

Check out this quote from Phil’s speech:

“All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.”

Yes – you read that correctly.

It is conceded by Sir Philip Bailhache that child abuse is scandalous – but less-so than criticising the Jersey oligarchy.

And I refer to the ‘oligarchy’ quite deliberately; I do so because I have not read, nor heard, in any of the media coverage “a remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people.”

What I have read and heard might well be described as serious criticisms of Jersey’s public administration, the inherent failure of checks & balances; a reporting of the climate of fear which prevents people from speaking out; and of the overweening and stagnant invulnerability of an establishment which has permitted all these things to happen.

But that isn’t an attack upon ‘Jersey and her people’.

What it is, is an attack upon Frank & Phil’s oligarchy.

An important difference – one from which we should not be diverted by the Jersey establishment’s propaganda.

Jersey is a broadly conservative society; it takes a lot to get people angry and worked-up down here.

Yet that, in another PR master-stroke, is what Frank & Phil have done.

Decidedly non-radical pensioners and many thousands of others have been appalled and outraged at the hi-jacking of Liberation Day for some wholly unworthy partisan political purpose.

If you pay tax in Jersey – remember – Frank & Co spend about £300,000 per annum on a team of spin-doctors. A waste of our money in any event – but to add insult to injury – they’re actually all bloody useless.

Look, Frank & Phil – I’ll give you a pointer – OK? Absolutely free of charge.

You do not need to be a key member in the international elite team from Burson-Marsteller to, you know, just maybe, kind of work out – that attempting to use Liberation Day to invoke that last refuge of the scoundrel – ‘patriotism’ – in an attempt to protect yourselves – might just be a bit risky; a bit contentious.

You know? Maybe just a bit?

In the e-mail I reproduce below, Phil Bailhache responds to an e-mail of protest sent to him by a Jersey politician, Deputy Gerard Baudains.

The Deputy – like most people in Jersey, and like me – was appalled that Bailhache should hi-jack Liberation Day – Jersey’s national holiday – to, essentially, deliver a partisan political diatribe against anti-child abuse campaigners, the national and international media and the Police investigation.

Phil was joined in this stunt by Jersey’s Chief Minister, Frank Walker, who made very similar remarks during the short States assembly meeting.

So let’s turn to Bailhache’s e-mail.

Interestingly, I actually agree with the general thrust of Phil’s comments as re-produced below – insofar as they concern inviting representatives of different parts of this community to take part in the ceremonies. I don’t believe Liberation Day is an event only for indigenous islanders.

If Liberation – from the Nazis – means anything – it must surely be about harmony between peoples and cultures; unity around civilised values; freedom.

So far – so good.

But after that first paragraph of his e-mail – disaster resumes.

Where his locomotive of reasoning leaps from the tracks to become a burnt and shattered train-wreck is when he makes a particularly cretinous – and actually quite pathetically pity-inducing – attempt to rationalise why it was OK for him and the rest of the mobsters to stop my Christmas speech – but similar reasoning does not, apparently, prevent him or Frank Walker from using the deeply symbolic Liberation Day to attack those fighting against the concealed child abuse.

Look – this man is a supposedly very learned lawyer; civic head of Jersey’s establishment – chief judge and speaker of our parliament. Oxbridge educated.

For these supposed attributes – tax-payers fork-out over £300,000 per annum just in his salary & pension alone.

I – by way of contrast, am a semi-literate scummy prole from St. Helier’s slums, who left school at the age of 15 with no academic qualifications whatsoever (courtesy of Mike Vibert), have zero pension scheme from the States, and not even legal social security treatment.

So – by pretty much every means of judging people – sadly common throughout British society – such as class, education, wealth, profession, power and social standing – I’m lower than a worm’s genitals – and Phil Bailhache is King of the Hill.

Now – I’m not especially knowledgeable, and nor do I claim any great intelligence.

But yet the arguments put forward by Bailhache in his e-mail, reproduced below, are so hollow – so flawed – so feeble – so tragic in many ways, that it actually gives some credence to those who ask ‘were we ever actually liberated?’

So Bailhache – and, no doubt Walker and most of the halfwits who represent us – believe there to be some clear and profound difference between their political speeches delivered on Liberation Day – and my speech, delivered in the States assembly before Christmas – which they shouted-down and unlawfully halted.

Let’s distil the key features from Phil’s argument, as stated in his e-mail below
.
Phil believes that some undefined and subjective measure of “context” determines what can – and what cannot – be said in a speech.

Even when there is no specific proposition before the assembly – apparently this magical notion of “context” confers upon him – unelected, unaccountable public functionary – the right to stop the speech of a democratically elected member.

Phil goes on to state that he had agreed with Walker that the “theme” of this year’s Liberation Day would be “confronting the past”.

He, therefore, believed that Frank Walker’s speech – in which he too attacked the anti-child abuse campaign – was ‘in context’ and ‘appropriate’.

By way of contrast – Bailhache considers my attempt to express recognition and empathy to child abuse survivors as a Christmas message to be “inappropriate” and “out of context”.

So – let’s get this straight – at an open-air public celebration of Liberation Day – it’s OK and in context for Phil to attack the anti-child abuse campaign.

And, by the same reasoning, it’s OK for Walker to use the States meeting on Liberation Day to express similar views.

But – at an ordinary States meeting – the last one before Christmas – it is quite unacceptable for me – as Father of the House – to express, as we approach Christ’s birthday – some compassion and contrition on behalf of the States for what abuse victims have endured?

The first time ever a States member had acknowledged the suffering of the victims.

Like I said – this man costs you over £300,000 per annum.

Yet he is incapable of mustering an argument which would withstand scrutiny by 15 year-old students.

The defects in his argument are so manifest as to make one almost embarrassed for him.

Let’s explain it to him, shall we?

Firstly, the standing orders of the assembly do not provide any guidance, analysis or working definitions of what is “relevant” or “in context”. Such generalisations being deeply unspecific.

What, then, do you, dear reader, think should be our approach – our yardstick – by which we measure what is acceptable to say in a speech – and what is not?

Presumably – provided you are a democrat – provided you actually support such concepts as “freedom” – as opposed to such words merely being spin – you would say that the rule – the backstop – must be that people are allowed to express themselves freely – other than in the most extreme of circumstances – for example, hate speech, which incites violence against people.

One either believes in freedom of speech – or one doesn’t. Once cannot – with any intellectual credibility claim ‘I believe in freedom of speech – err – until, that is, someone says something I don’t like or disagree with.’

“But” – Frank & Phil say, “you can say what you want – but only in the correct “context””.

This argument too is intellectually bankrupt – really – astonishingly so. How any man who professes to be a lawyer – let alone a supporter of “freedom” can adduce such arguments is almost as mystifying as why George ‘Dubya’ Bush got elected.

Perhaps people just like the folksiness of down-home cretinism?

Freedom to express opinions is often only of value within the timing and context of those who wish to express those opinions.

When authoritarian figures like Bailhache say “you can have freedom of speech – but only in a time and place of my choosing” – they are actually saying – in reality – you don’t have freedom of speech.

A “freedom” which depends upon the whim of the bosses, is no freedom at all.

And, frankly – only a total bloody fool would attempt to argue otherwise.

As it happens – I do not accept his and Big Frank’s assertion in any event.

By December last year – it was plain that this community was facing a catastrophic child abuse disaster; a disaster which had been largely concealed for generations – and concealed because of gross failures in public administration.

Many, many people had had their lives wrecked by such abuse.

It seemed to me – as it did to about 100 people who contacted me – that, actually, Christmas was an entirely apposite time at which to express some recognition and empathy towards the victims.

Jesus said “Suffer the little children to come unto me”.

Now – I admit I’m no theologian – and I may well be way off-beam with this – given the Dean of Jersey, head of the Anglican Church in the island, agreed with Bailhache and Walker that it was OK for my speech to be stopped – but it seems to me that an expression of empathy for children who have suffered – often appallingly – is, in fact, entirely appropriate for Christmas?

Though the Dean, Bob Key, did come around to this view a few months later – after the story had gone national and had, effectively, become ‘fashionable’. Indeed – he even used the same biblical quotes as me in the service for the victims.

Well – better late than never, I guess.

There is another intrinsic difference between my attempted speech at Christmas and Bailhache’s hi-jacking of Liberation Day.

I attempted to deliver my speech, in the States assembly, on an ordinary States day. It was the last meeting of the assembly before Christmas – but held no particular public significance.

The occasion of Christmas speeches at the end of the last meeting is merely an internal, States assembly, round of mutual congratulations upon how wonderful and marvellous we all are.

So breaking with that convention – and speaking of the suffering of the victims – did not impinge upon any broader, established community celebration.

Indeed – had my speech not been interrupted and halted, it would probably have passed with little or no public attention.

Bailhache goes onto make another, quite revealing, assertion. He claims that I was ‘speaking for the 12 Senators’.

There are two, obvious flaws with this argument, one less important – but one which is more disturbing.

Firstly, it is by convention that the senior Senator, the senior Constable and the senior Deputy each make a speech at the end of the final meeting before Christmas. And – true enough – convention has it that such speeches are usually self-congratulatory, smug, posturing banalities.

However – as it is merely ‘by convention’ that it should be so – no rule, standing order or any other stipulation says that the Christmas speeches have to conform to this template.

Therefore, in stopping my speech, Bailhache was – as he is wont to do – just making up rules as the whim takes him – any old rubbish as he goes along.

Just as he did recently in interfering with and attempting to sabotage the timing of, a public demonstration in Jersey’s Royal Square against the Goods & Services Tax.

Secondly, he asserts that, as my speech did not meet with the approval of certain of the other 12 Senators – that conferred upon him a right to oppress my freedom to speak on behalf of abuse survivors. As already remarked, actually – whether the other 11 Senators liked or disliked my speech was, frankly, immaterial. No rule says they have to all agree.

But more significantly – how could Bailhache – in the heat of the moment – actually know what the opinion of the other 11 Senators was? Without a debate – and a vote – who could say his assessment was correct?

He could be profoundly wrong in his assertion that all the other Senators disagreed with my speech. True enough, I remember clearly three of them interjecting, barracking and trying to stop me – they being Terry Le Main, Mike Vibert and Frank Walker.

And it could well be the case that most of the Senators agreed with Bailhache – but at that moment – he was in no position to know the definitive answer to that question.

For all he knew – possibly a majority may have supported my right to express my self – even if they didn’t agree with what I was saying. There might have been four against me – and eight in support of my right to free expression.

Now – let’s get realistic; this is the States of Jersey we are considering – so it’s entirely feasible that most of the Senators did want me stopped.

But two considerations arise from that: firstly – whether a majority of the Senators supported my right to speak – or whether they did not – was simply unknown to Bailhache at that time. Therefore – if he was a democrat – he should have supported my right to speak.

Instead – in what is difficult to ascribe to anything other then self-interest – he seized upon a few expressions of disproval – and joined in with the mob.

But – far more importantly – even if I was in a minority of one – and the other eleven Senators profoundly disagreed with my speech – so what?

Nobody says they had to agree – I would quite cheerfully have been in a minority of one.

But I had a right to speak.

Again we come back to the fundamental point – something that clearly eludes Bailhache in his really quite startling ignorance – people have a right to free speech – and equally – no one else is obliged to agree with them, at least in free societies.

But even if an opinion is in a minority of one – that one has a right to be expressed. In all but the rarest circumstances, for example, inciting hatred, violence and murder against others.

I believe there is a clear distinction between the very broad spectrum of public expression – and that ‘speech’ which seeks to oppress and destroy others.

But I think we can take it that neither my Christmas speech, nor Bailhache & Walker’s Liberation Day speech’s were in that category of hate-speech.

But my speech got halted – and theirs did not.

But even now – in his e-mail below – Bailhache evinces not the faintest grasp of the intellectual absurdity of his position. We all make mistakes; but the average person learns lessons from their errors – we attempt to not repeat them.

Yet Bailhache – in his neo-Victorian paternalism – simply cannot rid himself of the Jersey establishment philosophy – ‘black is white, black is white, black is white’ – if you simply carry on asserting a falsehood for long enough – you will, like some form of wordy alchemist – transform lies into truth – merely by repeating them a sufficient number of times.

And as I have argued that my Christmas speech was in context and appropriate – I have to say the speeches of Bailhache & Walker were not. As already described, the context of my Christmas speech was a mundane event – of no broader significance to the community.

However – and by way of contrast – their speeches were expressly written for, and delivered upon, Liberation Day – Jersey’s national holiday upon which we celebrate liberation from the occupying Nazis.

As a national holiday – celebrating liberation and freedom – it both holds a particular symbolism – and it belongs to the entire community.

It was, therefore, wholly inappropriate to hi-jack this day of communal celebration in the cause of any particular or specific partisan political cause.

As I said in my last post – such misappropriation of national symbols – in the name of ‘patriotism’ – is the path to arbitrary and tyrannical government.

And – in case you consider that my feelings are misplaced, as I said earlier – a very substantial proportion of a broadly conservative population share my bitter and sad view of Liberation Day being hi-jacked for partisan political purposes.

The above arguments demonstrate the position of Bailhache & Walker to be literally incredible.

However – there is another argument – which on its own – setting aside the above points – demonstrates the utter incompatibility of the views of Bailhache & Walker with democracy and freedom.

I think their speeches were inappropriate and out of context – they apparently think that of mine.

Who’s to Judge? For in the final analysis, such conclusions can only ever be subjective – can only ever be ‘value judgments’ – most certainly not demonstrable on the basis of either pure logic or procedural grounds.

So I didn’t like their use of Liberation Day – and they didn’t like my use of the last States meeting before Christmas.

That’ – I’m cheerfully happy to state – is simply tough upon both parties. We may profoundly disagree with what each other said – and disagree with the context in which we said it – but the means of dealing with that in any respectable democracy is to have subsequent debates and arguments about it.

What you do not do – what you cannot do – at least, if you are a democrat – is simply stop people from expressing their views.

It’s called “f-r-e-e-d-o-m” – Phil.

So here – in the final analysis – is what fundamentally distinguishes my position from that of Phil & Frank.

I may have profoundly disagreed with much of what each man said – and most certainly profoundly disagreed with the context.

But I didn’t try and stop them from saying it.

Indeed – had anyone tried to stop them speaking – I would have said ‘let them get on with it’.

An important point, that.

Don’t you think?

One either believes in freedom of speech – or one doesn’t.

Aren’t such freedoms actually what our liberators were fighting for?

I – was stopped from speaking – Walker & Bailhache were able to proceed – uninterrupted.

This is not freedom.

I realise it’s difficult – given his intrinsic stupidity – but there must be someone out there who can explain these basic conditions of democracy & freedom to Phil?

Stuart.

_____________________________________________
From: Bailiff of Jersey
Sent: 12 May 2008 17:23
To: Gerard Baudains
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: Your email

Dear Deputy,

I hope that I qualify as a “colleague” but your e-mail was sent to me amongst others, and it raises important questions which deserve an answer from the perspective of the presiding officer.

The President of Madeira was not invited as one of my “chums”. He was invited because his presence was important to many of the 8000 or more Islanders of Portuguese descent. Liberation Day is obviously very important for those who were here on 9th May 1945. But if Liberation Day is to continue to be celebrated in the future, it must be made relevant to the remainder of the population. That is why Liberation Day is becoming, if it has not already become, our “National Day”. It is an occasion for celebrating not only the freedom restored in 1945 but also the liberties and privileges that we enjoy today. All parts of the community have contributed to that success. Liberation Day is for all Islanders, whether they have names like yours and mine, or whether they have an English, French, Scottish, Portuguese or some other ancestry. That is why the President of Madeira was a welcome guest at our celebrations.

As to the Chief Minister’s speech, all speeches in the Assembly are expected to be in context. Where there is a proposition, that is the context and Standing Orders require Members to speak to it. But even where there is no proposition, context remains important. Before the law changed in 2005 the Budget was presented without a proposition but Members were nonetheless expected to speak to the general financial policy of the Finance and Economics Committee. When a special meeting takes place, for example to welcome the Secretary of State, the Chief Minister would be expected in his speech to speak generally about relations with the United Kingdom. He might illustrate that by speaking about some contemporary issue, but he would not be expected to devote his entire speech, for example, to the desirability of building a new incinerator.

It is not for me to respond on behalf of the Chief Minister, but as he is away from the Island for a week, I think that Members should know that it had been agreed that a sub-theme for this year’s Liberation Day celebrations would be “Confronting the Past”. Having regard to that sub-theme, I did not, for my part, consider the Chief Minister’s references to Haut de la Garenne to be inappropriate or out of context for the occasion. In contrast, I did not believe that Senator Syvret’s Christmas intervention was in context. His speech would have been entirely appropriate (and in order) in the context of a debate on child abuse. But on that occasion he was speaking for Senators to express seasonal good wishes to the Chair and to Officers and others who serve the Assembly. That is the context of the traditional exchange of Christmas Greetings. It was not the occasion to berate the States and parts of the public administration for alleged past failures. I believe that that is why Members thought that the intervention was inappropriate and not in context, and in my view they were right.

These are of course my personal views, and I am very happy to discuss them privately with you or any other Member. I do not think that I should, however, become involved in any further e-mail exchanges.

Philip Bailhache
Bailiff of Jersey

65 thoughts on “THE BAILIFF ATTEMPTS A DEFENCE.

  1. Dan

    Quote from Philip Bailhache’s email on your Christmas speech:

    “I believe that that is why Members thought that the intervention was inappropriate and not in context, and in my view they were right.”

    Notice that he says “the intervention was inappropriate”.

    Looks like he’s let the truth slip out there, eh?

    No wonder he couldn’t cut the mustard as a lawyer!

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    I admit I haven’t read the whole of the BLOG yet – but my opinion is as follows – Bailhache and Walker were electioneering on behalf of the establishment party – they highjacked the Liberation Day gathering because the majority of the audience were probably elderly and actually value their vote and use it – where else would they be able to address such a gathering – although neither of them are up for election it is most definately in their interest to support the far right faction that rules Jersey…………….it was shameful exploitation – probably the bright idea of some spin doctor who realises that the majority of the voting public in Jersey are over 55…………..purely subjective view I might ad!

    Reply
  3. Rob Kent

    [By coincidence, I was recently going through The Times’ archives and I came across this article from 2005, the sixtieth anniversay of the ending of World War II.]

    The German Chancellor recently addressed large crowds at a rally to commemorate the ending of World War II. While he conceded that ‘something bad had happened’ the Chancellor said that Germany had received a ‘bad press’:

    “Beginning with the documentary footage from the inside of the camps shot by the allies, followed by the thousands of hours of personal testimony of the survivors, right through to the slew of newspaper articles, documentaries and bestselling films on this subject, there has been a relentless attempt to blacken the reputation of the German people. Once a media bandwagon starts rolling, it is difficult to distinguish what is true from what is fictitious.

    Unjustified smears about wholesale collaboration during the occupation of Poland led to suggestions that Germany was full of dark secrets and that ours was a community that cared nothing for vulnerable Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and criminals. Excavations have revealed that the camps themselves are at least 60 years old and possibly very much older than that. However, there are no bodies, no remaining evidence of any murder, and no evidence of cover-ups by government. Hardly any of this has been beamed across the world. Yet many journalists continue to write about the country’s so called genocide scandal.

    All genocide, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Germany and her people that is the real scandal. The truth is that we do not yet know what happened at Auschwitz, Belsen, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor or in other places. What we do know is that a rigorous investigation is taking place and, in due course, a balanced judgement will be possible. A brave writer in the Holocaust Denier earlier this week was the first journalist in a national newspaper, so far as I know, to confront this truth.

    Some unpatriotic traitors within Germany itself have even suggested that there was some kind of cover up, even that officials such as Herr Hitler, Goebbels, Goering and Himmler knew what was happening. This is an outrageous smear. Confronting the past, which is one aspect of confronting the truth, is of course not always easy. Confronting difficult situations is sometimes no easier than confronting the past.”

    Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood director of the film Schindler’s List, in response to the Chancellor’s comments, said that the events depicted in his film had really happened: “To refer to this as ‘so called genocide’ is an insult to the victims, whose testimony no-one doubts. How can the Chancellor say that the ‘real scandal’ is the press coverage and not the events that gave rise to it? How callous and uncaring can someone be? To me it just goes to show that the mentality of the person who could make such a comment is the same mentality that would allow such a thing to happen in the first place. For all I know, the Chancellor himself was implicated in the cover up and has dirt on his hands and is now trying to mitigate the seriousness of the affair and brush it under the carpet.”

    Asked to respond to Mr Spielberg’s comments, the Chancellor said: “While it is true that I approved the appointment of a convicted genocidophile who later went on to commit further genocide, and my law firm ‘defended’ some of the victims and advised them they had no case to proceed, and it is also true that I was on the board of Auschwitz and did nothing about the obvious genocide taking place there, I have done nothing wrong. In fact, my Chief Minister, Herr Internazionale-Schafter, has given me his full support.”

    The German Chancellor is 119.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Pompous, conceited and a complete waste of tax payers money.

    I agree that it was blatant propping up of the establishment to ‘grey voter’.

    You will never get him to resign, too cushy a life.

    BTW
    I wonder what that gift to the Madeiran president cost?

    Reply
  5. Krakow Crapaud

    Bailhache is, I guess, answerable to no-one, doesn’t care about the people, doesn’t need to. I detect a mind full of contempt for the poor and the underprivelaged.
    To Jersey’s ruling elite everything that is not money or power is completely irrelevant. The people without money or power simply an annoyance that can and should be ignored…

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    I am preparing myself for the possibility that I may be in prison after June, on contempt of court charges.

    I haven’t committed any crime that I should go to prison for, but you don’t have to these days to end up behind bars.

    These secret courts are banging people up on the charge of “contempt of court” which can mean just about anything they want it to.

    They’ve threatened me with prison for contempt of court several times, and I am now steeling myself up to going.

    I feel like I am dying inside. I’m the VICTIM here’s for God’s sake!

    Zoompad

    Reply
  7. TonyB

    “Confronting the Past” is a good theme for liberation, if one considers (a) how brave ordinary islanders helped Russian slave workers and Jews to hide (b) how Clifford Orange, Aliens Officer, and Duret-Aubin, Attorney-General simply followed the line of least resistance in obeying the German authorities regarding the resistration of Jews, and the passing on of information about radio sets. Just doing their jobs!

    Perhaps Sir Philip should read “British Channel Islands Under German Occupation 1940-45” by Paul Sanders on “The Parameters of Collaboration” which detail these matters, and consider how he might have behaved. His current conduct does not appear promising as an indicator.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    Email to Feckless from Jim

    Hi Frank.

    I see you have not returned my mail, is this because I speak the truth and you are scared to open up and tell the truth. You say in your speech with Bailhache

    “All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.” Its not the problem of the people of Jersey but your Government who have covered up this abuse, so WHY blame the people of Jersey, it was Bailhanche who employed a police officer knowing his past and not the people of Jersey.

    Can you not once get your facts right and fight alongside Stuart instead of trying your best to put the blame on him because he speaks the truth and does not bury his head in the sand.

    Reply
  9. voiceforchildren

    zoompad.

    I’m not sure if you live in Jersey but parts of your story are identicle to a friend of mine. In paticular the part of the victim being portrayed as the criminal. Altough my friends goes a little further, where the perpetrator is being portrayed as a victim.

    You can e-mail me through my blogsite. I would be very interested to hear anything you have to tell me of your experiences.

    My blogsite (and this one) are being monitored by the powers that be. So I had better make it very clear, I will be unable to tell you too much of my friends experiences, but please contact me and tell me of your struggle to get justice,the obstacles that have been put in your way and the names of any people complicit in any cover ups.

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    Has anyone even thought that concreate was only introduced to the island in or about the 1960’s.

    So if bones are buried underneath this concreate then those bones must date around the time the concreate was laid?

    “All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.”

    The real scandal is that these phuc wits are allowed to breath and the scandal of the oli’s bring the people into this as Stuart has never blamed the people for the abuse so the Pompous, conceited pillocks are using the people and to deflect the blame.

    Reply
  11. Anonymous

    “Has anyone even thought that concreate was only introduced to the island in or about the 1960’s.

    So if bones are buried underneath this concreate then those bones must date around the time the concreate was laid?”

    WOW! I hadn’t though of that!

    Zoompad

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    Stuart, anyone who reads your blog can see that you are far from stupid,don’t confuse education with intelligence.
    the stupid ones are Shaft and the Bayleaf for thinking that their blatant propoganda excercise is not obviously transparent to the majority of the population. Once again they have shot themselves in the foot.
    Stuart you are a true hero,your integrity and courage are an example to us all.The truthmust come out.

    Reply
  13. Anonymous

    Stuart, anyone who reads your blog can see that you are far from stupid,don’t confuse education with intelligence.
    the stupid ones are Shaft and the Bayleaf for thinking that their blatant propoganda excercise is not obviously transparent to the majority of the population. Once again they have shot themselves in the foot.
    Stuart you are a true hero,your integrity and courage are an example to us all.The truthmust come out.

    Reply
  14. Anonymous

    “All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.”
    so says…..Phil Bailache

    reminds me so much of the JEP after Liberation…..

    collabaration during the occupation was scandalous but the Jersey Liberation Movement denigration of the Jersey government during the war is the real scandal

    NO NO NO

    The scandal was that hundreds of people died in slave labour camps on our islands, that channel island Jews were forced to wear the star of David (Guernsey) and sent to consentration camps, many to die and our freedoms curtailed by the Nazi’s

    It’s a scandal the JEP attacked the Liberation movement

    and now it’s a scandal that the JEP in 2008 still backs the elite, scared of losing it’s control and patronage

    It’s a scandal that young children were abuse

    Confronting the Past

    winning the future

    Michael

    Reply
  15. Anonymous

    Stuart

    slightly concerned about one of your posts from Rob Kent
    re Holocaust Denier
    or am I misreading this

    Reply
  16. Stuart Syvret

    Re: Rob Kent’s Comment.

    No – I most certainly didn’t read the comment as ‘holocaust denial’.

    Rob’s comment seemed to me to be good piece of satire – comparing the denial by the Jersey establishment of the child abuse disaster – with the views of Nazi deniers of the Shoa.

    A stretched comparison, for sure – but nevertheless one with more than a grain of truth in it.

    What did others think of Rob’s comment?

    Stuart.

    Reply
  17. Anonymous

    “Has anyone even thought that concreate was only introduced to the island in or about the 1960’s.

    So what are the German bunkers made of?

    Reply
  18. Anonymous

    Stuart

    May I reproduce part of the Bailiff’s speech:

    “All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.”

    This is not an off the cuff comment but a careful, rehearsed speech from a member of the judiciary.

    It is incomprehensible how this could be considered an appropriate remark for a public speech.

    Reply
  19. Anonymous

    Stuart
    It seems that we are only allowed freedom of expression provided the Bailiff approves the content of the view expressed.

    That doesn’t seem to be much of a freedom.

    Reply
  20. Anonymous

    QUOTE OPEN:”Has anyone even thought that concreate was only introduced to the island in or about the 1960’s.

    So if bones are buried underneath this concreate then those bones must date around the time the concreate was laid?”

    WOW! I hadn’t though of that!

    Zoompad
    QUOTE CLOSE

    If that is the case, what exactly did the Germans use to build all the fortifications in WW2? Also, Jersey Airport had a concrete apron when it was built in 1937. I think you’ll find that concrete has been around as a building material in Jersey much longer than that too!

    Reply
  21. Anonymous

    Stuart

    Re Rob Kent,

    I think this is a brilliant piece of satire – and illustrates the intelligence of those contributing to your blog. He very cleverly weaves in the past sins of Jersey into the Nazi German context, picking up on some of the references in recent comments.

    It is almost too convincing, but the giveaway has got to be “Chief Minister Herr Internazionale-Schafter”

    Your blog is certainly raising the standard of journalism and political comment to new levels – hopefully it will continue to politicise and dare we hope radicalise the traditionally apathetic within the island.

    Reply
  22. Rob Kent

    My post was pure satire. The bit of Bailhache’s speech that leapt out at me was where he said that the ‘real scandal’ was the press treatment.

    To reveal the sickness of that statement I just changed the context in order to illuminate how self-pitying and insensitive it was.

    If you read my parody carefully you will find that it is almost word for word his speech – I only changed the word ‘Jersey’ to ‘Germany’ and ‘child abuse’ to ‘genocide’.

    I’m not suggesting that Bailhache or anyone else is a holocaust denier, I’m saying that if a German Chancellor made that speech you would see how repugnant and tasteless those comments are.

    But interestingly enough, if you read up on the psychology of the ordinary Germans who did the bureaucratic and day-to-day work of the Holocaust, their prevalent tone was self-pitying. Guards at the camps didn’t feel sorry for the inmates, they felt sorry for themselves and said things like, “Don’t you realise how terrible this job is, being away from my family, working in these stinky conditions, having to do all these horrible things?” See the book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen for a study of that psychology.

    Coming from Jersey but watching this whole episode from outside, the response of the establishment has really shocked me, and I’m not talking about cover ups or how Stuart has been treated: I’m talking about the sheer ineptitude of their response, almost as if they are in denial that something really terrible has happened in H de la G and elsewhere.

    Anyone who could use the phrase ‘so called child abuse’, given the horror of the personal testimony from the victims and the evidence already uncovered, is not fit for public office in my opinion. A person who could say something like that is either lacking essential humanity or is so wrapped up in power and their own self importance that they’ve completely lost their moral and ethical sensibility.

    Satire should be shocking and should make you feel uncomfortable. The juxtaposition of two ideas, or one idea in an alien style, should reveal the prepostorousness of the idea.

    A good example is Jonathan Swift’s satirical essay ‘A Modest Proposal’ in which he proposes a rational solution to the Irish famine, arguing reasonably and coherently that the Irish eat their own children. The essay is written in the style of an economics treatise that is entirely convincing right until the end when the horror of what he is suggesting exposes the cruelty of the British Goverment’s economic policies in Ireland.

    There’s not too much satire around these days – apart from Chris Morris (remember the Paedophile Special on Brass Eye which satirizes the media’s coverage of the various paedophile scandals?). So maybe we’re losing our satiric sense of humour?

    Reply
  23. Anonymous

    Keep going Stuart

    Remember Senator Norman Le Brocq fought for over 50 years to liberate Jersey

    lets sweep away the corruption and shine a light on Jersey

    Reply
  24. Anonymous

    On Liberation Day we could have done with those Norman Le Brocq, T34 tanks hidden in Grands Vaux woods you talked about in an earlier posting.

    Still cannot find the Red October tea rooms

    Reply
  25. Anonymous

    I am well aware the concrete was used by the germans and british for use in coastline bunkers however even this concrete will have its own distinct individual make-up as will the concrete in the childrens home.

    Reply
  26. Anonymous

    I hope they don’t even think about using False Memory Syndrome on these survivors. I do worry that the psychologists might have already got their hands on them already.

    I am so suspicious of the councelling they offer to survivors of child abuse. I’ve had “the talking therapy” as they call it, and they do attempt to use brainwashing techniques to make the abused person think that they were not really abused after all, or that the abuse wasn’t so bad after all. I wasn’t having any of it, and I said out loud that although my memories are painful and very upsetting, they are my memories and I’d rather have them intact without being brainwashed into watering them down so that it makes other people feel more comfortable. That didn’t go down too well, but I couldn’t care less, they’re my memories and I’m not having them muck around with my brain, no thanks!

    False Memory Syndrome was invented by an American psychologist called Ralph Underwager. He’s dead now, but this was a man who asserted that it was God’s will for paedophiles to be bold with their lifestyle choice and if you read the other things this man said you would be surprised about how anyone could still be using his False Memory Syndrome. I hope everyone will have a look at what this man did and said, and also pay attention to his relationship with his own daughter. Do a google search on Ralph Underwager and see for yourselves.

    Zoompad

    Reply
  27. Anonymous

    ADVICE FOR VICTIMS OF CORRUPTION:

    1 Keep a diary of events.

    2 Photocopy everything [including your own notes] and store copies away from home [in case you are ever raided by the police or your solicitor is corrupt.]

    3 Make secret audio or video tape recordings and have somebody sit in and witness things said /done at meetings.

    4 Complain about your situation to every possible appropriate organisation. For example: The Police Complaints Authority, The Law Society, The European Court of Human Rights, Government Ombudsmen, your MP, the Prime Minister…. This is not so much for the purpose of finding justice [although you might be lucky] but for the purpose of credibility and also to prove that these bodies are CORRUPT. Every letter of complaint counts. Every letter draws attention to the fact that the public are not prepared to put up with and fund crooks in high office any longer and are fighting back.

    5 Keep your cool. Do not lose your rag [tempting as it is.] Be kind and courteous towards your persecutors for they know not what they do. Do not exaggerate or tell half-truths – there is no need, and do not break the law – the fraternity do enough of that already, and 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

    6 Encourage others to whistle-blow and publish wrongdoing. And take heart, our ‘club’ is growing faster and more powerful than any Masonic lodge or other secret affiliation on Earth.

    7 Send in your stories for publication minus the foul language. Obscene writing will not be published on any website.

    Jim Browne

    Reply
  28. Anonymous

    “Encourage others to whistle-blow and publish wrongdoing. And take heart, our ‘club’ is growing faster and more powerful than any Masonic lodge or other secret affiliation on Earth”

    That’s very true and the reason is that there are a lot more of us than there are of them! They may seem a lot bigger, but they really are the minority, the number of people they have abused will blow your mind!

    Zoompad

    Reply
  29. Anonymous

    If I ever find that I’ve upset anyone without intending to, my first concern would be to apologise. I wouldn’t just blithely explain my position without any attempt to say sorry. I’d be mortified to have caused an upset when I hadn’t meant to. I would only explain myself *following* the apology as a way of seeking mutual understanding.

    Frank and the bayleaf must be incredibly out of touch if they haven’t noticed the huge amount of upset they have caused, yet they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this or make amends.

    That is all the reason we need to call for their removal from office. It’s simply disgraceful behaviour ill suited to their positions.

    If they really can’t see what effect they’re having, they must go for being so utterly crass and dumb. If they *do* realise how upset and angry so many people are, and yet they still don’t apologise, then they must go. No two ways abou t it.

    Reply
  30. Res nullius

    Be fair folks, perhaps Belly-ache simply “mispoke” in a Clintonesque sense.

    Perhaps, he doesn’t really think that giving jersey a slagging is much worse than abusing a child.

    Perhaps despite his many years of legal training he hasn’t learnt to put across a simple sentence succinctly and unambiguously.

    Or, perhaps… just perhaps, he wrote the speech himself, proof read it and actually meant what he said.

    To you Stuart I dedicate this quote from Mark Twain.

    “…there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can. The best swordsman in the world doesn’t need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn’t do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn’t prepared for him.”

    The establishment consdier themselves the best swordsmen. I for one would be happy to be an ignorant antagonist..

    keep up the fight

    Reply
  31. Anonymous

    Stuart
    I have just read Simon Bellwood’s most recent blog – I note the Ministerial Decision signed by yourself in August last year is not the same as the new terms of reference for the review.

    Would the new H&SS minister like to provide a reason for the change?

    Get of the fence minister – you are now the corporate parent. Please act with integrity

    Reply
  32. jim browne

    Hi Stuart.

    Lets face it, I think our freinds Bailhache & Walker have shot themselves in the foot big style, why use a speech like that on Liberation Day, its just like admitting to the crimes in public, the last think you want to do on a day like that is not take the shine from it. They blew it, it was a cry of ‘It Wasn’t us Honest, but still vote for us’

    They should have been shouted down by the crowd.

    Now as for Free Speech, that has now been overruled in our country and our Legal System now call it ‘Not In The Public Interest’

    If we try and take someone to court for abuse and we are alone, its called not in the public interest, we don’t get our chance for free speech. I tried to take an abuser to court and was told the same thing. Bailhache & Walker want putting up against a wall and bloody shot.

    Yes I know they look at this blog and read it (Hi you pair of Cretins).

    The JEP won’t answer my mails now, the truth must hurt them too, or they are too busy plotting more lies and cover ups.

    What you need Stuart is a bloody good march through the town centre in the summer, you tell us when you can do and we will be there with our mainland support (Thats if they let us off the plane).

    You fought for Liberation all those years ago only to be taken over again by a bunch of Nazis who are milking the Island from under the noses of the public and no one execpt yourself and Simon have the bottle to stand up to them and I take my hat off to the both of you.

    So Bailhache is a Lawyer, I bet he will not get any work from the claiments in this case, and if you are reading this Mr Bailhache, some of the victims have been in touch with mainland legal teams so start worrying or rowing away from the Island, your day will come mate, you and Walker in the same cell.

    Keep it up Stuart

    Jim Browne

    Reply
  33. Anonymous

    I found the satire simply brilliant and the parable of the boy be the side of the road truly eloquent. I have forwarded copies of both to others.

    That Stuart has so many first time or unique site visitors is hopeful evidence that truth will out and that it is not lost on the majority.

    With writing like this, the JEP should be doomed to irrelevancy. It would be lovely to have a printed weekly combining this type of writing for those without internet access. Advertisers might switch if the readership was high.

    – Newfan

    Reply
  34. Anonymous

    Stuart,

    Thanks to this site I have met some great new friends who have given me some excellent advice. I am now starting to pursue my case against the people who abused me when I was a child. I have turned from the hunted to the hunter!

    I’m not one of the Jersey abused, but this blog has helped me enormously. PLEASE keep up the good work you are doing here, and thank you so much!

    Zoompad

    Reply
  35. Anonymous

    Res nullius.

    The cut and paste link will not go in for some reason, any idea’s so I can read it please.

    Jim Browme

    Cheers

    Reply
  36. Anonymous

    To return to an “old thread”, did anyone ever receive a response from Jack Straw?

    I won’t bet on any sort of constructive reply, or indeed any response whatsoever.

    The Minister for Truth, sorry Justice, seems to have gone very quiet all of a sudden. I wonder why?

    Mason Buster.

    Reply
  37. Anonymous

    I have had a reply from Jack Straw and it was less than helpful. You know I have been writing to him about the use of a syndrome written by a paedophile in one of the Governments own consultation documents on the family courts. That’s what I have been persuing, and I’ve had one from Straw and several from Bridget Prentice, now the letter she sent me seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead me, I’d love to show it to you, to see what other people think.

    But I’m still waiting for replies to letters I sent to both of them in January about the same subject.

    Zoompad

    Reply
  38. Advocatus Diaboli

    Hello Stuart, hope you are well.

    Rob Kent, you audacious prankstah!

    The nerve of the Gabardine Swine knows no bounds. I propose a mass moon at them the next time they show their faces. 😉

    Reply
  39. Anonymous

    Stuart

    The silence from States members is interesting – even in an election year.

    We know that there are no measures to monitor sex offenders in the island. No action, no outcry.

    Review after review and increasing cost to tell the taxpayer that all is well. The testaments of service users is therefore pushed into the background.

    There is genuine suffering out in the community and still these people are denied justice.

    The Bailiff and the Chief Minister are figures of ridicule. I just hope they are beginning to realise that they have acted with total incompetence and have behaved in a petulant manner.

    The civil servants involved in this stunning little episode remain in post. I suspect they are feeling very sorry for themselves but I do not see any action being taken to ensure that this never happens again.

    In the last few weeks – you have exposed incompetence, incredulous behaviour and mindnumbing corruption.

    One man is suspended – that’s it, the senior police officer is critised by the current health minister, his side kick Perchard goes to press with some carefully spun nonsense that all is well and he has never seen such well run children’s services.

    It’s almost as if the people in power (who have the authority and responsibility to act) just couldn’t give a damn.

    Where are the political debates on this matter?

    Can we please have questions raised in the States. Can we please have some lobbying of the Council of Ministers.

    Reply
  40. Anonymous

    So Phil Balls-Ache had a cancer, well it seems to me that he is the cancer. A dirty growth that has continued to expand until it requires major surgery to remove.

    I dont mean to be unsympathetic to cancer patients but if cancer cant get rid of him then what chance do us mere mortals have. Its always the best that die young and never the scourge of society be they murderers or corrupt politicians. Or are they just the same (Bush et. al)

    Reply
  41. Anonymous

    Because of their control freakery, they would arrest people for showing their bottoms. So why not make ar*e shaped placards to welcome these officials at every opportunity? They would show up on photographs much better than real bottoms anyway!

    Zoompad

    Reply
  42. Res nullius

    “start chalking those “V” for victory signs again”

    I like that idea.

    No. I really like that idea!

    Chalk pens are now available in vibrant colours….

    Reply
  43. Anonymous

    Ad in Jersey Evening Post July 1941

    REWARD £25
    A reward of £25 will be given to the person who first gives to the inspector of Police information leading to the conviction of anyone (not already discovered) for the offence of making on any gate, wall or other place whatsoever visible to the public the letter “V” or any other sign or any word or words calculated to offend the German Authorities or soldiers
    This 8th July 1941
    Victor G Carey
    Baliff

    Michael

    Reply
  44. Res nullius

    I am not sure that using chalk on a pavement would be enough to get a conviction for malicious damage. If so, beware all you hopscotch kids, iTEX walk organisers….

    the chalk police will come and get you…

    Anyone know a good lawyer?

    Reply
  45. Anonymous

    stuart,

    i have read your blog for some time, indeed you have kindly printed just one of my contrabutions. Having sufferd abuse myself, i commend you for your stand One thing concerns me. of course being a buisness man here on the mainland, i have taken advantage of the very good tax system in jersey, indeed i have a holiday home there.however, after the recent child abuse investergations and indeed on reading you blog, i have decided to close my accounts on jersey and sell our home, i never want to set foot on there again. i do this in support of the many victims on Jersey and your fight for justice.and to be frank ( no pun intended) one thing that i find very confusing and in deed disapointing is this, I have many Jewish friends, both on the mainland and in jersey,and have the greatest respect for them, if has many who comment on your blog suggest, The athorities and local paper supported the Nazi occupation, why do so many from this faith still support Jersey by banking and living there? can any one tell me?

    for obvious resons i want to remain Anonymous, at least untill my property is sold! i hope you print this, i would be intrested to see the reacation. I am sure i speak for many

    Reply
  46. Anonymous

    because capitalism knows no barriers

    we want Jersey for all the people not just the rich

    “Out with the states”

    “V” for victory

    Reply
  47. JS

    Wow, has anyone noticed that on ThisIsJersey website that you can now post comments under news items.

    Its great and how FANTASTIC that one of the few you CANT post a comment on is the bailifs story!!

    I logged on especially to put some specially worded comments down but lo and behold I cant.

    Comes as no surprise though

    Reply
  48. Anonymous

    In the Daily Mirror today, a very small piece reads that another tooth and some more bones have been found in the home. I wonder why its only a small piece and not a very large one.

    Even the newspapers in the UK are know keeping it low key for some reason.

    The chap who is selling his home in Jersey and moving off the Island, I wish to thank you for standing for what you believe in, its just a pity a lot more don’t do the same.

    Oh Why use Chalk when spray paint is better, bright yellow V’s, or Walker Out would look really nice.

    Summer is coming now and I would be outside the airport or ferry giving out leaflets saying ‘Please Watch Your Children’

    So has anyone from Jersey got any updates for us of what is going on, the news has stopped here, Walker or The JEO never mailed me back (Wonder Why). Walker has an out of office reply now, wish he was really out of office the Cretin.

    Jim Browne

    Reply
  49. Stuart Syvret

    Jim

    An extremely amusing comment you just submitted – but I think it’s just a bit too OTT for publication as written at present.

    I know – God – with what I write here, how the hell can I be worried about defamation actions – actually, I’m not – but I kind of want the bastards to sue me for stuff I’ve said – not other people’s comments.

    I would also offer this view to those who read this blog, or who submit comments. Child abuse is so serious an issue – so fundamentally an evil that must be fought – we mustn’t cheapen the subject by abuse accusations against people who are merely our personal or political enemies. Even when done in a satirical manner.

    Total bastards, they might well be – but unsupported accusations simply bring on the boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome. If wild accusations get thrown around without basis – there is a real danger we will diminish the credibility of victims of actual abusers.

    The whole subject is quite awful enough without any one needing to exaggerate embellish or invent things.

    But, Jim – it was still a funny post.

    I know I’m late with my posts these days; I was going to get a fresh one up this evening – but I’m just too knackered from fighting this attritional war.

    I’m probably going to go and get bladdered now – wallowing in melancholia and self-pity – to the accompaniment of Tom Waits – and a couple of bottles of wine.

    But Jim, if you want to re-work your satirical comment – maybe leaving out some of the – err – more direct references – I’ll post it tomorrow.

    Cheers

    Stuart.

    Reply
  50. Anonymous

    Hi Stuart.

    I understand mate don’t worry, and I know where your coming from mate.

    You go get drunk mate and have one for me while your at it.

    Keep up the work mate

    Jim Browne

    Reply
  51. Anonymous

    Stuart

    Just picked up very interesting thread on comment section in your May 6th blog – Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. In case readers of your blog don’t go back to previous submissions I would strongly recommend that they look at the last six comments on this one.

    If possible it would be good to repeat them here. Truly amazing stuff and so accurate. This really sets out what the States of Jersey H&SS is really like.

    Reply
  52. Anonymous

    Stuart

    Previous commentator mentioned about the This is Jersey website. Tonights version does not allow you to comment on the Haut De La Garenne story – what a surprise.

    However I suggest that we all post a comment about Haut de la Garenne on the Gorey Pier story – after all it is only a spit away and with a little poetic licence you could probably see it from Gory (pun intended) Pier

    Reply
  53. jim browne

    Has the JEP gone totally mad, they are telling some truth in the their Rag today, or someone slipped up and printed something by mistake, or is it that they are now starting to back down and tell the people on the Island a bit of the truth.

    This is the piece.

    MORE teeth and bones have been unearthed at Haut de la Garenne.

    Police said this morning that they had found a sixth milk tooth in the fourth cellar of the former children’s home at St Martin and four bone fragments. They do not know whether the bones are from a human or an animal.

    The remains found at the home are likely to go to the UK for testing. By the middle of next week, police expect the results on bone fragments and teeth sent to the UK last week. Those reports will include the results of carbon dating, and possibly DNA testing.

    Yesterday’s finds bring the total of bone fragments found to around 20, all from the fourth cellar.
    A total of six teeth – all from a child – have been found, and all but one from the same location as the bones.

    Well done I say to the JEP for this story, so can I ask them now for information regarding the alleged cover up (Noticed I said Alleged) but we know the score don’t we readers.

    Will the JEP now give us the full story behind Bailhache’s policeman friend and why Bailhache gave him a job knowing his past, also why the want Lenny Harper away from the scene’s of crime while he is doing a wonderful job for the public.

    Jim Browne

    Reply
  54. Anonymous

    ONLY CHALK Vs

    It has to be chalk “V”s we dont want to damage anything

    this is a dignified protest movement, we should not allow them to blame us for excesses (however understandable)

    Chalk Vs is what the resistance movemnet used….so its traditional as well (and enviromental)

    V for Victory
    Out with the States

    Reply
  55. Res nullius

    As an interesting aside, I believe the the old Jersey name Bailhache means executioner or ‘axe wielder’.

    Quite appropriate given his dual roles and his ultra vires decision to cut your Christmas speech short.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.