THE GOOD ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE #2

Why Jersey Cannot Administer Justice

In the Child Abuse Disaster;

Not even faintly.

And – why the issue is even more fundamental than that.

Here is the belated follow-up to my previous post on the administration of justice in Jersey.

It’s as well that it’s late – because I was able to read the Jersey Evening Post of today, the 7th August 2008.

Which – sorry – makes this post another long one. I know some people don’t like my lengthy ramblings – but we have to resist sound-bite culture. There is masses of short stuff out there if you prefer – even the insubstantial glossings of The Rag – if all you have time for is a couple of paragraphs.

But as a remarked in a comment – notwithstanding the fact that Jersey has a very sizable panoply of journalists – none of them – and none of the media they work for – will deliver the in-depth analysis and polemics you find on this site.

Indeed – what I’m concluding here should have been researched and published by Jersey journos a long time ago.

Remember – I’m a one-man-band churning out this stuff – It’s not like I even get paid for it – but it’s still more detailed, more accurate and more informative than that which is churned out by all of Jersey’s hacks – combined.

And – at the end of this post I’ll explain the inexplicable.

By one of those notable coincidences, The Rag features an article of great relevance to the subject I’m addressing.

Well, not the article, actually – that’s the predictable regurgitation of establishment spin and statements of the bleeding obvious.

But accompanying the article, on page 16, is a photograph.

I strongly urge readers to try and get a look at the photo if you haven’t seen it already.

Maybe there is a God?

I couldn’t have prayed for a more timely, relevant – and telling photo.

This is what the photograph depicts.

It is a ceremonial procession which is beginning outside of the Jersey parliament building.

Who knows – it could have been taken on Liberation Day this year – as we were due to process from the Royal Square where the parliament building is – down to Liberation Square – to mark our liberation from the forces of fascism.

Let us remember – it was on the occasion of this year’s Liberation Day, that the Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, delivered his frankly deranged attack on the investigations into the Jersey’s child abuse disaster.

But that is by-the-by.

What does the photo depict?

At the head of the procession is a court functionary carrying the ornate Royal Mace which was gifted to the Jersey robber-barons & privateers for their loyalty to the Crown during the English Civil War.

The Mace symbolises the authority of the Crown – under which Jersey’s oligarchy operates.

So in the photograph we have what is – for our times – a particularly relevant depiction of the British Crown’s authority over Jersey.

A few paces behind the Mace walks Jersey’s Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache – head of the judiciary – and, bizarrely, head of the legislature – and the man who thinks “the real scandal” of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster is not the abuse – but the “denigration of Jersey and her people.”

Walking along side Phil is the “Lieutenant Governor” – the functionary who represents the Crown in Jersey (in effect, the UK Government).

Phil is cloaked in some kind of pseudo-historical fancy-dress – funny hat – fur-trimmed red cloak, the whole bit.

The Lieutenant Governor is clothed in a yet more extreme example of that meaningless fancy-dress – so beloved by the British establishment to remind them of glory days gone by.

Mirror-shined boots, some kind of war coat, which may have been of relevance 200 years ago, a belt, so camply ostentatious it could have been designed by Jean-Paul Gaultier – as could the hat he wears – which appears to be attoped by a dead seagull.

This man is Lieutenant General Andrew Ridgway. A man who – instead of properly defending the good name of the Crown – has been implacable in his siding with the Jersey shysters.

He has repeatedly informed London that every thing in the garden is rosy – so far as public administration is concerned – notwithstanding the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

He has also – as has been reliably reported to me by several, separate sources – been doing his level-best to smear me by telling anyone who will listen that my campaign on behalf of abuse victims is just some kind of “political opportunism” and that I was merely “using the survivors for my political purposes” – his grasp of chronology clearly being so poor that he just doesn’t recollect that it was me who started campaigning for the truth to come out concerning child abuse – and that the resultant “political” row was generated and used opportunistically by his Jersey oligarchy friends to suppress the truth – and oppress me.

Strangely enough – as I sit here writing this post, the Lieutenant Governor is hosting – at Government House – a dinner party which features some UK politicians – and as guest of honour – Lenny Harper – to mark his retirement.

As though Lenny and his team had had unwavering support from these clowns.

Take it from me – the Police are under no illusions as to the cosmetic nature of such functions. Knowing Lenny, I expect he’s making all the right noises – but keeping his council – for the time being.

Keeping his powder dry.

So what, then, does the photo depict after Phil & Andy?

You couldn’t make it up.

For there – walking behind Phil & Andy – we see none other than the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – and Francis Hamon, former Deputy Bailiff, and still an active judge in Jersey’s court.

The Rag has always been in the habit of using such photographs – the fancy-dress, the manufactured tradition and pomp – the invented ceremonial functions – all developed over the centuries – or in this case, the last decade – to make a vast number of Brits go weak at the knees and doff their caps.

Such awe-inspiring “grandeur” is calculated to keep the rabble in line; an objective very much supported by The Rag.

But – in yet another example of crass misjudgement – they’ve used this photograph – clearly not realising that – under the current circumstances – what it depicts is altogether unsavoury – and damning of the administration of justice in Jersey.

For what is depicted are the unhealthy mish-mash and over-laps of traditional power, symbolism, the most senior Jersey oligarchy figures – all of whom should have been held to account a long time ago – and the supportive presence of the Crown/UK government in the form of Andy Ridgway – through who’s Offices the Jersey oligarchy has – yet again – been shielded and protected from accountability – no matter that the oligarchy’s actions have been inimical to the good of 85% of Her Majesty’s subjects here in Jersey.

I guess too many society dinner parties must rot the brain.

So in what way is the presence in the photograph of Michael Birt and Frances Hamon of relevance to our discussion?

In the 1990’s, Francis Hamon was – in addition to being a judge in Jersey’s Royal Court – a member of the Board of Governors of Jersey’s leading private school, Victoria College.

During this period, repeated complaints of child abuse were made to the school’s leadership.

At one point the then headmaster asked Francis Hamon – whilst they were playing a game of squash – what he should do about the complaints of abuse. Hamon failed to advise him to go to the Police.

And out of that whole, wretched abuse episode – it was plain that several people had a powerful case against them to answer for conspiring to pervert the course of justice, misconduct in public office, and breaching the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 by failing to properly protect children for which they had responsibility.

Amongst these people were the headmaster, Jack Hydes; Frances Hamon; deputy head, John Le Breton and one Piers Baker – the man who thinks child abuse is “teachers perks”.

All four of these people should have faced trial – none of them did.

Who was the Jersey Attorney General at that time?

The person responsible for the non-prosecutions?

The person who should have – but failed to – seek the prosecutions of these individuals?

Yep – Michael Birt; now Deputy Bailiff; deputy head of the Jersey judiciary and deputy chair of the legislature.

And there he strides – in the photograph – alongside Mad Frankie Hamon – and behind Phil and Andy – all of whom walk behind the Mace which represents the Crown – which – in theory – should be protecting its subjects in Jersey by ensuring to them the safety of the rule of law and freedom from tyranny.

Phil Bailhache – failed to deal correctly with child protection issues in the past – and who has made the most gross and crass overtly political interventions against the child abuse investigation.

Andy Ridgway – who has singularly failed to properly represent the Crown – who has defended these failed Jersey grandees to the authorities in London – and who has – pro-actively – been engaging in smear campaigns against me – the only Jersey politician to have openly represented the interest of the survivors.

Mike Birt – who not only failed to prosecute all those who should have been, in connection with the child protection failures at Victoria College, but who also – in 1998 – stood up in Jersey’s Royal Court and asserted that the case against the McGuires had to be dropped because of “insufficient evidence”. I, incidentally, read that evidence last year, after it had been drawn to my attention by whistle-blowers.

Just take my word for it; the evidence was NOT “insufficient” for a prosecution to go ahead.

And it is even less “insufficient” now.

Now that Jersey’s present Attorney General has had the completed papers from the Police on the McGuires – for three months now – and still he fails to act.

The present Attorney General being one William Bailhache – brother of Bailiff, Phil.

The same William Bailhache who obstructed my old Health & Social Services Committee when it was attempting to investigate child protection failures in the wake or the Bichard report.

The very same Attorney General who has, to date, obstructed the charging of at least three other suspects in addition to the McGuires.

One of whom – Danny Wherry – is a member of the same golf club as Bailhache.

You think it couldn’t get any worse?

Alas, not included in the photograph – though most probably present – will have been the 12 “Jurats” – a form of lay-judges who sit in judgment on cases before the court.

These 12 ‘judges’ are elected by an electoral college of lawyers and politicians – now doesn’t that just sound like a recipe for a healthy and straight judicial system?

But that isn’t really the point.

This is.

Amongst the 12 Jurats is one John Le Breton – the former deputy head of Victoria College.

Le Breton one was of the key participants in the cover-up of the child abuse; one of the people who should have been prosecuted – back in the late 1990’s – by Michael Birt.

Instead – he sits on the court benches – handing down “judgments” on lesser mortals – including – get this – former St. Helier Constable, Bob Le Brocq.

Le Brocq was the public figure who caught the flack for the presence of the paedophile Roger Holland in the parish’s honorary police force. He was arraigned before the court for this – and admonished – and consequently lost the election he was to shortly face.

I cannot say whether Le Brocq’s actions were all that they could or should have been; but what I can say – is that he was a good deal less culpable than the Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, who, when Attorney General, failed to make an attempt to get Holland thrown out of the police.

And very – very – substantially less culpable for child protection failures than one of the Jurats who sat in judgment on him – John Le Breton.

Le Breton colluded with the then headmaster of the school in attempts to cover-up the complaints of abuse – and even went so far as to, with Jack Hydes, attempt to humiliate and intimidate two of the victims into withdrawing their complaints.

Even by Jersey standards – his conduct was so appalling he had to resign in disgrace from the school. But – in typical Jersey oligarchy fashion – he was rapidly re-habilitated when the ‘electoral college’ appointed him to be a Jurat.

So there we have – illustrated by photographic evidence – published by The Rag, no less – the simply inescapable conflicts of interest, over-laps, direct involvements, professional and personal relationships, mutual intermeshings – and involvement of the Crown – all of which go further to the proof that the administration of justice apparatus in Jersey is – plainly – incompetent to deal with any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

So having described in detail the direct conflicts of interest which bedevil the prosecutory and judicial apparatus in Jersey – let’s recap the fundamental – rock-solid – legal principles of objectivity.

In yesterday’s post, I explained, at some length (sorry), the background information pertaining to the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, the Jersey oligarchy’s profoundly antagonistic and deeply conflicted position – and why, resultantly, the prosecutory and judicial processes of Jersey are manifestly incapable of achieving the necessary appearance of objectivity.

Yesterday I dealt with some fundamental, legal principles, and then went onto explain how the head of Jersey’s judiciary – it’s chief Judge, Sir Philip Bailhache – was deeply conflicted; I explained that no judiciary headed by this man could even remotely be regarded as appearing to be objective and impartial in any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

And – as I said I would – I have described above why, not only Phil, but all the rest of Jersey’s prosecutory and judicial apparatus as well, was also hopelessly conflicted.

But as I also said, there is also another – absolutely fundamental issue – which I will conclude with.

Before then, let’s recap the situation, the arguments, the facts.

As can be seen by reading my last posting, the established facts are these:

1: Jersey is having to come to terms with a child abuse disaster of world-scale. No matter what the particular facts and details of each case may be – we cannot now be but certain that something quite monstrous has gone profoundly wrong with the Jersey authorities’ attitude to vulnerable children.

2: The final exposure of a vast catalogue of abuse will, obviously, lead to both criminal and civil legal cases.

3: There is, therefore, no escaping the fact that a prosecution system and judiciary will need to be deployed to deal with all such cases.

4: Certain rock-solid, fundamental and inescapable principles of jurisprudence are established as such immovable foundations of justice as to be beyond all credible argument. For our purposes, the relevant principles are:

(a) Justice must be seen to be done. All judicial process have to avoid even the merest hint or suspicion that they may not be impartial and neutral. The administration of justice – in order to be credible – has to meet a test of the appearance of objectivity. There cannot even be the merest suspicion of conflict.

(b) No man can be a judge in his own cause. No person can sit in judgement on a case in which they feature in any way; nor can a person appoint those who will judge him; to do so would be to breach the crucial appearance of objectivity.

I did invite any lawyers who dispute my analysis to debate the issues on this blog, but none has. I guess there are some arguments so fallacious and absurd that not even lawyers could make them.

So we can safely conclude that our analysis is correct.

1: The administration of Justice Apparatus in Jersey needs to become involved in the child abuse disaster.

2: The administration of justice has to appear to be impartial; it has to avoid even the merest suspicion of being conflicted.

3: Jersey’s senior judge and head of the judiciary, Sir. Philip Bailhache is hopelessly conflicted, as detailed in Tuesday’s posting. He has made several, strident, political interventions in connection with the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, and has a personal history of not responding adequately or professionally to child protection issues.

4: As things stand, no judge can be appointed to hear cases in Jersey’s court unless the judge is appointed and/or approved by the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache; or in his absence, the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt.

5: The involvement of either man in appointing judges would breach the appearance of objectivity test on the grounds that ‘no man can be a judge in his own cause’.

6: The conflicts of interest entirely engulf the rest of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus. Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General, Jurats – all are hopelessly conflicted.

So that much is established fact; no Jersey lawyers at all have rushed to dismiss our argument so far.

Through its own choice and insistence over the decades and centuries, the Jersey judiciary maintains an involvement in politics. There is a profoundly unhealthy over-lap between the legislature and the judiciary.

The Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff, in addition to being head and deputy head of the judiciary are also speaker and deputy speaker of the Jersey parliament.

No propositions, amendments, questions, formal statements or reports can be tabled to the legislature without first being approved by either the Bailiff of Deputy Bailiff.

Both men routinely exhibit dramatic political bias in exercising these bizarre powers.

I personally – as have a number of other non-establishment members – have had propositions, amendments, questions and reports interfered with and obstructed on a regular basis.

The deep politicisation of both men is very much evident in such examples of pro-oligarchy bias and the obstructions placed in the way of anti-establishment States members.

The Bailiff, or in his absence, the Deputy Bailiff, acts as the civic head of the island; though God knows on what authority.

In this capacity, the Bailiff has routinely made political speeches and given addresses in which he purports to speak for the community of Jersey. When doing so he has adopted the cloak of de facto prime ministers – making political pronouncements as would the prime minister in the UK.

In making such speeches, the Bailiff has repeatedly attempted to defend the status quo of Jersey’s position; to defend the oligarchy and to – as he would no doubt presume it – to speak on behalf of the community.

In acting in this way he has routinely – as is a matter of public record – made it crystal-clear that he is joining in with, and supporting the actual political establishment of the island in all their various efforts to show a veneer of respectability to the outside world.

So here’s the rub.

As a judge – let alone as actual head of the judiciary – the fortunes and appearances of the island’s governmental authorities ought to be a matter of total disinterest to him.

No respectable judge can do their work if they carry in their minds the constant consideration: –

“How will the implications of this judicial matter look politically; how might it affect the executive. I don’t want to see any damage or harm come to the cause, standing or reputation of the government.”

Yet that is precisely what we have from Phil Bailhache.

And this state of affairs is doubly problematic for him and the judiciary which he leads.

Firstly, in the case of Phil Bailhache – we do not even need to speculate on his political views, allegiances or priorities.

He, himself has overtly, prominently and publicly displayed just such political partisanship.

So in his case – it isn’t even merely a case of “suspicion” of conflict. It’s out on the table – for the world to see.

Secondly, even if he hadn’t bee so incautiously overt in his political activities – the mere fact that he regards himself as the ‘civic’ leader of Jersey – and thus has an unambiguous stake in the appearance and reputation of the island and its establishment – means that he cannot escape the suspicion that he may be biased.

Which returns us to the established point that no respectable judicial process can, for one instant, be associated with even the merest whiff of suspicion.

The test is that judicial processes must achieve the appearance of objectivity.

Neither of the present incumbents as Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff – nor indeed, those roles as presently defined, can get remotely close to meeting that test.

To elaborate on the principles at play here; in respectable, functioning democracies – it has been accepted – for a very long time – that there needed to be a clear separation between legislature – the realm of politics – and the judiciary – the realm of law.

Such a ‘separation of powers’ has long been regarded as necessary in order to achieve what are termed effective ‘checks and balances’. This needs to be so in order to ensure that neither realm – the political or the legal – can indulge in untrammelled power; that each be subject to checks and restraints by the other.

The political sphere makes the laws to which the courts must work within, and adjudicate upon. The courts then administer justice impartially – free of political considerations.

For this arrangement – which underpins power in all established, respectable democracies – to work – the courts must be free of any political taint.

Not least, because – and this is a very relevant point to the Jersey situation – it is often governments which break the law. Public authorities; different sections of public administration are subject to the rule of law – every bit as much as you or I.

Therefore, the courts; the judiciary, will often be called upon to hear cases and adjudicate upon both criminal and civil actions against the government or one of its departments.

But this arrangement cannot possibly work if judges carry with them the concern – “how will this look for the government?” If they did – the effectiveness of the rule of law collapses – instantly.

Judges, and the courts over which they preside, must – I repeat, must – set aside, and not allow, contamination by political, personal or philosophical considerations.

The whole modus operandi of judicial proceedings is that they apply objectively the laws of the day, admit only evidenced facts to enter the equation – and that they then come to impartial and objective decisions based upon the relevant laws and the merits or otherwise of that particular case.

Judges and their courts will often be called upon to adjudicate over some action or omission of the government. And the factual, evidenced, lawful conclusions of such cases may well be profoundly embarrassing and extremely detrimental to the government.

And that is just – “tough”.

The law – is the law- is the law.

And if a government has broken a law – it must be held to account by the courts – quite regardless of whether the judgment is “politically” damaging for the government.

Having laid out those facts – we are forced to accept that there is only one credible conclusion we can arrive at in our consideration of the competence of the judicial apparatus of Jersey to deal with the child abuse disaster.

And that conclusion is that it cannot be remotely regarded as competent as presently structured.

Both structurally – and in terms of the political actions of certain of its senior members – its contaminating entwinement with the political sphere in Jersey forms an insurmountable obstacle to the good administration of justice.

In fact – this conclusion is so inescapable that we have to question the calibre and competence of senior figures in the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus when they continue to refuse to face that fact.

Even if all of the individuals I cite above were – by some superhuman and Christ-like ability – to set aside their personal views, their prior involvements and their political considerations; even if I was to concede that such a fantastical notion could be exercised by these individuals – it would still make no difference.

It would make no difference – whatsoever – to the fact that they would continue to APPEAR to be conflicted.

And it is that mere suspicion – that mere hint of conflict – which renders them and the entire Jersey judicial apparatus incompetent to deal with any issues – criminal or civil – arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

I said earlier that there was a fundamental issue with which I would conclude; by which I would attempt to explain the inexplicable.

So, here goes.

Given that it is – very – very – obvious that the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus is hopelessly conflicted in any matter relating to the child abuse disaster; given that there are absolutely mountains of rock-solid jurisprudence – unassailable authorities – which make our case – which seal our conclusions – we have to ask a question?

Why should the Jersey judicial apparatus be placing itself in diametric opposition to all established authority and case-law?

The reason is this.

They all know that if they conceded the fact – for it is a fact – that Jersey’s prosecutory system and judicial apparatus is disastrously conflicted – and therefore incompetent to deal with these cases – then we head – very rapidly – to an unavoidable conclusion.

The legal principles, the jurisprudence, the case-law and human rights – all draw Jersey implacably to an inevitable conclusion.

Which is that – because of its tiny size, because of inevitable conflicts of interest – because of that fundamental principle that justice must be seen to be done – because no suspicion of bias can be permitted in judicial processes – Jersey is not capable of the proper administration of justice under the present constitutional arrangements.

Not just in respect of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – but in practically every single criminal or civil case of any significance.

If the Jersey oligarchy were to concede the fact of their conflictedness – to admit that they cannot meet the test of the appearance of objectivity in the present crises – then – inevitably – they also concede that such a small place as Jersey cannot properly administer justice at all – without dramatically greater external involvement and oversight.

This is why the Jersey oligarchy – finally – finds itself making a last stand. And doing so – in futility – against the entire canon of established jurisprudence and authority.

They know – we know – they know we know – we know they know we know – that a final, implacable end has been reached.

That whilst Jersey can – and should – remain self-governing insofar as the political sphere is concerned – in the case of the competent administration of justice – we must now embrace external and independent judicial processes.

Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to be done.

Not even the merest suspicion of partiality or conflict can be associated with any respectable, functioning judicial processes.

Jersey is, therefore, simply incapable of meeting that basic standard.

And to those who condemn me for committing such heresy – recognise that the fundamental legal principles I describe are not some fanatical product of mine; they are the sound and wise product of centuries of justice.

If Jersey is to stand as a respectable, self-governing jurisdiction into the future – we simply have no choice other than to accept that what passes for the administration of justice at present in the island – just does not meet the requisite standard.

Indeed – probably hasn’t done for at least 100 years.

I do not advocate full independence for the island. Personally, I want to retain my British citizenship.

Nor do advocate becoming a part of the United Kingdom – I value Jersey’s historical independence.

But this is now the 21st century.

The good administration of justice cannot be delivered internally – in a community of 90,000. Structurally – it simply isn’t possible. The conflicts are simply inescapable.

I, along with John Hemming MP, am shortly to embark upon a legal action in London against Jack Straw MP – the relevant UK Government Minister.

Our case is simple:

Britain – historically, constitutionally and under modern Convention obligations – has ultimate responsibility for the good administration of justice in Jersey.

Britain does have the power to intervene – something unarguably established by robust precedent.

Britain should intervene – under the present circumstances – which involve a clear breakdown in the ability of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus to meet the test of the appearance of objectivity.

Britain’s ability to exercise such power is through Jack Straw and the Privy Council.

Britain’s failure to intervene – on behalf of a very substantial number of abuse victims, and the good administration of justice generally – should be subjected to Judicial Review.

That – in essence – is the case we will be making.

Personally – I’m confident we will win; that we will secure a Judicial Review of the situation.

But – I really wish none of the above was necessary.

I just wish our oligarchs possessed the wisdom to – finally – face the inevitable.

Stuart.

66 thoughts on “THE GOOD ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE #2

  1. st-ouennais

    I never really understood the calls for independence until I read this. Clearly if we were independent there would be no grounds to seek UK involvement in the legal and judicial processes. So independence would mean more of the same and perpetuation of the current cosy arrangements that work well enough for those in the club. Why am I not surprised?

    Reply
  2. Res Nullius

    And if you fail in the Privy Council, what next? Will you be considering taking it to Europe?

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Stuart
    I love reading your long blogs.

    You set things out very logically and, somewhat surprisingly, bearing in mind the subject, you are measured in your approach.

    The oligarchy say “he’s mad” – but your writing is not that of a mad man.

    They say this is all a political move on your part – your writing does not depict this.

    They say you want revenge for being removed from your post – your writing is not that revenge – in fact I think you have moved on from that.

    Its simple – you are telling the truth.

    Carry on, there are many people behind you who will make their feelings known through the next elections.

    Reply
  4. donchais

    Great blog entry!

    Even I see the problem with obtaining justice and figured it out a long time ago.

    I do hope that in the next elections the people of Jersey will stand up and shout in unision – Enough is Enough!

    (I’m so sorry Lenny had to endure that dinner.)

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    Allthough Chris was a paedophile he may not have been if it wasn’t for waht happened to him because those hwo were supposed to loook after the children actually abused them and those who were supposed to report the things they knew hid them from the public- obviously not from the those in high places as they could then legitimise the actions of those below.

    This does not give Chris an excuse for what he did- but it does give reason for how a person can turn out they way they did given the circumstances. Rest in piece all victims….

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    I for one like to be informed so long post are needed in cases like this I have posted many if not all the newspaper report including the last one which is also long but informative.

    Being a victim myself and a victim who is still being victimised by the British home office even though they know that what happened to us is actual factual, even though they have consistently lost the cases as they came to court and even though they have the abuser in prison for 10 years, and to top it off they used the statute of limitations against us all to get out of any blame.

    But guess what? Yes they lost that too. One of the cases was due to go to court in September however the home office eventually saw they could not win- I believe they have always known they could not win and if they could somehow wear the victims down with protracted court cases that’s exactly what they would do and have indeed done to date.

    I know it may seem nasty in someway but Jersey is not alone in her fight for justice, there are many cases and victims across the whole UK that deserve an end to their suffering.

    Those at the top don’t even think of us as human beings, they don’t care about what happened to someone who is riddled with pains and guilt for what they had little chance to stop.

    All they care about is self, Image, Fronting it out!!! Money talks and its shouting like mad at the moment on Jersey, however! Be warned you don’t become an oligarch without making a few enemies along the way and you don’t become the age of Feckless Frank without gathering a history behind you and most of all, you can’t spend it in prison…

    They will employ those who do their thinking usually from the legal world or the media to handle most of the embarrassments.

    But the thing that has and will change things is the internet and without people like Senator Stuart Syvret & social worker Simon Bellwood and the victims of Jersey’s children’s homes amongst others who are members of the public in Jersey who are not indoctrinated into the “Jersey Way” This sad tale will echo through the world and it will never be forgotten not will all those who were children in their own personal hells created by the demons with angels faces.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    Everyone has a history! Lets find Phil, Bill & Bens! I bet they have got plenty to hide!

    So come on folkses lets dig! and dig deep, cos we are dealing wiv va jerseey mob and in jerseey, money can buy a lot of earth, And in particular if you are a child!

    Phil, Bill & Ben, I have mixed with the lowest scum on this earth! But as the song goes……nothing compares to you!!

    Oh alomost forgot! Happy retirement Ben (Walker). Hope you can RIP!!

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    Well said that man! My guess is, is that we would not have to dig that deep! The word is, that a gin and tonic will get the in crowd talking!

    Oh, by the way, this is Jersey and history aought to have told those that currently hold the reins of power, that they do so until they become yesterdays news!

    And guess what, Phil, bill & Ben, Your time has come! What’s it feel like to be the fall guys for the paeds that you thought were your mates??

    As one commentater has already said, RIP! You will not be missed!

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    Stuart! If I was hated as much as these guy’s are, I would retire!

    They must really be as stupid as the crowd in the street say’s they are! I have spoken to Verity C and she should know as she is the biggest social climber going and say’s, she knows the the Bayleef personaly. But she would!

    Reply
  10. Smokin Jo

    Stop the press…

    Liberation Day (date to be confirmed)…coming soon … and its gonna be one hell of a party…

    Drinks on you Phil?

    Reply
  11. Anonymous

    I guess lenny going according to some people is the best news they have heard since the police were unable to charge the last three suspects in the child abuse investigation People forget before the huge media controversy about Haut de la Garren.Mr Harper came to the island to shake up our local police force and get rid of a lot of bent coppers I guess a lot of these anti Lenny comments that we are hearing are from ex dodgy police and associates.

    Reply
  12. Frank

    1: Re the length of your blogs – it is your blog and you can write what you want, however long or small . Nobody has to read it .

    2: I have seen recent talk from the oligarchs about people behaving in the ‘ proper way ‘ . Don’t fall for this – this is code for ‘ don’t ask questions ‘ and ‘ do what we say ‘. It may have helped if the Jersey authorities had carried out their duties of care in the’ proper way ‘ .

    3: From the distant recesses of my memory , I remember David Icke asserting that the world was ruled by reptilians in disguise . Maybe , he was onto something as sometimes one must question whether certain individuals are human

    Reply
  13. Res Nullius

    Any chance of Lenny harper giving a less resrainted, less politically correct interview now that he is not in the hot seat?

    Tell us how it really is now that they are no longer his paymasters.

    Reply
  14. Anonymous

    Yes thats right the Elite are only people astonishing isn’t it? Just a collection of dirty old men with an out dated idea of their own importance. Boy are they in for a shock….

    Keep it real and get them out…

    Reply
  15. voiceforchildren

    Stuart.

    A fascinating and informative blog. We, the Jersey public and indeed the world need to be “informed”.

    This is the duty of our local media who, in my opinion, fail miserably. All they ever offer us is a few “soundbites” and appear totally shameless in their bias towards our oligarchy.

    We get no in-depth analysis of news stories, no investigative journalism and what appears to be a mere few paragraphs of “the party line” from our local media.

    I have in my possession an e-mail from Rob Shipley (deputy editor of our only “news”paper) stating.

    “I think I’m the one who knows about newspapers and what makes a legitimate story. I’ve been working in journalism for 26 years. If you want to tell me how to do my job you’d better apply for the position of editor”.

    I just wondered if you had ever been offered the opportunity to apply for Editor of the JEP?
    Even if you were to write as a columnist I’m sure their readership would treble over night! and at least then the readers would get some kind of balanced reporting.

    I am certain the entire local media read your blogs, so for the sake of Mr Shipley, you’ve still not aswered my last e-mail to you! You know the one? where I was asking you to explain “JOURNALISM” to me? Not to worry I intend on publishing a selection of our e-mail correspondance in the very near future, maybe somebody else will be kind enough to explain “journalism” to me

    Keep up the crucial, priceless work Stuart, the Jersey public have been kept “in the dark” for too long. If and when the position of Editor of the JEP comes up, please apply for it!!!

    Reply
  16. Anonymous

    I’ve image-searched at wikipedia.org and there’s nothing there starting with “Jurat” – have they had it removed already?!

    If you want to put links in the comments here (because long lines get chopped and lost) use a hyperlink HTML tag as follows :

    Enter a www Address and make it clickable by putting [A] tags around the description (where the first A tag has the Hyperlink Ref supplied in quotes) like so…
    [A href=”http://…your..link..”]clickable description to appear in blue words[/A] and it’s as simple as that – so long as you use the “Less Than” and “Greater Than” arrow brackets (found on the , and . keys) instead of [ and ]

    – note what it says under the comment entry box about “You can use some HTML tags, such as …”

    If you put [i] and [/i] around some words they will be italicised and [b][/b] is used for boldness. There you go.. halfway to becoming a web designer!

    Reply
  17. Anonymous

    Aha, I dug it out of the page’s HTML source – it does exist after all.

    Here’s the pic – although sadly not the same one as the hilarious ‘dead seagull’ one in the rag.

    Reply
  18. Anonymous

    I hardly recognise him since I was at VC back in the early 80s.
    I was taught maths by AJ-D, and we all knew he had a reputation.
    One of the stories was that J-D had gone away on a trip with some of the boys, and on the overnight trip back on the ferry they all slept in their seats and as one of the boys awoke first he found J-D asleep with an arm around one of the other boys.
    There were other stories.

    But quite some time went by before anything was done. I ‘served my time’ in that hateful place for a couple more years, and had tried some other college I didn’t get on with, and had been working for a few years earning a living at last before the case finally hit the news.

    There’s no way my kids are going to a school like that – mine will have to take their chances in the free ones!

    Reply
  19. Anonymous

    I did amend the link to the picture tag as you said and posted it with the blue word Picture but it was not posted. thanks for that

    Reply
  20. Anonymous

    Jurat John Le Breton should be birched, at a minimum. A loathsome & spineless human. Rewarded, when he should have been sentenced.

    There are plenty Old Victorian’s joyous at his ongoing condemnation & exposure. Every dog has it’s day & a crapaud has a long memory!

    Olim hoc collegium
    Priscus rex dotavit;
    Multis annis postea
    Reginæ benignitas
    Ubi stat locavit.
    Reginæ Victoriæ
    Floreat Collegium.

    Burn, you filty, rotten, privileged few –
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege

    Reply
  21. Anonymous

    Thank you for taking the considerable personal time and effort to trot this particular pony out of the paddock and into the sunshine so that we your readers can all get a good long look at it.

    Your most excellently written piece of enlightenment was frightening to read and proved even more frightening when rolling around on the spin-cycle of my intellect whilst lying awake in bed last night.

    When the busy affairs of the few are kept hidden and secret, the power over the many is assured; this power sustained, nurtured and continued by the very chronic secrecy in which it is concealed.

    I was having a dig around the States of Jersey government website and stumbled across the following document at:
    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/46527-24954-2762008.htm

    Dated 27th June 2008 and entitled “Second Interim Report of the Constitution Review Group”, presented by the “Council of Ministers”.

    Go and take a look, don’t read anything, just observe the coat of arms only, take your time and look very closely!

    Now go to a true representation of the crest at:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Jersey_coa.svg/219px-Jersey_coa.svg.png

    and here:

    http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/history/leopards/duchessofnormandy.jpg

    another representation may also be viewed here:

    http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/history/leopards/bail.html

    Did you spot the differences? Yes the Leopards on the Council of Ministers document have been changed!

    The lowest Leopard you will observe now appears to be supported on three legs and has a forked tail………….

    To the cursory glance this would pass unnoticed; but to the observant eye a very different seal of authority!

    The third Leopard’s fore leg has been pulled down to join the other two in representing the three Masonic pillars, Strength, Wisdom and Beauty.

    The tail you will also observe is now forked, another Masonic symbol, this given by pulling in the fingers and thumb and leaving only the forefinger and pinkie erect.

    Are my observations just wild fantasy or flight of fancy……. make up your own mind!

    Reply
  22. Anonymous

    As I suggested some weeks ago, and especially now that the impressive Lenny Harper has gone, the investigation will be truncated through lack of knowledge (and rules of evidence), legal philandering, and shink uselessness, even though most of the detectives are trying their best. The ACPO will be obstructive, as is usual in child abuse cases. And this is before knowing that the wealthy perps will use every underhand means at their disposal (I am not including the paedophilic scumbags here – these will be the sacrificial offering by the oligarchy)). So, Stuart, you need to go a little futher in your quest … politics is not the answer. The survivors require unequivocal knowledge that can be used to find and prosecute these blighters. You won’t understand this, but the survivors have this knowledge – the good police simply do not understand how to find or use it.

    Reply
  23. Anonymous

    Regarding

    The document dated 27th June 2008 and entitled “Second Interim Report of the Constitution Review Group”, presented by the “Council of Ministers”.

    Found at URL:

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/46527-24954-2762008.htm

    About half way down the page the Council of Ministers state the following:

    3. Internal Constitutional Considerations–

    consideration be given to –

    (ix) the steps required to create a senate (second chamber) as part of a bi-cameral legislature

    Look up what bi-cameral means at URL:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral

    A very disturbing change!

    Senator Syvret, can you explain what they are trying to achieve by this?

    Reply
  24. Anonymous

    Masonic symbols on States crests

    “Are my observations just wild fantasy or flight of fancy……. make up your own mind!”

    All the States Order documents carry the same version of the which is graphically designed to fill the steeply curved bottom part of the shield.

    You ask whether your observations are wild fantasy just a flight of fancy?

    Both actually – what is this idiotic stuff doing on what should be a serious blog?

    Reply
  25. Jimi Takes A Stroll

    Stuart, if you win your case against Jack Straw, how, in layman’s terms, will that impact upon the situation here?

    Will it in any way help crack the cement that binds the members of the happy little fancy dress parade?

    Reply
  26. To Zero

    Stuart, who are the Jersey judiciary? Not such a straightforward question as it seems.

    Jersey Legal Information Board lists the judiciary on its website http://www.jerseylaw.je/Courts/Judiciary/judges.aspx

    However the Bailiff refers to a different group of people, such as in this passage from his recent speech at the swearing in of Mrs Bridget Shaw as Assistant Magistrate. http://www.gov.je/BailiffsChambers/BailiffsStatement.htm
    “…you have become, by virtue of your office, a member of the Jersey Judicial Association which last year adopted a Code of Ethics and Conduct setting out quite clearly what is expected of judges and magistrates in this Island. But wholesale attacks upon the judiciary and suggestions that they are collectively incapable of dealing with any outcomes of the current child abuse inquiry are ignorant and unwelcome, and I deplore them. Senior politicians should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda.”
    The Code of Ethics and Conduct the Bailiff refers to makes very interesting reading.
    http://www.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/B0A82021-9B5C-410F-9D7B-B401119E40FD/0/Codesofconductmembersofthejudiciary.pdf
    Given that the speech above was given a few days before a censure vote against him, I would have thought the Bailiff was immediately breaching the Code he had just referenced, and that his brother did so in the Today radio interview a few weeks later.
    That seems to be one of the problems with the code – there is no description of how compliance will be monitored, and how sanctions for breaches will be determined.

    Reply
  27. Res Nullius

    Re code of conduct for members of the judiciary

    12. Members of the judiciary shall conduct themselves, both in court and outside court, in such a manner as not to put in doubt their independence and impartiality or the independence and impartiality of the office which they hold.

    15. Members of the judiciary shall not sit in a case where they have an interest or where the circumstances are such that a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the given facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the member was biased: in all other cases they are bound not to abstain from their duty to sit.

    17. Members of the judiciary shall not comment or grant interviews to the media or speak in public on matters which are sub judice.

    19. If any member of the judiciary is in doubt whether his or her conduct might be contrary to any provisions of this Code, he or she should consult the Bailiff so as to secure a ruling in advance in relation to that proposed conduct.

    It appears that this Code is for all the other members and not Phil. There is no higher authority. Phil simply has to believe in himself and he does not even have to enter a period of self consultation. Brilliant.

    Reply
  28. Anonymous

    Stuart,

    Do you really believe that a successful outcome with Jack Straw will make a difference? Or are you making political capital on the back of a horrific and continuing cancer? What you have done so far is impressive, but …..

    Reply
  29. Anonymous

    Funds for fire victim’s .J E P headlines Monday 11 august. My sympathies to these unfortunate people. Candles of hope J E P Monday 11 august walk through the night to remember the victims of cancer my sympathies to these people also. My mother and five members of my immediate family have died from cancer I also support many charitable cancer organisations and our local hospice. Why has their been no support for our victims of child abuse .I am absolutely disgusted and ashamed that our island is ignoring the catastrophic disaster that is happening around us. Surely politics aside, our religious leaders should be giving some kind of guidance to the victims.

    Reply
  30. TonyTheProf

    Please do what Frank and Phil have been unable to do, and make a public apology for the analogy used (the Nuremberg defense) in your email to Freddie Cohen. Show you are greater than they can ever be!

    Reply
  31. Stuart Syvret

    Re: Successful Outcome against Jack Straw?

    If the outcome of the action against Jack Straw is “successful” – then, yes, it will make a difference, obviously; a big difference.

    If the High Court action against Straw does not work – no, it won’t make a difference – but, I must qualify that remark.

    As I have remarked previously – the fundamental principles of jurisprudence and of case-law are so fundamentally established – that it’s very – very – difficult to imagine us not wining.

    But even if we don’t win in court in London – the victory of our oligarchy will be a text-book pyrrhic victory.

    Such is the nature of the evidential material; of the witnesses to be called, that – win or lose in the technical sense – the destruction will be wrought upon the Jersey oligarchy. Destruction of nuclear proportions.

    So, to qualify my earlier remark – whilst losing in court won’t make the difference we want it to make – essentially to deliver objective and credible justice to the victims and survivors – losing will still have the by-product of mortally wounding the Jersey oligarchy.

    I would far rather objective justice were delivered to the survivors – even if that meant the Jersey establishment surviving.

    But, one has to take one’s consolations where you can find them.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  32. Stuart Syvret

    Re: Tony the Prof

    I have explained elsewhere the full extent of the correspondence I had with Senator Cohen; unsurprisingly not to be seen in the Jersey Evening Post – even though I copied them in on it.

    I quote some of that explanation here in case you missed it. Others had commented on:

    “My e-mail exchange with Freddy Cohen, in which I had accused him of gross hypocrisy for his betrayal of an unambiguous election promise to support exempting medical services and supplies from the Goods & Services Tax.

    He responded by, essentially, arguing that he resiled from his election promise because he was “a team-player”. [The “team” being the Council of Ministers]

    To which I responded that the “need to be a team-player” may well have been used as an excuse by Nazis on trial at Nuremburg.

    He responded by saying he had never been so insulted in his life – and would never speak to me again (great).

    What – of course – one won’t read in The Rag is the rest of the correspondence.

    I replied by saying that my remarks were intended to be insulting; as I knew exactly what such things meant. This because my mother’s maiden name was Gould, and she was borne in a Nazi internment camp following my grandmother’s deportation by the occupying Nazis.”

    So, unsurprisingly, this latter part of the correspondence has still not appeared in The Rag.

    And people think I’m paranoid about that wretched journal?

    So, Tony – you want me to apologise to Freddy Cohen?

    OK.

    I will apologise –

    But here’s the rub.

    I’ll apologise for using a calculatedly provocative analogy – as one who knew exactly what it meant – on condition – that he first apologise to the people of Jersey for betraying a clear and unambiguous election promise contained in his manifesto.

    And that he first apologise to me for lying to me about his intention to support the non-taxation of health care – on the very eve of the exemptions debate.

    Fair do’s?

    I think so.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  33. Anonymous

    Stuart

    Seeing as how the States of Jersey is a stranger to most forms of democratic process and we face a monumental task to break these clowns in power by the vote – can you- or any of the readers of your blog- think of a symbolic way of illustrating “average joes” feelings of disgust,anger and betrayal to the Jersey ruling elite?.
    For example a discreet lapel badge of some description or maybe a car sticker…any revenue from the sale of these items could perhaps go into a fund for the victims of historic abuse in Jersey, I know it wouldnt be much….but its a damn sight more than the states are doing for these poor sods!.

    My Mrs suggests a clown with a dustpan and brush but I prefer a yellow rubber duck..because no matter what you cant crack ’em and imagine next liberation day when Big Phil gets up to do his thing..to face a barrage of duck-calls!!.

    At the very least some form of symbol would be a constant reminder to everyone that this awful period in the Islands history WILL NOT be brushed under the carpet!.

    Keep fighting.

    Reply
  34. The Moving Finger

    Funny how everything always comes back to religion.
    Every war you can think of had a religious slant somewhere.
    Although I am not a Communist,I think Karl Marx was right with his “Opiate” comment.
    Of course the main religion in Jersey is the worship of money!

    Reply
  35. Symbollics

    re: symbols
    T4C were using the daffodil, but that’s a bit seasonal really!

    Someone else suggested a V symbol campaign, but I’ve yet to see any.

    Reply
  36. Smokin Jo

    Slightly off topic I know but just a few thoughts on the 5 childrens remains found at HDLG:

    I find it difficult to comprehend that the dating of the bones and teeth (burnt or not) cannot be pinpointed accurately when dinosaur fossils and neandertal mans remains can be accurately dated;

    If they do pre-date the inquiry as far back as 1650, surely these bones will be of historical interest to the island and should be preserved and investigated further?

    And to those who use the dolmen nearby to HDLG as a reasoning tool for why the bones maybe on the HDLG site…for goodness sake, pinch yourselves please…5 childrens remains found on the same site as a childrens home (in fact, directly underneath!), several hundred metres away from the dolmen – with teeth clearly removed from the children before death…and no other bones or teeth found in nearby fields surrounding the dolmen(not to my knowledge anyway and if they have been, they were very quickly disposed off)…

    Just some thoughts for the good old brainwashed local peeps to digest…

    Reply
  37. Smokin Jo

    Oh, and one more off topic post in relation to this thread (hope this is ok mod), I recently read in our beloved JEP in a letter to the editor, “who would be stupid enough to bury the remains of a murder victim on the same property where the henious crime was comitted”. Or at least words to that effect.

    I say, remember Fred and Rose West…and look at how many years they got away with it…but I hasten to add, they ran, but couldn’t hide forever…a sobering thought perhaps to the perpetrators of the evil crimes comitted at HDLG…

    Reply
  38. Anonymous

    Re symbol

    What about the cross of st George! I sugest this as it identifies the movement with A, Good wining over evil (George killing the dragon). And B, the Jersey peoples very proud 800 year relationship with England (UK)!

    The emblem is easy to get as either lapel pins and as large/miniture flags!

    Reply
  39. Anonymous

    Jurat John Le Breton must love being on committes I do believe that now he is again on a board “protecting” young people not a school but a secure unit.Is he not on the board of Greenfields Secure Unit?

    Reply
  40. Anonymous

    Beggar’s belief. John le Breton, how can he possibly be on any board of governors after his resignation from Victoria College. Doesn’t Jersey have a freedom to access information as to who holds such posts? I guess not

    Reply
  41. Anonymous

    Stuart

    On the BBC website where they are criticising your comments about Cohen, you are quoted as having Jewish ancestry (Your mother’s maiden name was Gould, her mother was interned in a concentration camp because she was Jewish?) My reading of Judaism is that it is transferred through the maternal lineage, therefore not only do you have Jewish ancestry, by definition you are a Jew – and have as much a claim to this as the holier than thou Cohen. Therefore this does not set him above you in his moral high ground, but on an equal level.

    Reply
  42. TonyTheProf

    Yes, I still think that you should apologise, because (a) part of the exchange with Cohen is now fairly public, and sounds as presented like a general antisemitic remark, which must cause offense to members of the Jewish congregation in Jersey (b) You need to give a moral lead. This kind of remark can have consequences – fostering antisemitism. Example: a concerned primary school teacher who, after telling off one of her pupils for who calling a Jewish child “a Nazi”, was given the excuse that “The Mayor [Livingstone] said it was OK, so why can’t I do it” (c) saying “I won’t apologise unless he does first” is not giving much of a moral lead, it sounds like the petulance of a schoolboy.

    You are big enough to apologise – but if you don’t want to do it to Freddie, then do it indirectly to the Jewish congregation, and make it clear you did not wish to offend THEM (i.e FC was fair game).

    Reply
  43. Anonymous

    Stuart I firmly believe Cohen is using this as “a sprat to catch a mackerel” to try yet again to cover up the fishy goings on apro pro the Child Abuse Investigation, the lack of arrests, the noises now being made internationaly relating to the failure of those still alive being arrested and charged with these horrendous crimes. The States are possibly hoping that if as much noise as possible can be made against you, as much detrimental media cover against you personally the pulic will see you as a rascist hence they will not give you credit for the good work you have done and continue to do.

    Hmmmmmm, Cohen try again, the difference between you and Stuart he is for the people you alas abandoned your electorate for the jokers who run the States of Jersey. Sadly Cohen is a dishonest politician, unlike you, your commitment to the electorate is second to none.

    Reply
  44. Stuart Syvret

    Tony the Prof

    I think there are several problems with your analysis as presented here.

    Firstly, as explained elsewhere, I have Jewish ancestry myself – and my maternal family suffered internment by the Nazis. So “anti-Semitic”? Sorry – it just won’t wash.

    Secondly, “giving offence”? Just what & why should that be any big deal in societal discourse – at least if one comes at things from a post-enlightenment perspective?

    Sometimes offensive things need to be said – as part of debate – as part just getting at the truth.

    Indeed one of the banes of Jersey politics is that people attach so much importance to “politeness” – rather than the truth. (Hello, Pip.)

    You clearly consider Freddie Cohen’s wounded feelings to be a far greater offence, as committed by me – than the fact that he brazenly betrayed his election promises to the people of Jersey – and voted to start placing tax on healthcare costs?

    Sorry, Tony – I say again, it just won’t wash.

    A politician who so brazenly betrays their election pledges frankly deserves to be insulted – very insulted.

    If they want to be treated with respect – then start behaving in a respectable manner.

    I remain of the view I expressed previously – I’ll apologise to him – once he apologises to the people of Jersey for betraying his election pledge to them – and apologises to me for lying to me about his voting intentions – right up to the eve of the debate on my exemption proposals.

    Although – virtually entirely through my efforts – the tax on healthcare was eventually abandoned by the Treasury, nevertheless, Freddie was quite happy to vote against the exemption – which could quite easily have seen struggling families or pensioners battling with inflated health care bills because of the tax.

    I guess it comes down to what one attaches the most importance to? The haughty ‘offence’ felt by a multi-millionaire? Or the fact that he got elected on a socially progressive manifesto – which he – within a matter of months – betrayed by voting to tax the health costs of the poor?

    Personally – it’s the latter for me.

    But perhaps the most alarming part of your assertions is that I am expected to exhibit “a moral lead”.

    Sorry – but I have never claimed to be any kind of moral figurehead – and nor would I ever want to be perceived as such.
    I’m just campaigning for the things I feel need campaigning for. For the general benefit of people – not because of any aspiration to sainthood.

    If you, Tony, or anyone else, is looking for some kind of “moral majority”, “back to basics” kind of politician – some kind of “moral” figurehead, sorry – I’m not your man.

    Stuart

    Reply
  45. Anonymous

    Stuart

    You gave out copies of the Sharp report to several journalists, has it ever appeared on the internet?

    It is obvious why pro-establishment bloggers remain anonymous. Their names and addresses are in the phone book, and some of your bloggers refer to hanging or lynching people. At the very least, malicious phonecalls or a brick through the window would be a serious concern.

    You have previously stated the that the occupation years were extremely profitable for the JEP – can you back this up with “before and after” P&L accounts?

    The JEP isn’t even locally owned anymore, so the present owners are only going to support an editorial line which they believe will keep people buying the paper in the largest numbers possible. If you think that the majority of the population want to read an alternative point of view, then start another paper up.

    Reply
  46. Anonymous

    Good old Steve Regal speaking up for his brother Freddy Cohen. Is it the fact that they are brothers at the Masonic temple and Steve is using the ant Semitic issue as a cover, to slur Stuart.

    Reply
  47. Stuart Syvret

    Reference the Sharp report and the Jersey Evening Post.

    I have indeed issued the Sharp report to a variety of different media sources, but whether it is yet on the Internet in its entirety I couldn’t say.

    But it will be – in the probably not so distant future.

    I have made it abundantly clear in many past comments that I reject absolutely vigilantism, mob rule and violence.

    If enough people are angry enough, the model for achieving social change is to be found in the peaceful example set by people like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

    However, your suggestion that pro-establishment individuals have something to fear at the supposed possibility of physical attacks is deeply fanciful in the extreme.

    For example, the vast preponderance of letters published in the Jersey Evening Post are pro-establishment letters. I do not see those people and addresses – which are real as opposed to fictional – being stoned or descended upon by angry mobs.

    Therefore, your assertion is manifestly absurd.

    In fact, the truth of the situation is that it is the vast majority of ordinary working people who need their anonymity protected and who do have genuine fears about reprisals. Nothing so crude as violent attacks. Instead the various abuses which can be committed by the powerful against the non-powerful in a small place like jersey is a legitimate fear.

    Loss of job opportunities? The end of any hope of promotion? Trumped up dismissal by employers? Mysteriously elevated tax bills? These are the kind of real world fears that ordinary people in jersey live with.

    As I have remarked previously – on at least three occasions now – the evidence for the unethical conduct of the Jersey Evening Post is there to be readily seen by those who care to do the research.

    I realise, all too well, that as far as people like you are concerned, attempting to defend The Rag is of far greater importance than securing justice for Jersey’s many child abuse survivors.

    However, that is not a priority I share, so I won’t be revisiting all of the research merely to satisfy your craving to maintain a fictional view of the Jersey Evening Post.

    Given that your apprehension of the world depends upon the fictions and mythologies peddled on behalf of the jersey oligarchy by The Rag, I suggest you undertake your own research.

    You assert that the Jersey Evening Post is not even owned locally any more.

    I think a more accurate description would be to say that the jersey evening Post is – allegedly – not owned locally any more.

    Look, if you and others who share your views want me and a load of other people to revise our extremely low opinion of the Jersey Evening Post, I suggest you organise a lobbying campaign directed at the editors and sub-editors of the rag – and ask them to begin publishing the letters from abuse survivors which, hitherto, they have refused to do.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  48. Stuart Syvret

    To whoever submitted the anti-Semitic racist remark and web reference (probably one of Frank, Phil’s or Freddie’s spin-doctors, actually) note that I will not be carrying any racist material on any site of mine.

    And do use your brain – as a person with Jewish ancestry myself – and a person with very well-established political credentials – I’m hardly going to publish crypto-Nazi comments on my blog.

    If you’re going to try and troll my site – at least exhibit enough intelligence to do so with something even faintly plausible.

    Look at it this way; during the elections in Jersey of 2005, in which Freddie Cohen and I were both candidates, when the election commenced, racist and anti-Semitic abuse began to appear scrawled across some of his posters. It was I – amongst the entire field of candidates – who wrote, organised agreement to, and issued to all the press, a statement in the name of all candidates condemning the racism and any vandalism of election posters.

    As I said in previous comments – ethnicity is an irrelevant smoke-screen, being used by the Jersey oligarchy to divert attention away from their own hypocrisies and the shameful and casual betrayal of their election ‘promises’ to Jersey voters.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  49. Stuart Syvret

    PS to Tony the Prof

    Thinking about it – how could any sensible person look to politicians as a specie for “moral guidance”?

    Isn’t “morality” and “politicians” an oxymoronic concept?

    A semiotic paradox?

    Stuart.

    Reply
  50. Res Nullius

    Re:anonimity

    Another day, another attempt to slur those who fail the establishment loyalty test.

    Note the difference between the two camps.

    On one hand the anti establishment side are concerned about the subtle but serious repercissions to be visited upon them by the powerful should they reveal their identities.

    On the other side the pro-establishment poster is concerned for “..at the very least, malicious phonecalls or a brick through the window”.

    In doing so Mr/Mrs Anon is trying to paint the picture that those who do not agree with the establishment are nothing but a violent rabble, rather than ordinary intelligent, peaceful people from all walks of life who are just fed up and frustrated with the corrupt oligarchs.

    I would ask, which retribution is most likely?

    Have any of the establishment figures been physically attacked in their homes or on the street? Answer: NO.

    Have any of their letter writing supporters to the Rag suffered a similar fate (if they actually exist)? Answer: NO.

    Are the wealthy employers, who profit a great deal from being in bed with the oligarchs, likely to tolerate a staff member who potentially puts profits at risk by publicly disagreeing with the establishment. Answer: NO

    That staff member will not be sacked for his/her views; that would be far too obvious. He/she would be removed very subtly and stealthily or passed up for promotion/pay rise with no mention of the rationale behind it.

    That, I would suggest, is the most probable scenario.

    Mr/Mrs Anon, your attempt to cast the ‘Fed-ups’ as baddies in this drama is disingenuous and dishonest.

    Reply
  51. Anonymous

    Attn Zoompad.

    I have no wish to get into any further debate with SS but I will respond to you. (regardless of twice now saying I wont post again!!) I have no wish to cause offence to those that are misunderstanding some of my comments and those whom my comments were not even slightly directed to.

    None of my posts have had any connection in any way what so ever with S.S’ work in the Child Abuse enquiry. I salute his work and wish him well (even though I was called a Paed supporter by him, just because I had the cheek to challenge his approach to things).
    On more that one occasion in S.S’ responses to me he has repeatedly linked my specific JEP/Occupation challenges back to the child abuse enquiry when my challenges had nothing to do with that.

    My comment about Merry Band of followers has zero to do with the child abuse enquiry, the whole context of every single one of my posts has been completely directed at the fact that S.S. has waffled on about hanging everyone who has ever been connected with the JEP and calling them all traitors.

    From some of the other posts on here it seems clear that there is a “merry band of followers” who treat everything that S.S. says as gospel. That doesnt mean that abuse suffers fall into that category and if you took it that way then I apologise.

    Quite frankly everything S.S. says is far from gospel and sweeping generalisations and accusations about people who are no longer around to defend themselves are pretty disgusting as far as I am concerned.

    I genuinely wish I had never been directed to this blog.

    Reply
  52. Stuart Syvret

    The Occupation, the Jersey Evening Post & Child Abuse.

    The author asserts that there is no connection between the conduct of The Rag in decades gone by – including the churning out of Nazi propaganda during the war – and the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

    Sorry – yes there is.

    What we see from The Rag – throughout it’s history – is the same continuum of ethical vacuity and self-serving dishonesty.

    Many times The Rag has been told of child abuse cases – even furnished with hard evidence.

    And they’ve suppressed the stories.

    Even these very days – they refuse to print letters from abuse survivors.

    The plain fact is that the “ethics” of the Jersey Evening Post have been exactly the same throughout its entire 118 year history.

    The Rag – enemy of the people.

    Stuart

    Reply
  53. Anonymous

    My father managed to join up before the Germans occupied the island! But my uncles, aunts and grand parents to mention just a few, told me (as a child) about the the betrayal of Jersey people by the States, JEP and other’s.

    Apperntly some made thier fortune under the Nazi regime! And, as on the mainland of europe, we had our fare share of informers and traitors! But lets not forget that we also had a great deal more who resisted and, are to my mind heroes!

    Reply
  54. Anonymous

    JEP are jumping up and down with fear and anticipation at the thought of any independent authority outside the range of the oligarch’s control, primarily because their oligarchs and so called elite are subject and signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights

    The unofficial laundry mats in jersey have washed more money in a day than the £6m originally requested by The Island’s Treasury saying “the inquiry has taken longer than expected.” Yeah only because of the old boys club have consistently hampered the investigation from day one. Sound’s like they want a big payoff before they are forced to step down! Some sort of retirement fund…

    While the victims are not allowed to have their say in the monopoly media controlled by its masters and in a situation where those who are honest are blinded by the pomp and ceremony of those who are dishonest, beguiled by the perceived majesty of office and did I mention fooled into believing that they won’t come for me!!!

    As most of these people and those of their ilk are don’t actually believe or even think they have done anything wrong and it’s perfectly normal to be able to abuse insignificant working class fodder with impunity as a perk of the job.

    They can’t hearken back to times when their behaviour went unnoticed for this is the now and its time to pay the ferryman. Oh what divine justice it would be if oligarch’s lost control over their mini empire.

    Reply
  55. To Zero

    Senator Cohen’s behaviour is an absolute disgrace. What nonsense to claim it’s the biggest insult he’s ever suffered. He’s like a footballer dispossessed in a hard tackle writhing in feigned agony, while the slow-mo shows he wasn’t even touched. He’s rejected your hand of friendship when you shared with him your Jewish ancestry.

    His excuse for not voting with his conscience bears similarity to that used by the Nazi defendants in the Nuremburg trials. You are fortunately free to make that point.

    The trials considered a variety of war crimes contributing to the deaths of over 40 million people outside fair combat. The charges related to the take no live prisoner approach in combat, mass deportations of whole populations mainly as slave labour, and killing, either directly or through neglect, non-combatants of whom approximately 6 million were Jews.

    A key defence of many of the accused in this and other related trials was that they were following orders. A core Nazi belief was that leaders were obeyed without question or conscience. On taking power they went through the German civil service and professions kicking out, or worse, those who were outspoken. They controlled the press and radio as a propaganda machine. The executive took powerful control over the judiciary.

    Issues such as these, raised at the Nuremburg trials, led directly to the human rights movement which now aspires to be at the core of our society. You have the right to speak to your conscience, and at times it is a duty. Please keep doing so.

    Reply
  56. Anonymous

    Anonymous,

    I’m a Christian. I certainly do not worship Stuart, and I have no doubt that Stuart would be horrified if I were to do so. I am very sure that Stuart is no David Koresh figure!!!

    But he is using his time and energy and helping us child abuse victims, and trying to prevent even more children getting abused. He’s helping us all. What are you doing?

    Zoompad

    Reply
  57. Anonymous

    Stuart, I agree with you about the current ownership of the JEP. I’m surprised there isn’t more internet chatter about it.

    Clearly, the newspaper was sold to a very “friendly” UK regional newspaper group.

    What odds do you give me on it being sold back to a former owner when the time is right, in 2009?

    AP

    Reply
  58. Anonymous

    Flag

    How about St Georges cross

    with V with Lorraine cross inside the V in the left top quarter (as used in battle for Paris in 1944)Henri Rol Tanguy

    V British and european Victory sign.
    Lorraine cross for French resistance movement

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.