THE GOOD ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:

AND OPPOSITION TO IT

BY JERSEY’S OLIGARCHY AND ITS MEDIA – AND THE AUTHORITIES IN WHITEHALL

[Up-date – 27.08.2016; – first written in the 05.08.2008, this post is an important part of the historic record and will give great insight to child-abuse survivors, whistle-blowers and campaigners as to just how conflicted, corrupted – unlawful – judicial processes can be in the British Isles – conflicted, corrupted juridical processes actively protected and supported by UK authorities in Whitehall. What you read of below was reported to the UK authorities – but they covered it up – they shielded a system manifestly incapable of delivering a lawful prosecution, policing or judicial system to abused Jersey children – or the UK children trafficked to Jersey for abuse and torture.  For greater detail, read this Report to the then UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw – a Report which was unlawfully ignored.

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/jack-straw-and-the-illegal-jersey-child-abuse-cover-up/

Jack Straw and the Illegal Jersey Child-Abuse Cover-Up.

These were the illegal actions of UK authorities – aiding and abetting the torture and rape of children. If IICSA refuses to take evidence relevant to the UK authorities corrupt, child-abuse concealing conduct towards Jersey – then we’ll know IICSA is a fake. Read below of the judicial corruption which runs Jersey – then ask yourself of the fate of local children – and those trafficked – in one way or another – to Jersey from England.] 

Do you think the administration of justice apparatus in Jersey is capable of reaching the standards expected in modern, established functioning democracies.

Read the judicial principles below – read why the Jersey oligarchy can’t meet those principles – then have a good, long think – maybe for the first time in your life- as to what Jersey really is.

And I would also be very interested to receive any opinions from lawyers – as to whether my interpretation – as described below – is correct or wrong?

I’m happy to use this forum to debate the issues with any lawyer who wishes to identify themselves.

Introduction:

When writing last night’s post, I promised a more detailed deconstruction of the frankly cretinous leader comment produced in yesterday’s Jersey Evening Post.

Whilst I will take a closer look at some of the barking-mad assertions contained in the comment, I though it would be more useful to take a closer look at the underlying issues, and the principles of the good administration of justice.

I will explain those principles – and place them within the Jersey context – in the post below.

Background information:

As I have remarked frequently, one of the most startling features of this whole, disastrous situation has been the sheer stupidity and incompetence of the Jersey oligarchy. Even trying to look at things from their, perverted, perspective, it can be seen that they have continuously made the most crass blunders.

The objectives of the Jersey oligarchy are plain; and always have been.

I told, last year, some of the survivors and whistle-blowers I was working with that the establishment’s prime and overriding objectives would be:

1: Protect their prestige, power and wealth.

2: Protect their “image”.

3: Pretend that we didn’t really have a disastrous failure to protect vulnerable children on our hands.

4: Pretend that our systems of public administration worked just fine.

5: Gloss over any problems

6: Protect and preserve the lucrative status quo.

7: And – in order to support and further the above 6 objectives – to do absolutely everything in their power to minimise the scope and scale of any charges, prosecutions and civil actions arising out of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

I told the people I was working with that these 7 objectives would be pursued with implacable determination by the oligarchy of this island.

And I told them this before any of us were even aware of the covert police investigation.

Was I right? Or was I right?

The entrenched Jersey oligarchy – in all of its corrupt, decadent hubris, has rabidly pursued those 7 objectives.

Even to the point of crassly stupid obviousness; I mean, let’s face it, you would expect the average establishment trying desperately to sweep appalling crimes under the carpet to go about such evil tasks with a degree of discretion and subtlety.

Yet the Jersey clowns and gangsters have been so stupid as to engage in such machinations on an openly practised basis.

For example:

Following my discovery of the child abuse disaster, usurping my position and my initiative, in a futile attempt to prevent the truth coming out, to call in an independent, external investigator.

Senior civil servants, like Marnie Baudians – the Directorate Manager of Social Services, no less – writing letters demanding my sacking on the fantastical grounds that it was not acceptable for me to speak-out publicly about child protection service failures.

Fast-tracking the dismissal procedures against me – and providing less than 24 hours notice of the “case” against me.

Deputy Bailiff Michael Birt – he of child abuse cover-up infamy – giving a ruling that it was acceptable for the Council of Ministers to abandon due process, as described above.

The States of Jersey becoming the very first ever jurisdiction in the democratic world to sack a social services Minister for whistle-blowing.

Unlawfully stopping my Christmas speech in which I was attempting to express recognition and empathy for abuse survivors.

The very first time any States member had ever stood in the assembly to recognise the truth of what victims have suffered. And the States stopped it.

Attempting to smear Lenny Harper.

Frank Walker, showing his true colours by shouting abuse at me and saying that I was “trying to shaft Jersey internationally.”

In the midst of the crisis, calling a political press conference for the sole purpose of attempting to smear me.

Making utter damn fools of themselves in front of the assembled world media pack.

The politician now responsible for child protection, Senator Ben Shenton, pro-actively attempting to smear and rubbish the police enquiry.

Just taking that last point – can it be imagined that in any respectable, functioning democracy, you would find THE politician, legally and politically responsible for child protection – pro-actively rubbishing a major police investigation into child abuse?

Then, of course, we get to the fact that the States of Jersey Police Force has 5 suspects, with well-evidenced cases against them – who they are ready and willing to charge – but which they have been pro-actively prevented from charging by Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache, either directly, or via his agents, such as Crown Advocates and UK based Barristers.

This last example of unethical and moronic nonsense drove the Police Force into the unprecedented step of issuing an international press release explaining how they had been prevented from bringing the suspects to justice.

How often – in democratic countries – are police forces driven into publicly explaining – to the world’s media – the obstructions being placed in their way by the authorities of the state? I’m not even aware of the Italian police having taken such extreme measures.

So – there we have a brief description of the rank stupidity of the Jersey establishment; a catalogue of gross blunders so crass they could only be the product of an oligarchy which has been absolutely corrupted by power and the resultant sense of invulnerability.

And it just doesn’t stop.

The Jersey Evening Post:

So let us briefly return to the cracker-barrel ramblings of The Rag – before getting on to intellectual matters.

The Rag speaks of “Pressure on an old relationship”.

Just what – do they imagine – might be responsible for the current tension between Jersey & the UK?

What has caused this “pressure on an old relationship”?

In the world of The Rag and its oligarchy paymasters, though it isn’t stated explicitly, the causes of such ‘pressure’ are the anarcho-commie agitations of a few off-the-wall extremists like me – who are hell-bent on “trying to shaft Jersey internationally” (© F. Walker.) and “rocking the constitutional boat”.

Look, JEP editors, subs and hacks – I know this is difficult for you to get your collective head around – but the cause of the constitutional pressure is the sustained, decades-long, cruelty, battery, abuse, torture, rape and sodomy of vulnerable children.

The cause of Jersey’s problems is that such atrocities were permitted to take place – and that 95% of such crimes were concealed.

That justice has been denied to the survivors.

That even elements of the island’s judicial apparatus have participated in the culture of concealment.

Those facts are the CAUSE of our oligarchy’s present woes.

Not the victims, not the whistle-blowers, not the national media and not me.

The cause IS The Atrocity.

The Rag then says:

“Why disturb Jersey’s relationship with Britain, which was established eight centuries ago and has been robust and satisfactory enough to survive not only massive social and political change but also the English Civil War and occupation by Nazi Germany?”

Oh dear.

Yet another example of embarrassing self-humiliation by the oligarchs and their lickspittles.

I’ve already explained “why” we have to “disturb” the relationship with Britain – namely it’s the only way the victims will get justice. I’ll return to this point later.

A relationship which was “robust and satisfactory enough” to survive “the English Civil War and occupation by the Nazis”.

Take a good look at that phrase – and marvel at it.

You couldn’t pay for stupidity of that calibre; only centuries of an incestuous and unopposed monopoly of power could breed such cretinism.

For The Rag blithely uses such phrases in the obviously deranged belief that such references support their case.

In the English Civil War, very large numbers of the local population were on the side of the parliamentarians. Not, however, the oligarchs of the day – who – just like today, in fact – were very keen to maintain a lucrative and advantageous status quo.

This fact may not be immediately clear from ‘official’ history books.

What else would the robber-barons, land-lords, merchants, privateers, and slave-traders do other than side with the Crown – upon which they relied for authority and some kind of “legitimacy” to enable them to exploit and abuse the local peasants?

The Jersey oligarchy – having won then – as they always have – did as do all victors – and wrote the history.

You’ll read much of how Jersey was “loyal to the Crown in those troubled times”. But you’ll have to read a little more widely to learn that at one stage, when the Royalist leadership were ensconced within the walls of Elizabeth Castle, they would occasionally fire cannon balls into the town in the hope of hitting the peasants at market in what is now the Royal Square.

Then we come to The Rag’s allusion to having been “robust” enough to “survive” occupations by “the Nazis”.

You know – things have come to some new threshold Kafkaesque absurdity when an establishment and its relationship with its customary sources of authority can boast of having come through – unchanged – occupation by Nazis.

As though it might be imagined that this was, somehow, a good thing. A stamp of approval.

A famous old anti-establishment Jersey politician, Norman Le Brocq – who was one of Jersey’s unsung heroes of the marginalised local resistance movement – would often remark, with weary disbelief, that of all the jurisdictions occupied by the Nazis during WW II – the only places where precisely the same political and judicial establishments remained unchanged – before, during and after the war – were the Channel Islands.

The evidenced fact is that things rocked along very nicely indeed for the local oligarchy during those years of occupation; a very profitable time, it was. The local shysters embraced the Nazis with open arms – seeing not some monstrous evil which should be fought to the death – but instead – in customary Jersey fashion – a lucrative business opportunity.

Ah, yes – The Jersey Evening Post.

Indeed, the power-arrangements of those occupation years – the established order of things – were indeed sufficiently “robust” to enable The Guiton Group – and its Rag, the Jersey Evening Post – to carry on minting it throughout the Occupation by very profitably churning out propaganda on behalf of the occupying Nazis.

A very “robust and satisfactory” arrangement – for the owners of the Jersey Evening Post.

In fact, the main reason for the “relationship” with Britain proving to be so robust after the occupation is perfectly clear.

Such was the truly monstrous scale of collaboration, treason, profiteering, abuses of power, racketeering by the local shysters – and the enthusiastic support for such things by the island’s supine political and judicial authorities – that to have openly faced the truth would have been to the most profound embarrassment and shame of Britain. That British territories – British leaders – had behaved in such ways.

The relationship with Britain “robustly” survived that era – essentially because Britain gritted its teeth and held its nose whilst making cosmetic noises about “our beloved Channel Islands”.

That is why our oligarchy’s arrangements survived the war – uniquely across occupied Europe.

Because Britain needed to avoid the appalling shame.

Had the truth been faced by Britain in the wake of WW II, a very significant number of the local spivs would have simply been hung.

Executed for treason and collaboration.

People like the war-time Bailiff, Alexander Coutanche – the infamous ‘Ja, Ja Man’ – would have been hung from the nearest yard-arm. Instead he was given a peerage – and the only way in which he was hung is in portrait-form in Jersey’s Royal Court.

And joining him on the gibbet would have been the owners and editors of the Jersey Evening Post. All people who would have richly deserved the same fate as that other British propagandist for the Nazis, “Lord Haw Haw.”

On the gibbet long with a load of other Jersey spivs and shysters.

The Rag then goes on to refer to: “unacceptable threats to our ….. judicial…. autonomy.”

It goes on to say that the “insistence” of campaigners like me –

“that UK judges and prosecutors must officiate when abuse cases come to court strikes at the heart of our right to operate an independent judicial system and therefore at one of the foundations of our constitutional position.”

Let us, at that point, leave our amusing diversions at the stupidity and amorality of The Rag and its owners, because this assertion of theirs leads us neatly into the important stuff.

The basic principles of the good administration of Justice and the rule of law.

The Good Administration of Justice – and Why Jersey cannot deliver it.

I’m going to explain a few basic legal issues; principles which are simple, easily understood and can be expressed in plain English.

And again – I say if any Lawyer wants to challenge the interpretation I produce here, identify yourself in a comment; I’m ready and willing to debate the issues.

Whatever the precise details of individual cases – it is clear that Jersey has sustained – and failed to prevent – a child abuse disaster of international scale.

There is – obviously – a need for the deployment of a prosecution service – and a judicial apparatus to determine any cases – criminal or civil – which will come before the courts.

That much is inescapable.

So having established a clear need to deploy the judicial apparatus – we must then ask the following question:

“Can the Jersey prosecution and judicial systems be regarded as competent and safe to deal with any such matters arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster?”

The answer to that question is plainly:

“No.”

Why should that be so?

Let us look at some well-established – and utterly fundamental legal principles.

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

What is meant by this phrase is that the credibility and authority of any respectable judicial apparatus depends upon that apparatus being seen to be objective and impartial.

It is not sufficient for judicial processes to be objective – they have to be seen to be objective.

Absolutely no taint of conflictedness or partiality can be permitted to enter the process.

Not even the merest suspicion – no matter how unjustified – of partiality or conflict.

The very instant any such appearance or suspicion arises – the merest whiff of conflict – those involved in the judicial proceedings – judges, court officials, jurors etc. – must declare themselves conflicted and “recuse” themselves from any involvement in the case, or cases, in question.

And what makes the position of the Jersey oligarchy so manifestly disastrous is that the above-described legal principles are not some ‘loony-left’ invention of ‘crypto-anarchists’, as the Jersey establishment like to depict me.

Instead, the principle of the need for any judicial process to appear to be objective is well-established in British case-law.

It is well-established in all respectable jurisprudence that the administration of justice must be both impartial – and appear to be impartial.

Any person appearing before a Court should be able to have faith in the fact that the judge is independent of Government and equally that the judge is independent of the parties.

Historically a person has a right to an audi alterem partem, or a fair trial, meaning a trial which is independent, impartial and timely. This has long been a common law entitlement.

The fact that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done has been given specific judicial approval in the English case of R v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, from which I quote below.

In this case, a solicitor, whose firm acted for a defendant in a civil action for damages, had also sat as a clerk to the Justices in respect of the criminal aspect of the case. Whilst it was not suggested that the solicitor/clerk had been biased – the mere appearance of conflict was unacceptable.

Lord Hewart CJ said:

“A long line of cases shows that it is ……of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done ……. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper inference with the course of justice.”

Should there still be any doubt about the absolutely essential nature of the appearance of objectivity – simply consider the case of Lord Hoffman. He was one of the Law Lords who sat to determine whether the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was able to be charged and prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

Lord Hoffman – it was revealed later – was a supporter of Amnesty International. This mere appearance of bias was sufficient to cause the decision to be set aside.

The all-powerful and inescapable need to meet the test of the “appearance” of objectivity is thus well-established as a very key-stone of British jurisprudence.

But the authority for that principle does not end there.

These fundamental principles are further described and enforced in the European Convention of Human Rights, to which Jersey is a signatory – via the United Kingdom.

“Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….”

So in addition to British jurisprudence – we also have the European Convention on Human Rights to guide us in these matters.

In the case of any civil matter or criminal matter – every person is absolutely guaranteed fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Given all of the above – it is therefore demonstrated beyond credible argument that the administration of justice has to meet a test of the appearance of impartiality and objectivity.

Not even a suspicion of conflict can be permitted to enter the equation.

So, can the Jersey prosecutory and judicial systems hope to even get close to meeting that test? Of clearing that hurdle of the appearance of objectivity?

Not a prayer.

In the context of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, the Jersey apparatus and its present incumbents are not even close to being on the radar-screen of appearing objective.

Indeed, so plain and obvious is that fact – that it speaks volumes about the present incumbents that they can attempt to maintain a position which flies in the face of all respectable, established jurisprudence and authority.

So how and why are the Jersey authorities conflicted – and therefore simply not competent – to deal with any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster?

Having established that even the appearance or suspicion of conflict renders a judicial process invalid – let’s look at just a few of the conflicts which contaminate the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus.

Jersey’s Chief Judge, the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache.

Not only is this man the most senior judge in Jersey – he is also the head of the judiciary – and he is speaker of the Jersey parliament.

And this is a crucial point – so mark it well – under present arrangements, no judge, for example UK judges, sit in Jersey’s court unless chosen and appointed to do so by the Bailiff.

So even if the Jersey oligarchy could be made to see the writing on the wall and accept the inevitability of UK judges hearing any case – those judges would have to be appointed by Phil Bailhache.

Another very well-established legal principle is that “no man can be a judge in his own cause.”

In practice this means not only can a person not sit in judgement on a matter in which they have an interest – neither can they appoint those who will sit in judgment. For if they did so, the principle of the appearance of objectivity as described above is manifestly breached.

So why is Sir Philip Bailhache conflicted – and not remotely capable of approaching the objectivity test?

In addition to being speaker of the Jersey parliament – an immediate conflict – he has always been a deeply politicised individual.

In addition to exhibiting extreme political bias against anti-establishment States members, he is also in the habit of making public, political pronouncements.

All of which are invariably in defence of the Jersey oligarchy and the status quo.

In the context of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster alone, he has made at least three, specific – and deeply biased and partial interventions.

1: Unlawfully stopping my Christmas speech of recognition and empathy for abuse survivors.

2: Giving a lengthy political interview to the Jersey Evening Post in which he made pro-establishment assertions concerning the child abuse disaster.

3: Hi-jacking Jersey’s Liberation Day annual holiday to deliver the most extraordinary, biased and profoundly ill-judged speech imaginable.

In that speech he said the following things:

“Yet many journalists continue to write about the Island’s so-called child abuse scandal. [emphasis added]

He went on to make even further, frankly deranged, assertions.

“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. [emphasis added.]

Remember – these are the words of a man who is leading the judiciary which will – unless those in London can be made to come to their senses – hear all matters – civil or criminal – arising form the child abuse disaster.

And even if external judges are brought in – as things stand they will be appointed by Phil Bailhache.

“So called child abuse”.

“The real scandal is not the child abuse – the real scandal is the denigration of Jersey”.

You just couldn’t make it up.

But things get worse than this:

For Sir Philip Bailhache himself is directly conflicted in child protection matters.

Let us remember, this is the man who, when he was Jersey’s Attorney General, permitted a convicted paedophile to become an honorary police officer, who then went on to commit further offences against children.

This is the same man who was a member of the Board of Governors of Victoria College –when that institution was suppressing and concealing complaints of child abuse.

The same man who sentenced an elderly paedophile, who had been grooming three teenage girls with a view to raping them, to 2 years probation – largely on the grounds that the victims must have ‘been asking for it’.

The Jersey judiciary – under the leadership of this man – capable of meeting the appearance of objectivity?

Absolutely – no – chance – whatsoever.

Again – I make the challenge to any lawyer who disputes my analysis to identify themselves and debate the matter.

So that is why – ultimately – the Jersey oligarchy and its Rag are so profoundly wrong as to have clearly reached some final blind-alley of hubris and decadence.

Were this not the case – were these people possessed of even a microscopic amount of wisdom – they would have simply accepted the fact that they are conflicted, and cannot meet the appearance of objectivity test. And would have done so back in November 2007 – when I first wrote to them explaining these points.

Before I was even aware of the covert police investigation.

‘Well’ – you may ask – ‘OK, that’s the Bailiff personally conflicted – but surely he is just one man – the rest of the Jersey judicial apparatus is still competent to meet the appearance of objectivity test?’

Err –

Sorry – no chance.

The rest of the established Jersey judicial apparatus has about as much chance of appearing impartial and disinterested as I would have of beating Joe Calzaghe in a fist-fight.

Actually – if you’re out there, Joe – stop ducking me. I’ll take you on at light-heavy or super-middle weight. You choose.

Look – it’s a less crazy idea than the Jersey judicial apparatus being able to hear any matters relating to the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

In my next post I will explain the insurmountable conflicts which encircle the rest of the prosecutory and judicial apparatus in Jersey.

Not that further evidence is real necessary.

So plain, so obvious, so basic, so fundamental is the jurisprudence, and the appearance of conflict which possesses Jersey’s judicial system that – were they not largely a load of ethically bankrupt shysters – Jersey’s lawyers would have written to Phil – just quietly advising him ‘look – this time, the game is over.’

But instead of some sensible decisions and actions – we are going to have to witness the spectacle of Jersey’s Attorney General – Phil Bailhache’s brother, William Bailhache – standing up in the High Court in London – and arguing in the teeth of all accepted and well-established jurisprudence and authority – that “The Jersey Way” is the right way.

Stuart Syvret

57 thoughts on “THE GOOD ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:

  1. Anonymous

    Stuart,

    If I might quote another contributor to your previous post:

    “I’m sure I speak for many when I say if you need our help just whistle.”

    What must we do to reclaim the righteous control of our Island home?

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Stuart you are tireless keep it up you have a great deal of our oligarchy and their families extremely worried. Things have to change for our children’s future.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    “Hoist by one’s own petard” comes to mind! It is now transparently clear that the World and Jersey should demand an independent judiciary.

    In more than one way are the oligarchs like the Italians- they were on the side of the Germans too with their one forward gear and fifteen reverse.

    We will see some of the oligarchs reverse gears when it comes to the court cases and some will sing like birds given the chance and arrested by the British police.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    From the The Guardian

    Lawyers want special board to deal with Jersey abuse victims’ claims· Island’s law may present insurmountable obstacles
    · Irish model suggested to determine compensation

    Clare Dyer, legal editor The Guardian, Monday June 9 2008

    Victims of child abuse decades ago at the Jersey children’s home Haut de la Garenne will face insurmountable obstacles in seeking compensation under Jersey law, according to lawyers.

    Jersey’s criminal injuries compensation board can make awards only for injuries sustained after May 1 1991, and claims for damages in the civil courts have to be launched within three years of the victim’s turning 18.

    Haut de la Garenne closed in 1986 and more than 100 people have come forward saying they were abused there during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. A police investigation has resulted in three arrests and the discovery of fragments of children’s teeth and bones in the cellar.

    But faced with a legal system ill-equipped to deal with historic abuse, lawyers are calling on the Jersey authorities to set up a redress board to ensure justice for victims.

    They suggest as a model the residential institutions redress board set up in Ireland in 2002, which compensates victims of physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect. Similar compensation programmes for victims of institutional abuse were established in Canada in the 1990s. Caroline Dorey, an advocate at Backhurst Dorey and Crane in St Helier, said: “Jersey is under scrutiny as never before. It’s crucial that we are seen to be doing everything we can to get to the bottom of whatever happened at Haut de la Garenne, and to provide proper restitution for those affected.

    “Although the island is justifiably proud of its legal system, the current situation poses new and extraordinary challenges. We owe it to the island in general, and of course those survivors of child abuse in particular, to ensure that we introduce whatever means are necessary to meet the current situation as openly as possible, and that justice is seen to be done.

    “A redress board which is specifically set up to investigate and assess civil claims arising from this historic abuse would seem an appropriate way forward.”

    Tracey Emmott, an English solicitor specialising in child abuse at the law firm Pictons in Luton, echoes Dorey’s call for a redress board.

    A panel member of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, she has experience with the Irish board, which paid €40,000 (£32,000) compensation to one of her clients. “My own view is that a redress board would be the appropriate body for Jersey,” she said. “It was welcomed by the Irish people because it was a recognition of how seriously the government took the complaints.

    “And I think similar sentiments would be echoed in Jersey. Especially given all the allegations of cover-ups, there is all the more reason to be seen to be doing something appropriate.”

    The move would be supported by Fay Maxted, chief executive of The Survivors Trust, which represents 130 specialist sexual violence and abuse services throughout the UK and Ireland.

    “We understand the suffering of victims abused in childhood and the long-term impact on physical, emotional and psychological health of victims, which is often worsened where abuse has taken place in an institution,” she said.

    “The redress boards set up in Nova Scotia and Ontario in the 1990s, and in Ireland in 2002, have been able to allow victims the opportunity to be heard and recompensed in some way and given communities the opportunity to challenge the silence and secrecy that concealed the abuse in the past.”

    Reply
  5. Stuart Syvret

    Re: Length of Last Post

    Look, Buster, it aint my fault I have to, single-handedly, furnish the public of Jersey with a load of key facts that the entire army of local journos – to a person – simply ignore.

    Anyway – look on the bright side; I was going to go and explain the other conflicts which bedevil the Jersey prosecutory & judicial apparatus last night – which would have maybe doubled the post length.

    Instead you have that to look forward to today.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  6. Res Nullius

    Stuart, for a recent local case on how the Court of Appeal deals with complaints of apparent bias see Baglin-v-AG 2005 JCA064. Therein contains other references to case law which might be useful to you and probably more up to date than the one you quoted. (notwithstanding the principles still being good)

    Insofar as the ECHR is concerned the right right to a fair trial is a right essentially bestowed upon the defendant “In the determination …of any criminal charge against him…”.

    No defendant is going to complain that his right was infringed because (in this case) the judge had a bias towards him! What you are attempting to do (rightly in my view) is extend this right to the complainants as it is their rights which will be trampled on if justice is not done. Good luck with that.

    In Doorson v Netherlands (1996) 22 EHRR 330 the court said:- “Such interests of witnesses and victims are in principle protected by other substantive provisions of the Convention, which imply that Contracting States should organise their criminal proceedings in such a way that those interests are not unjustifiably imperilled”

    Finally, I doubt that you will get lawyers who support you identifying themselves. Self preservation. Who do they get sworn in by? A breach of Article 10?

    Res ipsa loquitur

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    Interesting to speculate just why the kite of full independence is being floated at this precise moment by the likes of Bailhache.

    I can think of just 2 plausible explanations:

    1. There are moves afoot by the UK / EU / OECD et al to close down tax havens, that our authorities somehow know about, but are so secret that not even well-informed financial journalists in the British press have caught wind.

    2. It is simply a straw-man argument being used to scare the electorate into thinking that if all this agitating for UK interference in the local judicial process comes to fruition, it will be the end of our independence and we will be forced to take the nuclear option and declare UDI.

    I know which my money’s on.

    As a final thought, don’t we import judges from the UK to sit in the court of appeal? I believe that not even Phil is daft enough to hear appeals against his own judgements.

    In which case, the JEP’s prediction that the sky will fall if UK judges are brought in would appear to be somewhat exaggerated.

    Reply
  8. Crapaud-Ogre

    re: length of post
    Unfortunately your message gets lost if people give up reading. Brevity is a virtue!

    Can I question how exactly the island should have dealt with the occupying German forces? I thought it was generally accepted that they could have made life very difficult for the locals or murdered us all if met with resistance or blatent uncooperation, so the best thing to do was just try to get along for the sake of the local population staying alive. Is that not so?

    Reply
  9. Stuart Syvret

    Res Nulliu

    Phew! Someone read all. Thank God for that.

    My challenge was more directed to those lawyers whose instinct would be to support the establishment – quite regardless of the rock-solid jurisprudence & authority.

    And thanks for the case-references; I’ll add those to my catalogue.

    As to your other observations, you are certainly right that I have a prime concern for the victims and witnesses to the crimes. As things stand, they don’t have prayer of getting justice in Jersey.

    But – it isn’t correct to suggest that I’m not thinking about the rights of the defendants.

    Think about it: As you correctly point out, the Jersey apparatus is intrinsically and heavily biased towards the perpetrators – to the point that arrest are even being obstructed. We also have the political pronouncements of people like Phil Bailhache in which he denounces the controversy.

    So this state of affairs certainly makes things appear as though the Jersey apparatus is heavily biased in favour of the perpetrators.

    But what do we imagine will be one of the prime arguments used by the defendants’ lawyers – in the apparently unlikely event of any trials coming to court?

    They will argue that given the world attention on Jersey – and the overriding need of the Jersey establishment to re-establish some kind of credibility – their clients cannot get a fear hearing because it could be seen that there might be ‘political’ imperatives driving the Jersey judicial apparatus to secure convictions. Certainly a very plausible argument – given the clear politicisation of the judiciary in Jersey, and the over-lap with the legislature.

    Thus – it’s feasible that guilty people may get away with their crimes because the lawyers argue they cannot get a fair hearing.

    So – when I point out the colossal and insurmountable conflicts and appearance of bias which surround the Jersey prosecution and judicial apparatus – I’m not just thinking of the victims. I want the guilty convicted. I don’t want us to run the risk of them getting away with it on “fair hearing” grounds.

    So the argument of bias – can – and no doubt will – be run both ways; by the victims – and by the defendants.

    And, in truth, both opposing claims would carry some significant weight – given the well-documented, rock-solid legal principle that all judicial proceedings have to meet a test of APPEARING to be objective and impartial.

    In no shape or form can the Jersey apparatus even approach meeting that test.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  10. Stuart Syvret

    Re: How the island should have acted during the occupation.

    I’m sure massed, suicidal confrontation with the Nazi forces would have been futile.

    But sadly, the Jersey establishment went to the opposite extreme.

    What should have been done?

    For a start off, the Jersey Evening Post should have smashed its presses before the Nazis arrived.

    There could, indeed, have been a good deal of passive non-co-operation with the Nazis.

    Instead there was wide-spread opportunistic profiteering by the local Chamber of Commerce-types.

    And the “there’s-nothing-we-could-have-done” argument is fatally undermined by the fact that there was an organised resistance movement in Jersey. People who did, indeed, take huge risk with their lives.

    The very same people who were smeared and demonised by the Jersey oligarchy after the war.

    I guess knowing that you and your newspaper have been a Nazi mouth-piece – “Lord Haw Haw” fashion – and that you made a fortune out of it – and that – like Haw Haw – you should, in truth, have been hung – must have served as a powerful incentive to demonise and marginalise those who weren’t traitors – those who did the right thing.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  11. Res Nullius

    Stuart, I wasn’t suggesting that we must ignore the rights of the defendants, far from it.

    In order for a trial to be fair the defendants must be afforded all the rights set out in the Convention.

    However, the entire process of bringing them to trial and securing either convictions of the guilty or aquittals of those not guilty must be acheived transparently. If that means bringing in uk judges (not picked by phil) then so be it.

    By way of precedent, you will be aware that the police often have uk officers brought in to investigate local bobbys. This is to ensure, as far as possible, that claims that the police are not investigating the matter impartially are rightly dismissed. This does not invoke any silly claims of our independance being eroded, rather, it shows that the police are not afraid to be externally scrutinised.

    I suspect that justice will not be truly done in every case as the difficulty in proving historical claims where little or no independant forensic evidence exists is well known. It is not impossible but is difficult.

    However what we can’t be left with is in the aftermath is a lingering bad taste in the mouth that someone, somewhere had an unfair influence in the outcome, or that a sacrificial lamb is offered up to appease the public while more culpable and ‘notable’ individuals escape.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    With regard to the occupation

    There were many brave acts of defiance against the Nazi forces by brave Jersey Men and women!

    Not all were traitors like the JEP et al! Perhaps now is the time for the Jersey people to finish what was started in 1945, and get rid of the treacherous scum that still contaminate our government.

    In 2008 as in 1940, the government of Jersey is not only shafting the good people of Jersey, but is also as in the 1940s commiting treason’.

    Phil and Bill Bailiache! it is the Monarch who made you, as such She can break you too! You are lucky that this is 2008 and not 1808 because there would be a very good chance of you being lynched!

    Reply
  13. Anonymous

    Jack Straw will not intervene in the cosy Jersey set up,to Mr Straw and cronies Jersey is no more than an irksome irritant!

    The city of London is in enough trouble without interventions into Jersey albeit into the local judiciary as opposed to financial!

    The oligarchy wont stand down re the judicial process, so that leaves we the people!

    Reply
  14. Anonymous

    I well remember a not so long ago example of the absolute power of the oligarchs. In Vernon Tomes we had a real man of the peoople who should have automatically become bailiff and one can only imagine how different things could be now. He was a brilliant lawyer whom all his peers respected, but the mob decided he would never get the top job and made so many excuses to prevent him from doing so.(maybe someone with a better memory than me can recall all the crap they came out with) I do seem to remember the establishment needed the UKs backing and somehow they convinced them to block Vernons right to be Bailiff.

    Reply
  15. Anonymous

    Fairly near Oxford University is a neolithic site, the Roll Right Stones. Some very nasty people used to go there. BTW, the site is also used for innocent activities. The “nasties” relate to some of the things alleged to have occurred in Jersey.

    DT

    Reply
  16. Anonymous

    Dear Stuart

    Re Vernon Tomes

    Whilst a man of the people, and perhaps a brilliant lawyer, his problem, like many a Jersey man, was his addiction to the sauce.

    It’s no good thinking under the influence that you have the answers, you need to have the strength, knowledge and ability day to day, come hell or high water to see it through.

    See it through Stuart.

    I hope you have this strength, I know you have the integrity.

    Reply
  17. Anonymous

    Why is Jack Straw still at the centre of the justice system and has been there since the New Labour Party won in 1997- Smoke and Mirrors the unsavory hidden that indiscretion burried. Say no more…

    Reply
  18. Anonymous

    Stuart

    Another fantastic piece!

    If we make enough noise then sooner or later the “adults” in the UK will HAVE to intervene in the States and -at the very least- ensure the correct framework is in place to protect vunerable children on the Island!.

    Also,three brief questions regarding the impartial judicial process.

    Exactly how much of a link is required before there is a suspicion of a conflict in the proceedings?.

    Does the “social connection” enjoyed- by being members of the same golf club- between William Bailhache(Attorney General)and Danny Wherry(former states police officer and alleged child abuser)compromise Mr Bailhaches’ability to remain impartial and objective in his official role?.

    If the connection between these gentlemen IS legally a conflict then DID Mr Bailhache declare himself to be “conflicted” and take no further part in Mr Wherrys’case?.

    The devils in the detail aint it?…

    Reply
  19. Anonymous

    Dear Senator Syvret, Why do you not personally seek audience with her majesty the queen. You are locally elected by the people of Jersey to represent the people of the Bailiwick of Jersey; the queen ultimately being our head of state?

    When you were elected to represent us in goverment, you are ultimately representing us to our sovereign the Queen.

    Surely our allegience to our reigning monarch is not just a one-way-street. We as an island have been loyal to the crown since the time of William (and before), So why dont you ask the people who read your blog what they think?

    Should Senator Syvret request an audience with our head of state, Her Majesty the Queen?

    What are you going to do Senator Syvret, roll over and play dead, or get up and fight?

    Reply
  20. Anonymous

    Re Vernon Tomes

    Yes he was a drinker, a brilliant and very amusing after dinner speaker, so witty and verbose.
    However when he delivered a judgement it was thoroughly researched and always correct spot on. Dont for one minute think that the mob are tee totallers, on the contrary the vast majority are heavy drinkers, but we joe public dont see them at it.

    Reply
  21. Anonymous

    Listen Guys Stuart likes a drink or 3 but it hasn;t clouded his ability to persue, (with a grasp of the english language and grammer that most hacks would love to attain) this totally corrupt administration that is at the very least in denial.It seems that once most of the elected members of our island get in they become sheep and are reluctant to rock the boat.
    I dont think Dick Shenton is too happy with his sons pronunciations!!

    Reply
  22. Stuart Syvret

    Re: The Queen

    I’m afraid the plain reality of the situation is that Her Majesty does not – and cannot – become involved in matters of politics.

    It is certainly true that she is Head of State – but in practice, the Monarch defers all political duties to Her Majesty’s Government.

    I’m sure if I, or anyone else, wrote to Her Majesty, we’d get a polite letter back from Palace staff informing us that our letter had been forwarded onto the relevant government department – which in this case would be Jack Straw’s Ministry for Justice.

    Others may choose to write to the Queen; personally, I won’t as it would be a serious breach of accepted protocol for a politician to try and involve Her Majesty in politics.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  23. Anonymous

    “Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

    In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….”

    Well, this is a joke anyway in the UK. After personally enduring seven years of secret family court hell I have nothing but scorn for the UK justice system. There are plenty of British people who are going through the secret kangaroo courts, and a great number of them are victims of child abuse and/or domestic violence.

    I’ve written to them all, the Queen, two Prime Ministers, Bishops and Archbishops, politicians, all of them, and had lots of interesting replies. In fact, I’m thinking of papering my house with the replies I have recieved, House of Commons notepaper is a very nice shade of cream and I would certainly have enough to do my front room and possibly my back room as well. Other than that, I could use all the letters in my bathroom, well torn up lest I clog up my toilet.

    They write back, but don’t do anything about it – it’s so disgusting. We don’t have a justice system.

    Zoompad

    Reply
  24. Anonymous

    So let us get these facts straight in the readers minds:

    1. You are bound to follow accepted fiscal protocol not to involve Her Majesty in politics. As such, in this case, you must go through Her Majesty’s representative, Jack Straw.

    2. You have no support from Jack Straw’s ministry for Justice (at least, publicly acknowledged support).

    3. The majority of your fellow elected government members (of whom make up and represent us as our government) do not support you.

    4. Your political opponents, whom you term as the Oligarchy (“rule by few”); have attempted to, and succeeded in removing any real power you have as an elected Minister (you are now effectively a backbencher).

    History teaches us, many battles must be won and lost in order to win a war.

    Having lost the first political battles against the Oligarchy (in what will be a very long war within our government).

    As a reader of this Blog and one who has voted for you, I honestly believe you act on behalf of the people in both truth and deed; if you will please forgive me, as a plain speaking person I will ask this question once more:

    What are you going to do Senator Syvret, roll over and play dead, or get up and fight?

    Reply
  25. Stuart Syvret

    Re: Fighting

    With all due respect – I think you’ll find I am fighting – pretty damn hard.

    Personally, I would have thought taking Jack Straw to court in London was quite an effort.

    Please try to bear in mind that what you read on this blog is but one small part of my activities.

    I’m fight loads – but often ‘behind the scenes’.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  26. Anonymous

    If what we are reading here is “but one small part” of your activities, where can the ordinary jersey person find out what is happening behind the scenes and become politicaly aware of the work you are truly doing?

    I am not just talking about the abuse enquiry, as this is the emotional catalyst which has temporarily lifted the lid off the top of the rotten barrel and allowed the ordinary person to see the corrupted apples which make up our government.

    Reply
  27. robust v correct

    In computing there is a trade-off between “robustness” and “correctness” which has parallels to the current system in Jersey.

    “robustness” means the system will work, not handle problems in the correct fashion but will not break down.

    “correctness” means the system will break down if it is faced with exceptional problems (such as the child abuse scandal). however you know that if it does break down, it is doing it for a good reason and it is necessary to evaluate why it did this and change.

    so, in Jersey the JEP it is correct to say that the government is robust. But to say it has acted satisfactory(“correctness”) as well is wildly inaccurate.

    Reply
  28. Res Nullius

    To the poster who has questioned Stuart’s ability to stand his ground I say this.

    Stuart Syvret may be a lot of things to a lot of people. He may be some mad, crazy left wing luntic-fringe basket case, he may be an illiterate chippy from Clarence Court (Stuart, I note in passing your challenge to Calzaghe so bear with me…!), he may on the other hand be the beacon to which the fluttering moths of democracy are drawn or be a knight in shining armour arriving on his trustee steed to do battle with society’s demons.

    What he is not, if you have been paying the slightest bit of attention, is “rolling over and playing dead”. Neither is he required to “get up and fight”. To many of us he has not been put on his backside yet (cue Calzaghe)

    Please try to keep up.

    Reply
  29. Anonymous

    Does this Blog serve as a forum of like-minded people to debate change, real change; or is it just a place for you to let off steam?

    I quote:

    “He who would win must know the enemy better than he knows himself”. – Sun Tzu

    I have always believed this, to fight any battles and win a war; you must first know your enemy………..

    So let’s call a “spade a spade” and trot this particular pony out into the light of day and examine the contents of this rotten fiscal apple cart.

    Who are the elected members of the States of Jersey Oligarchy?

    How do they hold and maintain their collective grip around the organs of political power?

    Reply
  30. Anonymous

    QUOTE:

    What are you going to do Senator Syvret, roll over and play dead, or get up and fight?

    I felt I must answer the writer of the above:

    Stuart is a lone voice in our so called Goverment, his daily work load must be huge!

    Stuart has shown so much courage in standing up for the victims in the abuse scandal, he has taken on our whole goverment apparatus and shows every sign of winning against all the odds

    Could the writer of the sentance quoted above cope with all the harrowing sadness of the victims of abuse

    And of course the disgraceful abuse aginst the Police and Stuart from other states members like Shenton, Perchard, Power, Walker the Bailliff etc, etc

    I think the writer of the above quote owes Stuart an apologie

    Reply
  31. Res Nullius

    As an amusing aside….

    Frank Walker is visiting the Queen. He asks her, ‘Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give me?’

    ‘Well,’ says the Queen, ‘the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people.’
    Walker frowns. ‘But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?’

    The Queen takes a sip of tea. ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just ask them to answer an intelligence riddle. The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. ‘Please send The Prime Minister in here, would you?’

    Gordon Brown walks into the room. ‘Your Majesty…’

    The Queen smiles. ‘Answer me this, please, Gordon. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?’

    Without pausing for a moment, Brown answers, ‘That would be me!’
    ‘Yes! Very good!’ says the Queen.

    Back at the States Chamber, Walker calls in his vice first minister, Terry Le Sueur.

    ‘Terry, answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It’s not your brother and it’s not your sister. Who is it?’

    ‘I’m not sure,’ says the vice first minister. ‘Let me get back to you on that one.’

    Terry goes to his advisers and asks every one, but none can give him an answer. Finally, he ends up in the men’s room and recognizes Stuart Syvret’s shoes in the next stall.

    Terry shouts, ‘Stuart! Can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it’s not your brother or your sister. Who is it?’

    Stuart Syvret yells back, ‘That’s easy. It’s me!’

    Terry smiles. ‘Thanks!’, goes back to the States Chamber and finds Frank.

    ‘I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It’s Stuart Syvret.’

    Walker gets up, stomps over to Terry Le Sueur, and angrily yells into his face

    ‘No, you idiot! It’s Gordon Brown!’

    Reply
  32. Stuart Syvret

    Res Nullius

    As much as I enjoy you contributions, you have submitted a comment which I won’t be letting through.

    Even though it is in support of my position, to be honest, I find it a little OTT.

    Your comment related to 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”.

    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.

    He has, of course, run shrieking to the Privileges & Procedures Committee in another example of gross political opportunism. I’m sure his “team-mates” Frank & Phil Ozouf will be delighted and give him another pat on the head.

    However – such actions will avail him nought – as I have taken legal advice on this subject – and insofar as the writ of PPC runs “outside the walls of the legislature” – they have to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights. True – they would not be so bound in respect of events which took place “within the walls of the legislature”.

    But in the public sphere – as a public authority – any actions they take against me must be ECHR compliant.

    Which they can’t be – because there is no way on God’s Green Earth a grouping of partisan politicians could remotely be described as constituting “a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal”. (Article 6 – ECHR.).

    Stuart.

    Reply
  33. Anonymous

    Stuart,

    have not contributed to your blog for a while,jusT reading it. but after reading the comment in tonights JEP on line i had too RANT SORRY!!, the attack on lenny Harper is cleverly constructed, so they think. I do not belive the jersey people will be taking in by this so called editorial , and i do hope they show thier disgust at the next election and in responding to the comments. i like many of your UK based reades are outraged at the way Jersey is run, it reflects on all of us. I sold my home there , i transfered my accounts from there, i feel for the good people of Jersey, if you dont start changing things with your vote, the UK will be forced to act, its only a matter of time. the people in power live in ivory towers.The world will not allow the systematic abuse of children and power to go on, The UK will be forced to act. in time by puplic opinion, the times editorial last week was just the start. and to those who say its all the fault of the Masons, I disagree , its the fault of the people of Jersey colectivly. who have the power to change things, its in your hands, its called a voting slip use it if you dont , you wil lonly have you to blame, its not down to any one eles its down to you ” I looked at the situation here and thought, Why wont somebody do some thing about this? Then it hit me, I am somebody. do it for the sake of freedom and human decency, i have said this before. stuart and his crusade wil not win against this evil on his own , he needs your support, all of you , the decent people of Jesey, not only in words ,but in actions. when you vote this rabble out, you will be sending a messge of hope to all the abused ,the victims who have no fault. i ask you to look at your children and think , what if it was their bodies that where abused ? what if it was your child that was killed and burned , after months, or maybe years of tourture , where death was a bledsed relife, what would you do ,what would you want? how would you feel now? well thank god its not your son or daughter, they where sombodies, they could have been yours , think about it. what the poor little children suffered ,then thank god its not you or yours, then bloody act!! do it. and to the victims i say, god bless you and always remember this ITS NOT YOUR FAULT. ANY OF IT. STOP BLAMING YOURSELVES ,THE SHAME IS NOT YOURS , GOD BLESS YOU

    God bless stuart , i am sure your day will come , like all good men you deserve it

    “i laid down my life today for freedom , so my children and thier children will live in freedom and decency.” .found in the diary of a soldier on juno beach .i hope he is not watching now.
    OAK

    Reply
  34. To Zero

    So,

    Fearful Freddie wimps on a promise to fight for the needy, and spins a cock and bull excuse about sticking up for the gang. After a robust rollicking from Staunch Stuart for his worm-like behaviour, Fearful Freddie goes tale-telling to the gang. Now the prefects are after Staunch Stuart.

    To be contd.

    Reply
  35. Anonymous

    Mr Syvret – you are an angry man who appears to blame everyone else but himself. Get yourself a holiday and enjoy the rest of the summer – Anon

    Reply
  36. Stuart Syvret

    Re: ‘Mr. Syvret – Angry Man’

    Yes – you’re quite right in some respects; I am very – very – angry indeed.

    As would most people be who had spent the last 20 months learning of the most monstrous and sustained catalogue of abuse against vulnerable children; a regime of appalling crimes which has persisted for decades.

    Do I blame myself?

    No.

    For a very obvious set of reasons.

    It was NOT me who psychologically abused, battered, tortured, raped, sodomised – and probably killed – vulnerable children.

    It was NOT me who covered-up such things.

    It was NOT me who was paid vast amounts of taxpayer’s money to act as a supposed “professional” in child “protection”.

    It was NOT me who failed to prosecute the culpable.

    Surely – it is obvious now – to even the densest of observers, that the people who fall into the above categories of culpability are, precisely, those who must be blamed.

    Indeed, so obvious is that fact, that when I read comments such as yours – I’m forced to conclude you are either a halfwit – or a paed. Or both.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  37. Smokin Jo

    “there’s-nothing-we-could-have-done”

    I didn’t hear of many other jurisdictions populations saying this during WWII.

    Oh, and a message to to all tunnel visioned and brainwashed local people – wake up, smell the rats and vote them out this Autumn…they can run, but they can’t hide forever…

    Reply
  38. Res Nullius

    Stuart,

    I totally respect you not posting my pervious comment, in hindsight, I agree it probably was OTT, although not meant to offend any one other than hypocrits (my family were imprisoned in a concentration camp during the war). See, I too am an angry man and felt the need to let some steam off.

    That said, you were right not to post it.

    One part I would repreat is this;

    I find it almost, not quite, but almost amusing how desperate certain people are to be offended by you. For political reasons of course.

    Reply
  39. Anonymous

    Stuart wrote:
    “He responded by, essentially, arguing that he resiled from his election promise because he was “a team-player”.

    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)”

    This is what drives people to distraction when they come up against the “Jersey way”. Clearly Stuart is using an analogy that just might slip past Freddy Cohen’s defences and make him realise that just being a “team player” is no justification whatsoever on any reasonable level for actions which have been brought into question – it is the old “I was just following orders” get out clause. What really stinks about Jersey is the “hysterical” shock that people such as Cohen claim to be feeling – the righteous indignation that they feel when someone PERFECTLY holds up their position to ridicule. People such as Cohen and the rest of the gang are so astonishingly arrogant and self confident that they actually think they should not be robustly exposed in this way. They think they should only have mild mannered, politely phrased, non-contentious resistance to their rubbish. Anyone “telling it like it is”, by their judgement, automatically discredits themselves as being some sort of wild eyed revolutionary who, no matter how sensible their posts may be, should be ignored or traduced or smeared because they did not phrase them in a way acceptable to the “oligarchy”.

    Reply
  40. Anonymous

    Mr Syvret

    I have had my attention drawn to your blog because of your hugely defamatory remarks about the JEP during the occupation.

    I find it incredibly sad that an intelligent man who a lot of the island used to hold in high regard has now completely lost the plot on a massive scale.

    I challenge you to publish proof of youe allegations or withdraw them.

    If you really believe that my moaning and bleating like a spoilt child is going to switch people to your way of thinking then you are sorely mistaken.

    You have finally lost the last shred of respect that I had for you.

    Reply
  41. Anonymous

    LoL at the fact that only approved comments can be left. No wonder there are not many even faintly negative ones. You are a very sad man.

    Reply
  42. Anonymous

    “He responded by saying he had never been so insulted in his life”

    From a man who has never done a days work in his life.

    Q: Who was you dad’s best mate Freddie?

    A: The Fat Man.

    Reply
  43. Res Nullius

    This blog allows posters to remain anonymous or to use a nom-de-plume of their choosing. There is a very good reason for this and has been explained before at length.

    However, in short, Jersey is a small place where people are fearful of the personal consequences of speaking out against the establishment. In a big country this may not be the case but in Jersey, where everyone knows everyone, the fear is a real one.

    I mention this for one reason.

    To the posters who come here and clearly do not agree with Senator Syvret or to simply and ironically decribe him as a ‘sad man’ etc, it stands to reason that you are pro-establishment individuals. That is fine, we are allowed to disagree on anything. However, I ask you this:-

    Why do you all remain anonymous? Surely you have nothing to lose to reveal your identity – unlike us.

    You won’t lose your job, be turned down in a job interview, refused a bank loan etc etc for standing up for what you believe in. You will probably get that promotion, a pat on the head, an invite to a Ridgeway garden party for facing down the wicked commie Syvret.

    My best guess is that you have something else to hide. Otherwise you would stand proud and challenge Stuart without any care that your name is published.

    So, pro-establishment cowards, what are you hiding: Here’s a few of my ideas…

    1. You are being paid to comment?
    2. You are part of the establishment anyway and would only embarrass yourself by revealing your ID?
    3. You know that Stuart knows the dirt on you and that if you ID yourself you will reveal your true motives?
    4. You are standing for election soon and know that your chances will be shot if you are seen to support the wrong side?

    I know why I don’t want my ID known – The establishment has created a culture of fear in this island and I fear that I have everything to lose.

    You?

    Reply
  44. Anonymous

    Re “defamatory comments”

    Quite frankly Mr Syvret your opinions and rants do not interest me because you have taken them all far beyond the level of healthy debate. (that isnt to say the subject manner doesnt interest me it is just your approach that is warped).

    What does interest me are slanderous remarks directly at individuals associated with the JEP through the occupation.

    I quote

    “Such was the truly monstrous scale of collaboration, treason, profiteering, abuses of power, racketeering by the local shysters”

    and you go on to say that they should have been hung.

    That is what I take issue with, if you have no substance for personal attacks and associated comments which you clearly say that you havent bothered to research yourself then I suggest you withdraw them. (not that I expect you to do so obviously).

    I wont post again I will leave it to your merry band of followers.

    Reply
  45. Anonymous

    oh before i go, apparently me disagreeing with your views and approach makes me a paed supporter. I missed that little gem first time round.

    Well done Stuart, if all else fails resort to name calling and more personal attacks eh?

    Back to the playground stuff, well done, top marks. You must be very proud.

    Reply
  46. Stuart Syvret

    Re: “Defamatory Comments & the JEP”

    If my opinions and “rants” do not interest you – then you’re at perfect liberty to not read this blog.

    In any event, you have obviously being paying about as much attention to the detail of what I wrote as would the average JEP hack – which is to say, not a lot.

    I did, in fact, explain in my comments that I had undertaken a range of research; that significant archives of old JDM material was now in the hands of the JDA, should you require direction to original sources.

    There is also the very extensive microfiche archive of JEP material to be ploughed through at the library.

    Whilst you won’t, of course, find the sordid truth in The Rag – what this exercise will demonstrate – absolutely clearly – is the degree of frankly barking-mad, McCarthyite garbage churned out by The Rag over the decades.

    A custom and practice it maintains to this very day.

    Even to the extent of suppressing letters from abuse survivors.

    As I said – Jersey Evening Post – enemy of this community.

    If you’re convinced that all was fine and dandy with the conduct of the Jersey Evening Post and the rest of the Jersey oligarchy during the occupation – ask yourself, ‘why have the UK government records concerning Jersey and the war & post war years not been fully released?

    Why are some – no doubt the really interesting bits – hidden until at least 2049?

    Why should – if there was nothing to be ashamed of – the British authorities hide all such material away for such a very long time?

    One doesn’t need to be a great historian to reach the obvious conclusion.

    Stuart

    Reply
  47. Anonymous

    I guess I have to change my non posting comment, I cant leave this unanswered. I guess I will reword to say I wont be posting following the closure of this subject.

    Quote:
    I really don’t have time to do a load of digging in my own research archives at present, nor go and examine a load of other material which exists.
    Unquote.

    I rest my case on your unsourced wild accusations concerning the conduct of specific individuals during the occupation.

    Quote:
    One doesn’t need to be a great historian to reach the obvious conclusion.
    Unquote.

    Neither you nor I can comment on unreleased material but sure, why not just hang everone on the strength of your opinion and speculation eh?

    Reply
  48. Stuart Syvret

    Re: The Disgusting Rag

    May I advise you to go and take some reading and comprehension lessons?

    All of my responses to this thread have made it plain that I HAVE done research into these issues.

    My point being that I will not be diverting myself from very pressing work priorities on behalf of Jersey child abuse survivors – merely to satisfy some strop by a member of a Jersey oligarchy family.

    A task made a great deal more difficult by the ethically bankrupt and dishonest stance of The Rag and other Jersey media, such as BBC Jersey.

    If you’re that curious about the subject – go and look at the sources yourself; it’s all out there.

    As to the UK archive files, I think it can be safely said that if there was nothing especially embarrassing – or damning – in such records, they’d all have been released by now.

    But they haven’t.

    Stuart

    Reply
  49. Anonymous

    Sigh. Last one. This isnt really for the blog, more for your info although you are welcome to publish if you wish.

    Re your comment about family member.

    You have guessed (it wasnt difficult) who the person was that directed me to this blog. I didnt know it existed until yesterday. I am not however the person that you think is making these posts.

    It may be clear that you have done some research, it is just the value of the research or sources that is more than a tad questionable.

    If you have direct proof that those that you say were collaborators, and I mean DIRECT proof. Then I for one would love to read such documents. Just general comments about the archive do not substantiate your accusations.

    Oh and 1 last thing, if all of this is taking your valuable time away from your work on the child abuse enquiry then why did you go to such great lengths to make all of the accusations in the first place that are totally unrelated to that enquiry??

    I wish you luck with that quest but your scatter gun approach to everything else is very misguided.

    Reply
  50. Stuart Syvret

    Re: “Last One”

    You are mistaken when you say that accusations of mine levelled at The Rag, are not related to the child abuse enquiry. This is a strange claim from someone who claims to be more in touch with the real facts which affect our island – unlike, as you would have it, most members of the public.

    Child abuse, sadly, occurs in all societies; Jersey is no different.

    But one of the very clear distinguishing factors in the Jersey child abuse disaster is so much of it was covered-up – for so long – even knowingly, by those in authority.

    How was this able to happen? What is the underlying cause?

    The fundamental problem is the complete failure of public administration in Jersey – and the entrenched oligarchy that control it – to manifest anything remotely resembling effective checks and balances.

    And the Jersey Evening Post – being the ethically and intellectually retarded organ it is – has been a key component of that failure in checks and balances.

    The Jersey Evening Post – the Fourth Estate?

    The fourth estate agent, maybe.

    The Jersey Evening Post – and all its works and all its owners – have been implacable enemies of this community.

    Corruptly, dishonestly, unethically servicing power; granting the powerful immunity from scrutiny & challenge – and oppressing those who do question the oligarchy.

    As I said – how much “unethical” do you want?

    Publishing the mental health history – in an editorial comment – of a person whose “crime” was to be an anti-establishment activist?

    Being handed on a plate – following very, very considerable efforts on my part – a copy of the Sharp report – which revealed a damning and scathing catalogue of grossly unprofessional conduct on the part of a load of Jersey grandees – indeed, conduct which was criminal – and not printing a single one of the new, key facts revealed in that document?

    How about refusing to print vast swathes of anti-establishment letters – many written at some personal cost by abuse survivors? Many of these letters sit here on my desk, having been forwarded to me by their distressed authors.

    Jersey Child Abuse Disaster = corrupt self-interest by Jersey Establishment = McCarthyite bias, lies, suppressions and distortions carried out by the Jersey Evening Post.

    By the way – pass on my regards to “Pip” Le Brocq – husband of Jurat Sally Le Brocq – formerly Sally Harrison – relative of Frank Harrison Walker, Jersey’s Chief Minister – both of whom are scions of the Harrison family of Guiton Group infamy, The Rag’s parent company for most of its assistance.

    When you speak to “Pip next, maybe you could convey to him that, actually, for societies to be safe, happy and well-ordered – the truth is far more important than being “polite”.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  51. Anonymous

    “I wont post again I will leave it to your merry band of followers”

    When I read this I felt so angry, so effing furious angry I wanted to scream the house down.

    Merry band of followers? Many of us are survivors of institutional child abuse! And it’s people like Stuart here who is giving us a voice and a chance to be heard at long last. Some of us have been shouting about what happened to us for decades – nearly 40 years in my cse – and been told to shut up, shut up not even allowed to tell of what happened to us!!!

    We’re not blind sheep following Stuart – he’s opened a door so that we can all get out of the prison which has banged it’s doors on us for so long. The prison is worse han any prison that our abusers may get locked up in – it’s in our own minds and hearts. I call mine Post Truamatic Stress Disorder. Coming to Stuarts blog makes me feel well.

    Zoompad

    Reply
  52. Anonymous

    Re- I know why I don’t want my ID known – The establishment has created a culture of fear in this island and I fear that I have everything to lose.

    You are so right about this culture of fear. It keeps everyone in their place. (i.e lefties and radicals out). I’ve met really capable people whose cards are marked. They cant climb their prospective career ladders. Their talents and creativity are wasted and the job is usually given to a subservient un-inspiring person instead. This is not meant as an insult to all civil servants, its just my observation of some States departments.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.