THE PUBLIC’S INQUIRY – INTO THE PUBLIC-INQUIRY – STARTS HERE.

Well, here’s a surprise.

The blog the Jersey establishment strove to prevent you from reading – is back.

Thanks to a variety of campaigners, survivors, whistleblowers, IT experts and concerned citizens in a number of countries around the world, the most evidenced and accessible anti-corruption news and discussion forum in Jersey history lives on.

Like it was always going to.

And I’m personally very grateful to the same group of people – and many others – around the world who gave me such support, and who campaigned during my most recent stretch as Jersey’s first political prisoner since the Nazis were thrown out. Hey, it gave us some further insight into the kind of material the Jersey authorities would like to ban. Leigh LaFon @DenverElle sent me a beautiful illustrated anthology of Pablo Neruda’s poems, On the Blue Shore of Silence. The prison regime deemed this book “contraband”, and didn’t give it to me till I was released. Still, at least it was permitted to enter the island. By mistake, perhaps?

And, you know, so many people ask me these days what the – ah – um – perks were like in Jersey’s prison, and whether I enjoyed similar – err – services to drugs baron Curtis Warren? Alas, being a poor political dissident – and not a big-time crook with £100’s millions allegedly hidden away to get Jersey’s & London’s lawyers and judges salivating – no such benefits were ever made available to me.

The most entertaining thing I ever received in prison was an ex cathedra veto by Bill Bailhache of my appeal application.

These days, as this blog is run by international administrators and editors, I’m going to be merely an occasional contributing author amongst what I’m reliably informed will be a number of guest contributors.

Now, in no small part due to the oppressive folly of Jersey’s corrupt establishment, not only is this blog, predictably, back, it’s also going to be bigger and more scary than ever before.

No more Mr Nice Guy.

D’you hear that, John?

So, let’s get down to business, and take a look at the reason – the real reason – why powerful people in Jersey wanted my blog taken down.

Most people probably don’t perceive this yet, as it’s the kind of event that only becomes readily seen from the panoramic distance  of time, but what a few of Jersey’s bloggers have achieved represents a unique development in British history. Unique, because nowhere else in Britain would you find a vacuum where the Fourth Estate was supposed to be, just waiting to be filled by citizen journalists. To find an equivalent where the internet has enabled ordinary people to start reporting the facts usually buried by the passive media of entrenched establishments, we’d have to look at regimes around the world with no good history of democracy.

There is nowhere else in Britain that such volumes of damming documentary evidence – and high-level witness-testimony – to so much stark and dangerous corruption – would exist, and some part or the other of the traditional mainstream media not seize upon it, report it, and lead a media feeding-frenzy.

Think about it: can you imagine any other place in Britain, in which, on the evidence, major child-abuse investigations had been obstructed and sabotaged by a conspiracy of corrupt, culpable officials and conflicted public prosecutors – where the Deputy Police Chief had been repeatedly obstructed, and the Police Chief had been unlawfully suspended, and both of those men were not only willing to speak-out to the media about such corruptions, but had actually produced affidavits – sworn testimony – to confirm it, but yet none of the mainstream media were interested?

It’s inconceivable – unimaginable – anywhere else in Britain.

Try imagining a place in the British Isles in which the only media willing to report the testimony of a Deputy Police Chief and of a Police Chief were a few local bloggers?

Indeed – try imagining a situation anywhere else in Britain where men of such high-ranking professionalism as a Police Chief and a Deputy Police Chief felt that a few local bloggers were not only the only available channels for their public interest concerns, but were also the only outlets to be relied upon for fullness and accuracy?

This is the situation that prevails in Jersey.

It is an unfolding event unique in British journalism.

It is unique in British policing.

It is unique in British history.

These events are at the very history-making cutting-edge of citizen’s media activism in the nation.

You could not find an equivalent state of affairs as that which prevails in Jersey, in any established Western democracy.

But Jersey’s feudal mafia have not invested so many decades – generations – in controlling the local media, to willingly face the unavoidable redundancy of that whole bloated and expensive apparatus and its definitive power of “omission” and the role that power has always played in the island’s Currency-of-Concealment.

Such an incestuous, stale, unethical – and frankly not terribly bright – claque of hick-town potentates were never likely to be willing – or able – to see their racket was over.

It was over in 2007, and someone – someone senior in London – really really – should have quietly led them to one side and broken the news to them. That didn’t happen. And because of Jersey’s unique situation – zero functioning checks and balances and all meaningful power in the hands of a narrow intermeshed syndicate of bent lawyers, spittle-flecked rentiers and drooling sock-puppets – futile resistance to the phenomenon known as reality was always going to be mounted. Not because it was ever going to succeed – but simply because they could.

These people were going to carry on employing bent civil-servants, concealing widespread corruption, allowing child-abuse to go unchecked, covering-up child-protection failures, concealing clinical murders, illegally suspending Police Chiefs, mounting illegal massed raids on opposition politicians, appointing their own conflicted judges, mounting Stalinistic show-trials, banning entire defence-cases, fraudulently misappropriating huge sums of public money, and protecting powerful serial-rapists from charges & prosecution  – for just as long as they were allowed to – no matter the deepening swamp of bedlam thus created.

The anarcho-feudal results are there to be seen.

The only place in Britain where the entire policing function is now a party-political tool wielded by the powerful against those who oppose them (see this linked posting,  “REVISITED – THE OGIER GROUP – WHEN PARODY FAILS” –  http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-ogier-group/  – The Ogier Group also being – spookily enough – the lucrative landlords of @JerseyInquiry) and which policing function is silent and unmoving against the crimes of the well-connected. The only place in Britain in which the director of public prosecutions can attempt to illegally coerce the Police Chief. The only place in Britain in which the actual judicial, policing and prosecution functions are all in the de facto control of a private legal syndicate. The only place in Britain in which Data Protection “law” can be abused in an effort to silence opposition activists and independent journalism. The only place in Britain in which  Data Protection “law” can be mobilised – covertly and dishonestly – to try and prevent public scrutiny of the unlawful suspension of the Police Chief. The only place in Britain in which Data Protection “law” is used to protect child-abusers and conceal child-protection failures.

So in Jersey we have a nationally historically unprecedented situation in two ways. Firstly, bloggers have done the detailed, factual, serious, evidenced reporting – have been the Fourth Estate – whilst the traditional media has sat by in collusion with power, silence, redundancy and increasing humiliation. Secondly, in the rest of Britain there are functioning checks and balances, and clear separations between different regulatory authorities and law-enforcement agencies; nowhere else in Britain do the same narrow group of people run all meaningful power, and nowhere else in the country would a group of close business associates and friends be permitted to capture the very apparatus of law-enforcement, nor to run it into such obvious gross and evidenced corruption.

But there’s a third way in which “the Jersey situation” is without national precedent.

That is this:

Never before in Britain have the powers-that-be decided to embark upon a public inquiry into a high-level public scandal – when the key evidenced facts – and the unavoidable factors – and the undisguisable conclusions – were already out there – in the public domain – laid out across the table – adumbrated – described.

Already there – unignorable like the elephant in the room.

The British establishment has a few trusted get-out-of-jail cards it plays every time the seething, endemic, boiling corruption and unaccountability of British society erupts above the cosmetic surface, and something-must-be-done!  For example, “announce a public inquiry”. With that trusty approach, in scandals like Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence – the culpable individuals and the stagnant system know they can fend-off exposure of the truth until the 2nd, 3rd or 4th public inquiry – after it became clear the 1st was a whitewash & PR job. You know? Until two or three decades later – when the real villains are dead – like Jimmy Savile – or the corrupt public officials are safely drawing their immense pensions.

Calling for a public inquiry is the British establishment’s all-purpose escape route; it is parachute, PR-strategy, shield and insurance-policy – all rolled into one. It gives ‘cover’ – it provides time – and breathing-space – whilst the shredders hum, the excuses dreamed-up, the scapegoats indentified, the script-flipped and the diversionary counter-attacks manufactured.

And who cares if it’s all bullshit?

When the 1st public inquiry is exposed as crap – after another ten years of campaigning by hardy victims who refused to accept the nonsense – those who were paid to do the “inquiring” will, in turn, have their excuses just like those they were “inquiring” into, and, anyway, the big fat cheques will have long-since been cashed in exchange for briefs fulfilled.

But for the traditional British public inquiry to fulfil its divert-distract-and-cover-up function, one or two conditions precedent have to prevail. For example, we have to have the historic cap-doffing, forelock-tugging deference to men & women in silly costumes, with absurd titles and Eaton & Cheltenham accents. When Sir Lady Lord Baronet 27th Earl of Trustfundshire Dame Oxbridge QC, Thane of Lloyds and Groom of the Remembrancer’s Stool, O.B.E is appointed, by those to be inquired into, we have to sink to our knees in gratitude when they address us in their BBC-plausible voice and assure us they really, really do have the serious and genuine interests of us scummy proles upmost in their minds and not those of their fellow multi-millionaires who appointed them and who they’ll be chatting to in a north London lawyer’s club next week.

But does that culture of deference exist anymore? Well – perhaps a little, but it’s oh so diminished.  The traditional power elites are viewed with increasing scepticism across Britain, and even, surprisingly, in Jersey. It’s increasingly obvious that 500 pages of diversionary flim-flam generated via another few million quid of public money thrown into Bedford Row won’t work as it used to – like some kind of sleeping-gas – that would tranquilise and pacify everyone for another five years, before they started to wake up to the fact they’d  been conned.

But the Jersey public inquiry into decades of concealed child-abuse faces an even bigger problem than that loss of unthinking deference.

The insurmountable obstacle, in Jersey, to a traditional British
divert-distract-and-cover-up style “public inquiry” is that “Third-Problem” – let us coin that phrase. In the Jersey crisis, the British establishment faces several “problems” that are without precedent in modern British history; firstly, we have the undiluted abandonment of the job of scrutiny by all of the traditional media – and bloggers ably stepping into that vacuum where the Fourth Estate should have been – and secondly, we have a polity utterly devoid of any check & balance & of lawful restraint, and which is the apogee of disguised corruption. And the “Third-Problem”?

The Third-Problem is that the public inquiry is already redundant – before it’s even got underway.

It is redundant, at least, in that there’s no need to discover and identify the core issues – the core issues and facts which are already established – on-the-evidence – before the CoI began – namely, the neglect – the psychological abuse – the violence – the savage barbarisms – the rape of children – the gross systemic failings – the collapse in professional accountability – the cultural group-think of Jersey’s polity – an absence of rudimentary competencies – widespread ethical bankruptcy – the complete absence of effective checks and balances  – jaw-dropping obstructions to honest, ethical Police Officers – undisguised corruption and abuses of power – witness-intimidation – fear – suppression – and a toxic rot in the Crown functions of prosecution & judiciary in Jersey, and the capture and corruption of what should have been effective oversight from London.

All of those things are already known – evidenced – facts.

No hiding-place.

They are known facts because a grass-roots network of survivors, whistle-blowers, activists and bloggers have spent the last six years sharing, researching, collating, speaking, drawing connections, studying, curating – and publishing.

Certainly, the public inquiry – a good public inquiry – could still do important work – not least at last give recognition to the survivors, give them a forum – listen to their experiences – and force the Jersey government to address their needs.

And in terms of what took place and when, in the long catalogue of systemic breakdown of governance, much detail could be added.

But, you know – in terms of the big picture issues – the overt gross failures of Jersey – what else needs to be added, really?

  • We know that there was extensive and sustained child-abuse throughout many state-run institutions in Jersey.
  • We know that some of that child-abuse was committed by public employees.
  • We know that some child-abuse was facilitated and enabled by public employees.
  • We know that some children – and some staff – and other witnesses – did complain – but were ignored – or threatened and intimidated.
  • We know that several generations of vulnerable children who passed through the hands of Jersey government “care” had their lives seriously damaged – in some cases destroyed.
  • We know that some overtly corrupt civil servants were aware of the abuse over the years and decades, but concealed it.
  • We know that other civil servants passively went along with the Culture of Concealment.
  • We know that some victims of child-abuse were absolutely failed and betrayed by their own lawyers.
  • We know that in some cases those culpable lawyers – and those associated with them – have abused power and public money to suppress the truth.
  • We know that senior civil servants routinely and pro-actively lied to successive politicians; that politicians were both mislead by omission, and overtly lied to concerning child-protection issues.
  • We know that a variety of senior civil servants engaged in a criminal conspiracy to block the lawful discharge of the Children (Jersey) Law by the responsible Minister.
  • We know that conscientious, honest elected representatives are subjected to political abuse and harassment and police-state oppression if they go against the Culture of Concealment.
  • We know that in 2008 – by which time Jersey’s parliament actually had a Scrutiny Panel whose key task it was to inquire into child-protection issues – that Scrutiny Panel flatly and repeatedly refused to undertake those inquiries – even though by this stage decades of scandalous failure had been exposed, and the Panel was being furnished with significant documentary evidence.
  • We know that the many good, ethical Police Officers were routinely obstructed in child-abuse investigations and had their work sabotaged by a corrupt minority.
  • We know that suspects in child-porn and child-abuse cases were tipped-off by corrupt Police Officers.
  • We know that the Deputy Police Chief was obstructed in his work by the Law Officers Department.
  • We know that the Police Chief was illegally suspended.
  • We know that the judicial remedy pursued by the suspended Police Chief was corruptly conflicted against him. (The staggeringly corrupt involvement of The Ogier Group – also – surprise, surprise – hosts of @JerseyInquiry).
  • We know that the necessary public safeguard of whistle-blowing is pro-actively suppressed by Jersey’s establishment.
  • We know that the Data Protection Law has been distorted, twisted and abused to suppress and intimidate whistle-blowers.
  • We know that the Data Protection function is politicised and biased – suppressing public-interest disclosures on the one hand – yet on the other allowing the actual theft, trafficking and publication of simple private data.
  • We know that successive Jersey Attorney Generals have failed to prosecute crimes of child-abuse and crimes involved in concealing child-abuse, such as perverting the course of justice and misconduct in a public office.
  • We know that the prosecution function in Jersey is simply dysfunctional and structurally ultra vires, given it is vested in the Attorney General, an Office with a multitude of mutually exclusive roles, not least giving “legal advice” to the very culpable departments and civil servants that should have been prosecuted by the same Office.
  • We know that the prosecution function in Jersey has been essentially corrupted by office-holders with direct personal conflicts of interest in the very cases they’ve decided not to prosecute (e.g. Blanche Pierre & the Maguires).
  • We know that what passes for a judiciary in Jersey is politicised, and like the prosecution function with which the judiciary is incestuously entwined, will engage in the concealment of scandals.
  • We know that Jersey’s politicised judiciary has sought to trump the legislature by attempting to generate ‘judge-made-law’ that militates against the public interest by making it virtually impossible to expose public wrong-doing.
  • We know that in one high-profile child-abuse prosecution, the judge – Christopher Pitchers  – simply read out – incorporated into his judgment – an un-evidenced screed of politicised and misleading nonsense written by a paid spin-doctor – one Matt Tapp – whose “employment” had been covertly and corruptly engineered by the conflicted David Warcup and Bill Ogley.
  • We know that a number of political and private interests have – de facto – simply captured the policing, prosecution and judicial functions in the island (e.g. Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global – & The Ogier Group). 
  • We know – quite simply – that for as long as the entire might of a conflicted and corrupted polity can be turned to the illegal suppression of a Social Services Minister – and the illegal suppression of a Police Chief – THE two ultimate champions of child-protection, to who vulnerable children should be able to look for fearless defence – vulnerable children will never be safe in Jersey.

Those are the facts – because Jersey’s bloggers have accumulated and published a variety of testimony and evidence that shows them to be the facts.

And equally, on the basis of those facts, we know what needs doing to fix the system.

Most fundamentally Jersey must have – and have urgently – a de-politicised, independent judiciary – and an independent, depoliticised Director of Public Prosecutions – effectively and objectively overseen from London. Public safety in Jersey and the very rule of law requires no less.

But – that one thing – that clear central problem, that so obviously most needs inquiring into – above all other factors – the politicisation and failure of the Crown functions of prosecution and judiciary in Jersey and the conflicted personal abuse individual office-holders have made of those functions, isn’t even up for discussion.

The Committee of Inquiry has neither the terms-of-reference or the remit to “go there”. And it won’t.

So, with so many evidenced facts already discovered – and published – by Jersey’s bloggers, and the obvious conclusions – and the obvious remedies – already plain on the face of things, well, that’s a bit of problem, isn’t it?

For a public inquiry to stand any chance at all of “credibly” performing the usual divert-distract-and-cover-up stunt for the British establishment there cannot be a competing narrative.

The trick just doesn’t work – and can’t work – if there is a competing narrative.

Especially a detailed, authoritative, witnessed, evidenced, multi-voiced – and growing – narrative.

A public – and published – narrative, which has already beaten the ‘official’ public inquiry to the punch.

You know?

The kind of grass-roots, public narrative of testimony and documentary evidence – as published already by Jersey’s bloggers.

Jersey’s bloggers – and the witnesses whose trust they’ve earned – witnesses like many abuse-survivors, whistle-blowers and good, honest men like the former Deputy Police Chief and the former Police Chief.

Jersey’s bloggers – and the witnesses – and the evidentiary documents  – that have made British history; made British investigative and anti-corruption history because we’ve had to, given the total failure of the traditional Fourth Estate in this island, and the wholesale endemic and systemic corruption of the entire polity of Jersey.

Put simply – there cannot be a competing narrative – a competing depiction of events – a competing publication of evidence – running parallel to the public inquiry – indeed, already ahead of the public inquiry and on the summit of obvious conclusions – if that inquiry is to stand any chance of delivering the requisite diversionary white-wash.

The lawyers and spin-doctors recognised that from the get-go.

Which is why the Jersey oligarchy and conflicted lawyers were secretly doing all they could to try and get my blog taken down – have the entire URL excised from the internet – from at least as far back as November 2008.

Trying to get my blog taken down – without any public statement – without my knowledge – and without any admission to any court.

We know this, only because Google recently disclosed to me a letter from the directly conflicted law-firm Appleby Global (formerly Bailhache LaBesse – Senior Partner William Bailhache) which said this: –

“I refer to the above matter. As you will be aware from previous correspondence, we act for the Jersey Data Protection Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’), who first contacted Google Inc. (Google) in November 2008, regarding her concerns in relation to a blog hosted by Google Blogger, at http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com (the Blog”). Mr Stuart Syvret is the owner and operator of the Blog.”

November 2008, eh?

And there we all were, thinking the Jersey oligarchy’s only interest and motivation in attacking this blog arose on the 19th March 2009, on which occasion I published evidence for yet another monstrous cover-up by the Crown officers in Jersey in which the evidenced conclusion was they had concealed the murder of a number of my vulnerable constituents in the Jersey hospital by a plainly psychopathic rogue male nurse.

So – November 2008?

What was taking place around then? And what was I writing and publishing on this blog that can have so frightened the Jersey establishment?

Jersey’s public authorities were secretly attempting to get this blog taken down in November 2008 for three reasons: (a) to cover-up their concealment of child-abuse, (b) to prevent scrutiny of their illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power, and (c) desperate panic that their vacuous, spin-doctor-authored smearing of the Haute de la Garenne investigation had had its entire legality and scientific credibility challenged head-on, immediately, by postings like this:

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/37-questions-for-officers-warcup-gradwell/

The kind of questions I raised in that posting on behalf of my then constituents who had a right to the proper and professional rule of law – are now the same kind of questions that any credible public inquiry will have to address. Those questions – and many more just like them – and arising out of that whole episode.

And that’s a disaster for anyone hoping the public inquiry could be a whitewash – or even some kind of bland halfway-house, that aimed to “draw a line” under the whole controversy by giving a few token scraps of concession to survivors and campaigners, but – crucially & essentially  – giving a fake “Seal-of-Approval” by “finding no fatal, terminal, personal, case-specific, or structural, ultra vires in the Crown functions in Jersey such as Police, Prosecution, Attorney General, Bailiff, Data Protection Commissioner, Financial Services Commission, Deputy Bailiff and Lieutenant Governor.”

Of course – we, the people – as manifest in a loose, grass-roots amalgam of survivors, whistle-blowers, professionals, blogger-citizen-journalists, campaigners and activists in the tax-haven of Jersey, and civil society in general – have made British history – and beaten any public-inquiry. We’ve found, interrogated, thought about, analysed and published so much of the core evidence & of the core issues – the utterly fundamental – toxic – factors at play – that we’ve made it impossible for a public-inquiry to elide, down-play, hide or let alone evade entirely, our evidenced, stark, community findings; the facts – and the law – the real law – and the truth.

When it comes to the key – central – facts – and we know – and they know – and we know that they know – what those key central facts are (diversions aren’t going to work this time, boys & girls) – if there is so much as one – single – paragraph of bullshit in the CoI Report – it will be mercilessly eviscerated.

Merciless – as were the emotional cruelties, neglects, injurious batterings, starvations, cigarette-burns, jailings, rapes, sodomies – physical harms, and profound, life-crushing mental health damage – inflicted on so – so – many vulnerable children in Jersey. Many of who are now dead.

The true facts of “The Jersey Situation”  are going to be submitted to IICSA. Provided will be – along with supporting dossiers of evidence and narrative critiques  – a remarkable introductory chapter as a detailed  & evidence-bundled, full critical response to @Jerseyinquiry. The facts of “The Jersey Situation” constitute  a “Refuse-To-Incorporate-This-If-You-dare!” – submission to #IICSA.

In that sense – THE JERSEY SITUATION- is a litmus-test – of #IICSA.

In many ways – and strangely enough worst of all –  if #IICSA refuses to incorporate “The  Jersey Dossier” – the fall-out from the now unavoidable submission-event will be worse – far worse – for #IICSA and the involved UK government departments,  than would have been lancing the boil in Jersey effectively, in the first place; lancing the boil by ensuring there was a ‘REAL’ public inquiry here – as opposed to the overt ultra vires fake “inquiry” which took place; a fake “public-inquiry” which not only abused the human rights of the key whistle-blower – but which also engaged in stark acts of witness-intimidation against him – and constructively excluded him  – prevented him – from giving evidence.

Only by facing the fact that the public-inquiry in Jersey HAD to be real – and the consequences taken on the chin –  did the evidencedly culpable and corrupted London departments have any chance – any chance at all – of confining events in Jersey – to Jersey – and thus artificially  fire-walling Whitehall & the monarchy from their responsibilities for the lawless, crazed, riot of feudal nutcases in Jersey which is now a serious threat to the reputation and standing of the Crown.

As painful to the reputations  of British  ‘judiciary’, Crown officers, Whitehall etc –  would have been the epochal  – but so obviously needed – intervention in affairs in Jersey & purging and cleaning the place up – failing to have done so means the Whitehall establishment have nailed their colours to the mast of a dangerous ship-of-fools. Or – Rather – the secretive, dangerous and unaccountable ‘state-within-a-state’ of the City of London Corporation, has caused Whitehall to do that.

So – to take to just one of a multitude of examples – any public inquiry that fails to address the kind of questions I posed to David Warcup and Mick Gradwell – and fails to address why the police investigation was politically sabotaged via covertly hired spin-doctors such as Matt Tapp – and why – later – wrong, incompetent, dishonest, brought-and-paid-for “testimony” from the improperly hired & conflicted Matt Tapp, was simply incorporated – without challenge – into a judgment by a judge chosen and appointed to hear the case by a directly conflicted Bailiff – will have no credibility.

That posting – linked to above, and below – which so terrified and shook the Jersey authorities that they engaged in secret attempts to get Google to take-down the entire blog in November 2008 – was – and is – and will remain – a key part of the competing narrative. The fact and evidenced based narrative which stands in perpetual defiance of the fictions of #JerseyInquiry.

That posting, in which I published my 37 Questions to Officers Warcup and Gradwell, is an example – just one – from the serious, fact-based, contemporaneous narrative – which no public inquiry can credibly compete with – if the inquiry is to be a traditional “divert-distract-and-cover-up” exercise.

So blogs like mine – which publish actual evidence – such as affidavits from the former Deputy Police Chief and the former Police Chief – blogs like mine, which are based upon the witness testimony of actual victims – blogs like mine, which serve as a collective repository for so much of the history of the Jersey child-abuse cover-ups – blogs like mine, which serve as a supportive and uniting archive for many abuse survivors – blogs like mine which so starkly depict  – inescapably and on the evidence – the plain lawlessness of the Crown officers in Jersey – have to be smeared, silenced, removed, air-brushed from the public sphere – removed from history – by the Jersey/London establishment, like Stalin “airbrushed from history” so many “inconvenient” things.

And with my blog smeared, attacked, silenced – removed from the public narrative – the way would be left clear for a new, fake, narrative – a spun and manipulated and misleading narrative – to take its place. And with an example made of me, to add to the intimidation and threats routinely made against other bloggers like Voice for Children and Rico Sorda, those blogs too might be “tamed”; kind of watered-down, maybe, via a few legal threats, and slowly pushed to the margins.

Well, that worked.

Yet another train-wreck for the Jersey establishment and its London protectors.

The public inquiry & its gestures – were it not for these damn, pesky bloggers – would have been able to perform  the customary pas de deux with the local traditional media in which each side, with a nod & a wink to the other, would act out the tame chorography like a couple of fake wrestlers.

Instead – the public inquiry is going to have to compete; it is going to have whatever narrative it manufactures compared and contrasted with the narrative already to be seen in the historic and contemporaneous record to be found on Voice for Children, Rico Sorda, and this blog.

There is no hiding place.

The whole world is watching.

Given my scepticism towards the public inquiry, what do I advise survivors, witnesses and whistleblowers to do? Should they engage with it?

Yes, absolutely.

The more survivors, witnesses and whistleblowers who engage with the public inquiry, the harder any cover-up will be.

But I’m trying as gently as I can to forewarn survivors that this public inquiry could be another false-dawn. I feel I have to say that, as I have strong memories of another occasion when survivors and whistleblowers had their hopes up, and felt that, at last, some evidence for some of the failures and cover-ups would be officially published.

That occasion was going to be the publication of my Ministerial Official Comments to the Jersey legislature in response to the Jersey establishment’s engineering of my dismissal – an action we now know – thanks to the Police Chief’s July 2007 file-note – to have been a conspiracy by culpable senior civil servants.

The directly conflicted Bailiff – Philip Bailhache – prevented publication of my parliamentary response; not an action he had any lawful power to engage in. But yet, that is how a very significant selection of evidential material was improperly blocked from publication.

I remember that evening before the debate, having to telephone certain witnesses, whistleblowers & survivors to break the news to them that, in fact, the evidence they had been expecting to be officially published, had been blocked. Blocked by a directly conflicted public official. Some of them were reduced to tears of anger and despair.

It’s not an experience I’ll forget – or that I want to happen again.

So forgive me if I want the vulnerable to be cautious in their expectation. And I feel particularly obliged to say that – because in recent days three key witnesses have told me they will not now be making themselves known to the public inquiry or giving evidence.

Other key witnesses have told me they now have similar thoughts, and will likewise probably not now engage with the inquiry.

Why?

Why do these key witnesses feel this way?

All of them feel directly and expressly threatened – intimidated – harassed and placed in fear as witnesses – by the recent public announcement of the agreement of the Queen to appoint William Bailhache as Bailiff.

The recent announcement that William Bailhache will be promoted to Bailiff has been made before the public inquiry has even begun – and whilst prima facie and unanswered evidence is in the public domain that William Bailhache is a criminal who involved himself in decisions on child-abuse prosecutions even though he was directly conflicted, that he associated with priority child-abuse suspects, and that he attempted to illegally coerce the Police Chief.

These witnesses see the promotion of the directly conflicted William Bailhache to the post of all-powerful Bailiff – where, like his brother before him he will wield such immense power over both the legislature and the judiciary – and who will actually henceforth choose and appoint the judges in all future Jersey court cases  – as a direct threat to their welfare and the future of their families.

The witnesses – who like so many other people in Jersey’s climate-of-fear were already worried about going up against “The Jersey Way” – were always conscious of the “examples” that had been made of me as the Senior Senator – and made of Graham Power as the actual Police Chief. Now they see the elevation of William Bailhache – especially at this time – as as stark and direct a threat – as a signal of power – as a warning – as you could get, short of waking and finding your horse’s severed head next to you in bed.

Queen Elizabeth II decided that William Bailhache will be empowered – via her personal Letters Patent, as her Bailiff – almost certainly on the recommendation of people like his brother Philip Bailhache, and current Bailiff Michael Birt – both City connected gangsters like him, and as fatally conflicted as he is.

And that announcement of the promotion of William Bailhache – and the timing – when in fact he and the rest of the Crown Officers should all be suspended and an external apparatus put in place to enable a fear-free public inquiry to take place into their actions, without witness intimidation – is a clear demonstration that the Jersey public inquiry is simply dead-in-the-water as a credible exercise.

Dead-in-the water – even if it had wanted to do the job properly.

When the directly conflicted and corrupted power-apparatus you are, unavoidably, inquiring into has just succeeded in starkly intimidating perhaps dozens of your potentially key witnesses – then the inquiry you’re heading has just crashed-and burned – before it’s even left the ground.

But, take heart in the internet – in our archived evidence – in bloggers – in grass-roots validation of experience – in our ability to write and remember a real narrative – and our ability to not be silenced.

What we’re engaged in here has no precedent in modern British history; the entire local Fourth Estate resiled from its duties, so bloggers filled the vacuum; the entire local polity is corrupted, devoid of any functioning check or balance, and is fearful, oppressive & sleazy; from the grass-roots up, we’ve trumped any official public inquiry and challenged them with an evidenced narrative.

Although the Jersey establishment tried to hide their perversions of justice – and strove, secretly and in corrupt fear, to ban questions like these –

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/37-questions-for-officers-warcup-gradwell/

they failed – and those questions – and many others – will remain – unanswered – and vehement – like the telephone ringing in the dark.

Stuart Syvret

50 thoughts on “THE PUBLIC’S INQUIRY – INTO THE PUBLIC-INQUIRY – STARTS HERE.

  1. Anonymous

    Excellent article Stuart, great to see the blog’s back. I think we’re all looking forward to some no-holds-barred postings. Stay safe.

    Reply
  2. Póló (Pól Ó Duibhir)

    What a wonderful first guest post.

    Thoughtful, powerful, fearsome.

    It reminds me of Robert Emmet’s speech from the dock in 1803. A speech that has resonated through more than two centuries. I trust the Jersey régime will be denied the opportunity to emulate the then British authorities and display your head on a pike outside the courthouse.

    Rath ar an obair.

    Good to see you back and in such fighting form.

    Reply
  3. VFC.

    Stuart.

    I share your concerns regarding William Bailhache and the Committee of Inquiry and this is why. William Bailhache was the Attorney General who decided NOT to prosecute somewhere in the region of a dozen Child Abuse cases, notwithstanding his alleged conflict of interest while his law firm were supposedly “defending” Abuse Victims/Survivors at an earlier stage.

    Here is TOR 13 of the Committee of Inquiry.

    “13. Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish –
    • Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach;
    • Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level.

    If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee.” (END)

    William Bailhache could/should have some very serious questions to answer as a result of that TOR (and possibly others). Yet he gets promoted to Bailiff before the COI even starts?

    I also agree with you that victims/survivors and anybody who can should give evidence to the COI and I believe it should be given every chance to conduct its Review to the best of its ability without interference from the conflicted Law Office and e-mail thieving, or e-mail doctoring, politicians and their ilk.

    On another note; How much taxpayers money, court time, and Civil Service time has been spent on attempting to get you off the internet? Because it clearly hasn’t been money and time well spent!

    Reply
  4. Kate Hall

    First of all, welcome back and congratulations for your fight.
    I might be naïf but I honestly believe that during the next 6 months a great change could happened. States triumphant for many years because they know Jersey people are afraid, they know that they are the power that we are all doomed and accepted that they are the power and Jersey is a Totalitarian state “is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible”.
    If in 6 months not 35% of Jersey would vote, but 95% would appear to vote (even if the ones are not the best ones but are the ones who came forward). Let me tell you that they would be s***t scared as they would see Jersey waking up and wanting to participate and give their voice. Please people let all vote in 6 months time to show that we are not scared and we believe that we also have a word to say about what happens in Jersey. Maybe the next candidates are not the best we could get, it doesn’t matter, the next after will be even better, and then even better, and one day we will have democracy and no longer we will be laughed and joked by the states and the world about The JERSEY WAY

    Reply
  5. Jon Abbott

    Stuart good to see the pillow has been lifted off your face & that there will be further disclosures about the goings on in Jersey, that island of secrets. My only criticism of your latest offering is that it is too long. It would have been better in say 2 or 3 shorter versions. People don’t have the time or the interest to read such long posts. Anyway that’s what I believe, but I might be quite wrong.
    I also believe you should not carry any Anonymous comments. I know that’s very fashionable in Jersey but in the same way that you are standing up for what you believe I think you should do your best to get the rest of Jersey to come out of it’s shell and be counted

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      If I came out of my shell and was counted I’d lose my job the next day, it’s as simple as that.

      Reply
  6. DenverElle

    With every single act of oppression against you, the truth in your words becomes much better known around the world, seen by your blog readership count shooting up dramatically when you were imprisoned and unable to even update entries. You only seem to be stronger, more energetically determined, and widely admired than ever before. Well done, indeed, for your brilliant triumph of will.

    So, the Jersey oligarchy did not get good value for the millions they’ve invested in trying to oppress you. Had they left you alone, perhaps fewer outsiders would have heard your voice or observed the retaliatory examples of their naked feudalism.

    Elle

    Reply
  7. J wylie

    Dear sir i have lived in Jersey on and off for the last 40yrs and as a non resident,(the phrase may be keep your nose out) but apart from the whole issue of child abuse and possibly murders ,your whole system of government seems to be run by the chosen few ? the Jersey way as you describe it ! now if you want a judicial hearing with transparency then let the people (not just the natives ) that reside on your island vote on who shall lead the inquiry ,who should preside over the inquiry, and who should deliver the findings of the inquiry, then you may find that you can move on from this dreadful incident that is blighting your lovely island and also it may get rid of some of the less straight forward members of your senate, and allow you to conduct matters in a more democratic environment

    Reply
  8. Darius Pearce

    Wonderful to hear from you again Stuart, I share your concerns and hope that this is a genuine committee of enquiry and not an attempted whitewash.

    I have challenged the people of Jersey to provide one example of when you acted other than in the sincere belief that you were acting in the best interests of the people of Jersey. They have not and will not be able to provide an example. Until they do I can only place my trust in the person who has never let me or any of the people of Jersey down.

    Your record speaks for itself; dignity, integrity and inner fortitude. It is an honour to have known you and I am grateful for your continued efforts on our behalf.

    Reply
  9. moral-rightness

    Good to see you have friends who support the freedom of speech. I look forward to your impending guest posts, and await the time when the name of the powerful person, who is a rapist, is disclosed.

    Keep up the good work.

    Reply
  10. HG

    Good to see you back online Stuart. I have made plans for my blog in case they want to waste more money, although in my case it will be the Diocese of Satan that does it, no doubt. HG

    Reply
  11. RL

    I venture to suggest that Stuart’s post here should be compulsory reading for all Jersey residents over the age of, say, 15. I suggest that age limit because the under-15s might be caused unnecessary trauma if they became aware of the facts about the shameless world they are growing up in, and in which they are expected to take their place as model citizens.

    My entire family lives in Jersey, including amongst them a couple who have many decades of experience working with Jersey kids, both in and out of the school environment (teaching, nursing, youth organisations, etc.).

    I know from conversations with them that the island’s PTB are regarded as a role model to be revered and emulated by otherwise normal, sensible and (apparently) caring professional people. The result is that the kind of dishonesty, bullying, corruption and downright criminality prevalent in the ‘upper strata’ of Jersey society, evidenced by the island’s bloggers – and by Stuart in particular –, is insidiously permeating not only the ‘establishment’ but also the very fabric of Jersey society: the families who live there.

    Little wonder I chose to live many thousands of miles away…

    Keep up the good work!
    RL

    Reply
  12. anonymous

    Head of education in jersey. Police Chief wanted to file a prosecution for this man but was instead fired from his post. This sick vile cowardly scum was described by his colleges in education as follows.. ” when the children came out of his office the fear in their faces was stomach wrenching”. They would just say to other teachers I best not say anything it will just get worse…… So this man its been said would wall slam children with full force outing fear into them like nothing you could ever have imagined. Just one Thing his name. Is MARIO LUNDY. This scum said if I go down ” I will bring the government down with me. This is what the people of jersey are dealing with .

    Reply
  13. Anonymous

    Welcome back. Now, Mr Syvret with the difficulties we in Guernsey are experiencing with Chief Ministers, CISX and the Guernsey Financial Services Commission perhaps you’d be good enough to assure us that it is to our sister island we should look where the Jersey Financial Services Commission, sets, no doubt, a sterling example of probity and resilience?

    The JFSC is presumably a spotlessly clean public authority with no questions having ever been raised concerning its members, their current or past conduct, conflicts of interest nor any potential coercive ‘issues’ that might hang over any of them? Obviously, as a law-enforcement body with quasi-judicial powers the JFSC needs to be, and no doubt is, pure in all such matters?

    And presumably all of the international clients who make use of Jersey’s excellent financial services industry can be assured that all Officers of the JFSC could be relied upon, should the occasion ever arise, to be honest witnesses in court?

    Reply
    1. Stuart Syvret

      Somehow – I just kind of get the sense that your questions are not entirely sincere – given their specificity.

      Well, as you & I apparently know – it’s simply a question of when – not if.

      Reply
  14. Syd

    Well Stuart this should give you an opportunity to let the inquiry know what you know, as this is an invitation which seems to invite ANYONE. “The panel is led by Frances Oldham QC, who said she wanted to hear from anyone who had experienced the care system in the island, whatever their perspective. “

    Reply
    1. Stuart Syvret

      As this posting – and many others – make’s clear, there are many serious issues with this public inquiry.

      Serious issues which cause people in my position to have to have to consider closely the respective public-interest merits in engaging with it vs. not engaging with it.

      What I will say is this – I shall be writing to Ms Oldham shortly with a number of questions.

      How she answers those questions – if indeed she answers them at all – will be determinative of my approach.

      Stuart

      Reply
      1. DenverElle

        Stuart

        This posting and your comments are timely and extremely relevant to the current Inquiry.

        It’s my view the panel will explore and expose only what they feel they absolutely must, to keep from being accused of whitewashing. We can all play a role in bringing more of the evidence to the forefront, by getting the word out about the inquiry and by making sure the COI Panel is made well aware of the eyes of the world keenly focused on their work.

        Clearly, it should be a high priority for the panel to interview you as the former Health Minister and whistleblower, especially since you were also hearing directly from constituents who had been abused and/or had witnessed child abuse. Since leaving that position, you have remained one of the few who were entrusted enough with confidences by abuse survivors and witnesses, and you have obviously been provided with other documented evidence leaked to you by those who did not want the truth buried.

        I hope your administrator will add a tweet button to this blog, like the one on your own original format, so it becomes a bit easier for readers to help grow the audience. Your background and insight on the COI will be invaluable for the international readership who wish to actively press for greater transparency in the inquiry process.

        Elle

        Reply
  15. Anon

    Stuart, glad to see you are back. An excellent post, encapsulating the utter moral bankruptcy that lies at the heart of Jersey’s public life, and in turn the absolute indifference of the British monarch to the rights of Jersey’s ordinary people.
    I must say, I am dismayed by Google’s decision to close down your previous blog. I am equally surprised that US journalists aren’t running with this, as it is surely a story of huge international interest. Apart from famously kow-towing to the Chinese government (an understandable commercial decision, if not a laudable one), Google loudly trumpets its ethical policies, and its role in providing a voice to dissidents.
    Closing your blog rather drives a coach and horses through this. The precedent is now set where the regime of a (flying) banana republic can get a tame domestic judge to issue a court order prosecuting an awkward blogger on contrived charges, wave it at Google, and expect the company to do its job of silencing free speech.
    After all, if they do this to you, why should they not act in a similar fashion and close down anti-Assad blogs written by Syrian dissidents? Or anti-Kim blogs written by North Koreans. I’m sure neither Assad nor Kim would find much difficulty in getting a court order saying whatever they wanted.
    Does Google really understand so little about the nature of free speech that it rolls over to the handful of bullies ruling over a poxy little speck of rock in the English Channel when they wave an officious scrap of A4 in their direction?

    Reply
  16. Anon

    Well, this is interesting.

    http://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreportedjudgments/documents/display.aspx?url=2014%2f14-03-17_Treasurer_of_the_States-v-Syvret_070.htm

    “7 (iii) However, Appleby’s letter dated 31st December, 2013 appears to reveal that the Data Commissioner was trying to get Google to remove entries on Mr Syvret’s blog some four months before his 19th March, 2009 blog, which suggests that her concern in November 2008 was directed to what he was blogging about persons other than the one who was the subject of his 19th March, 2009 publication. That, said Mr Syvret, gave rise to all kinds of serious questions concerning the safety of his prosecution and conviction and validity of the court proceedings in which the costs orders the subject of the current summons were made. In these circumstances, he submitted, the only proper order for this Court to make was to adjourn the matter indefinitely in order to allow him to pursue these matters further.”

    “10. We accordingly ordered that the matter be placed on the pending list; that the Treasurer of the States should within 21 days file and serve on Mr Syvret particulars of its claim, specifying the precise proceedings, costs orders and taxation certificates in question; and that time for filing of Mr Syvret’s answer to the claim should be extended to 3 months from receipt of such particulars as regards, and only as regards, any assertion that the costs orders the subject of the summons are invalid by reason of the fact, as disclosed in Appleby’s letter to Google of 31st December, 2013, that the Data Commissioner was in communication with Google in November 2008 – the purpose of that extension being that it affords Mr Syvret an opportunity to seek leave to appeal out of time such of the proceedings with which we are concerned as he may think are affected by these matters. Should he succeed in any such application he will be able to plead that fact by way of answer to the summons and all further consideration of the matter would, no doubt, be adjourned pending the outcome of that appeal. Should the specified three month period elapse without any such leave having been obtained the Treasurer of the States will be at liberty to bring the matter back to this court with a view to seeking final judgment.”

    Can you tell us if you will be seeking leave to appeal out of time? Also, am I correct in thinking that every communication between Ms Martins and Google Inc. concerning your blog from November 2008 onwards is now disclosable to you, for the purposes of any such appeal?

    Reply
    1. Stuart Syvret

      A reader says: –

      “Can you tell us if you will be seeking leave to appeal out of time? Also, am I correct in thinking that every communication between Ms Martins and Google Inc. concerning your blog from November 2008 onwards is now disclosable to you, for the purposes of any such appeal?”

      No.

      I won’t be appealing.

      Not least because my applications in Jersey have already been right on the facts – right on the evidence – right on the law – 20 times over.

      You think any Jersey court is going to order disclosure in my favour?

      Come, come – this is a “judicial” apparatus that has already decided the office of Jersey Attorney General is – uniquely in all democratic countries – simply above the rule of law.

      What I’m going to be doing is filling an action in court in London, against the Secretary of State for Justice, Crown, and Privy Council – in which I’ll be holding them to account for letting expressly conflicted – prima facie criminals – such as their appointee Michael Birt – appoint people such as his self-admitted friend, colleague, dining-partner, publicly recorded admirer and appointee – Howard Page QC – to enact oppressive super-injunctions – contra all relevant case-law – and in camera – and ex parte – to the protection of criminals, and of Birt, Bailhache and others.

      The Sicilians have “Our Thing” – the British equivalent is the City of London and its lawyers.

      “Appeal?”

      How does one appeal against a criminal apparatus – a criminal enterprise?

      You think perhaps there’d be any merit in me trying – again – for what, the 20th time – to get justice in respect of the malfeasances of Michael Birt – and Michael Birt’s friends – and appointees – in front of another of Michael Birt’s friends – and appointees?

      No – sorry.

      I want proper objective justice.

      A lawful tribunal.

      An Article 6 compliant court.

      The cited authorities in London are responsible for the existence of this gangster apparatus in Jersey.

      There is going to be an end to this Potemkin village – and its Potemkin court.

      Stuart.

      Reply
  17. Anon

    I understand your reasoning, but won’t London just play the “you have not exhausted all domestic remedies” game with you?

    Reply
    1. Stuart Syvret

      Of course.

      They’ll try to.

      And given it’s London’s judicial Cosa Nostra & their City pay-boys we’re up against – they’ll almost certainly win.

      All the way.

      But the proper rule of law – is the proper rule of law.

      And the historic record – is the historic record.

      C’est la guerre.

      My life’s already lost.

      You think there’s any point in me not taking it through London?

      Stuart

      Reply
  18. RL

    I am inclined to agree with the anonymous reader at March 20, 2014 – 01:16 and, more especially with the point raised at March 21, 2014 – 00:19.

    Surely, Stuart, the question you need to address is not “What’s the point of appealing to a corrupt court, one that you believe is not Article 6 compliant?” but, rather: “What are the likely consequences if I do NOT go through that process?” And, as a supplementary: “Wouldn’t a corruptly processed appeal taken through the supposedly ‘proper channels’ provided under Jersey law, serve to strengthen yet further any subsequent action against the Secretary of State for Justice, Crown, and Privy Council and, if you then believe it appropriate, the ECHR?”

    I don’t know much about how the ECHR operates. I do nevertheless have a petition pending before the equivalent body for the Americas, the IACHR, in which I denounced discrimination and malpractice within the judiciary of the country I now live in. There are certain similarities between your situation and mine. Before submitting that petition I studied the IACHR’s handling of cases and, in particular, the most common arguments put forward by governments in their attempts to have petitioners’ cases quashed from the outset. In over 75% of the cases I reviewed, the accused government alleged – as its principal argument – that the petitioner had not exhausted all domestic remedies, and the case was closed on the spot. The impact on the accused countries was zero – and some of those cases had been pending for 10 years or more.

    Given the extreme delays affecting the hearing of cases in the HR commissions (my petition to the IACHR was submitted in 2009 and has still not been reviewed to ascertain its admissibility, let alone processed; the ECHR still has a backlog of over 100 thousand unopened cases), I made sure that I *had* first exhausted all domestic remedies by taking my case through every step on the way up to this nation’s Supreme Court. Also, in my petition, I outlined the reasons why two further remedies that were ‘apparently’ available to me in fact were not. All that, despite the time and cost, to pre-empt the classic “not exhausted all domestic remedies” game.

    With that in mind, I feel it would be worth your jumping quickly through any last hoops held up by the Jersey system. If you’re going on 5, 6, 7-year journey to London or Strasburg it would be useful insurance against having a wasted journey. I suspect that the Pitmans, who ‘wasted’ a lot more than mere time with an out-of-time appeal, might agree with me.

    RL

    Reply
  19. Does London appeal to you ......... ?

    @1:24, worth considering but
    http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/462601/Paedophile-MPs-are-mocking-British-law

    Lifted from this article:
    “…In October 2012, MP Tom Watson stood up in the Commons and addressed the Prime Minister. He told David Cameron that he had become aware of rumours of paedophile rings which “encircled parliament” and had done so for decades and he then asked for this to be investigated.

    The Prime Minister agreed and Operation Fairbank (later evolving into Operation Fernbridge) was duly launched.

    Since Mr Watson’s pronouncement, we have witnessed the arrest of a Catholic priest, two unnamed workers associated with a children’s care home and a sorry display of Seventies light entertainers and present-day soap stars who have been ­paraded before the public and the courts to answer varying charges of abuse from paedophilia to groping.

    Most of the charges have been dismissed due to lack of evidence that comes when reporting historic abuse. There have been scant convictions save for the former TV presenter Stuart Hall.

    However what we have failed to see, and they have been glaring by omission, are any arrests pertaining to parliamentary paedophiles.”
    ………………
    I have recorded ­testimonies from a number of adults who have implicated former MPs, from all parties, as their abusers.

    I have heard stories of satanic ritual abuse, a significant factor in many paedophile rings, at the hands of household-name parliamentarians past and present.

    I have listened to claims of acts so obscene, so grotesque, borne out by the physical as well as mental scars many of these survivors carry, that to hear them relay their experience has left an indelible image in my mind and no attempt to erase the details has been successful.
    ……………………………
    Consequently, it is one thing to highlight MPs who have apparently previously backed dubious “anti-childhood” campaigns but it is far from an even spread of the true reality.

    We now know that MI5 ­actively covered up MP Cyril Smith’s abuse of children and it appears far from an isolated case.

    I recently interviewed Andrea Davison, a former intelligence officer now on the run in South America following her whistleblowing on the arms-to-Iraq scandal of Tony Blair’s Cabinet.

    Ms Davison was adamant that paedophiles are a staple of parliamentary life and have been for some decades. She claimed that MPs have been filmed abusing children and this footage is used to blackmail ­parliamentarians into acquiescing on ­issues of global importance.

    If this is true, we must ask just how ­ingrained in political life is a paedophile agenda?
    …………………..
    For now, abuse survivors are left asking why we are concentrating on the mis­demeanours of Harman, Dromey and Hewitt without properly tackling those in the corridors of power who have been ­implicated in the abuse of children.

    For those who support the rights of ­children, this appears to be nothing more than a smokescreen to protect the guilty.

    The question is: who is protecting our children?”

    ——————————

    Thinking the unthinkable would explain a lot
    Did someone say something about Jersey just being a microcosm?

    Reply
  20. Anon

    Felicity Gerry friend and colleague of Frances Oldham (Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Chair) 36 Bedford Row- Andrea Davison child abuse whistle blower vilified by Felicity Gerry and driven out of the UK.

    Doesn’t look good folks does it.

    Reply
    1. Stuart Syvret

      Yes – that’s right. It doesn’t t look good.

      And, you know – in spite of everything – I’ve been striving to give this public inquiry the benefit of the doubt. I have certain questions which – obviously – arise, as they would to any deeply involved witnesses not on the side of the Jersey oligarchy. And in genuine, pro-active, efforts to get those concerns addressed, I’ve attempted to put some questions to Ms Oldham.

      I’ve been stonewalled by the apparatus – in particular, Evershed – the big City of London law-firm employed by the Jersey establishment.

      So – yes – it most certainly doesn’t look good.

      But – sadly – can any of us be surprised?

      Stuart

      Reply
    2. Stuart Syvret

      To those who may not be familiar with the back-story of Felicity Gerry – colleague and friend of Francis Oldham QC – here is a quote from the blog of Andrea Davison: –

      “The prosecution Barrister Felicity Gerry who claims to be a Human Rights Barrister set-up Andrea Davison in collusion with Derby Police officers. It is believed that the Derby and Nottingham police blackmailed Gerry because of the Mark Kennedy Ratcliff power station case.

      Gerry is an expert liar and deceiver and when she was chosen to prosecute the Ratcliff power station activists by Nottingham and Derby Police through skilful lies and deception she had all the environmental activists convicted in 2010.

      If it were not for undercover cop Mark Kennedy’s confession to the convicted activists that he was not Mark Stone fellow activist but really Mark Kennedy on active duty for the Police then the activists would not have been able to Appeal their convictions.

      Following Kennedy’s confession in 2011 in the Appeal Court it emerged that Felicity Gerry had lied to the Court and withheld evidence from the Defence.

      See Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345707/Undercover-policeman-Mark-Kennedy-Case-collapses-offers-evidence-defence.html

      So – that’s a little history – of 37 Bedford Row – and the role those chambers played in the disgusting saga of the cover-up of police-state oppression of democratic activists – and attempts to conceal the de facto rape of women by spy cops.

      Here is the link to 37 Bedford Row’s Frances Oldham QC: –

      http://www.36bedfordrow.co.uk/people/39

      Here is the link to her colleague and friend Felicity Gerry: –

      http://www.36bedfordrow.co.uk/people/40

      And here is the link to 37 Bedford Row as an entity: –

      http://www.36bedfordrow.co.uk/

      Now – have a good think about that collection of millionaire lawyers – a long, hard look – and then reflect upon the history of their close colleagues and allies at 7 Bedford Row: –

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/letter-from-exile-9/

      And then – once you’ve done that – ask yourself a simple question: –

      “Are these people going to deliver – indeed, are they even vaguely capable of undertaking – a meaningful inquiry into decades of child-abuse – child-abuse concealed by the powerful, the state, the wealthy – in Jersey?”

      If your answer to that question is “yes”, I’m tempted to say you get what you deserve.

      Stuart

      Reply
  21. Stuart Syvret

    You know, when reading things like this –

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-conservative-peer-lord-blencathraslobbying-contract-for-tax-haven-cayman-islands-9211092.html

    And – obviously – thinking about the similar lobbying for other tax-havens – such as Jersey – by similarly conflicted London politicians – I take a certain satisfaction in a good archive:

    “19. In respect of question 18 above, please explain, specifically, what inquiries were made, what actions were taken, and what role the Secretary of State, Crown and department played in connection with the unlawful obstruction and removal of the Jersey Health & Social Services Minister by other Jersey public authorities in directly illegal obstruction of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 (see as evidence attached July 2007 file-note by the Police Chief) – and, similarly, of the unlawful suspension of the legitimate Chief Police Officer, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal?

    20. Please inform me of the procedures involved, and the identity of the individuals involved (both departmental, and in Jersey) in the recruitment, recommendation, selection and appointment of the following Crown Office holders in Jersey:
    a. The Bailiff;
    b. The Deputy Bailiff;
    c. The Attorney General;
    d. The Solicitor General?

    21. What policies, methodology, or procedures do you have in place for the effective and objective investigation of possible criminality and corruption – for example, coercion, conspiracy and/or misconduct in a public office – on the part of your appointees and Crown agents in Jersey, such as the Solicitor General, Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff and Bailiff?

    22. Please explain how, in the event of credible, prima facie suspected criminality on the part of the above-cited London & Crown appointed individuals, what currently pass for policing, prosecution and judicial systems in Jersey could lawfully respond in ways that would be compatible with the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations?

    23. What policy, steps, methodology or other precautions are taken by you, in compliance with your policies and obligations, to ensure that the administration of justice in Jersey is impartial and objective, meets the appearance of being impartial and objective, and – in particular, that judges and magistrates hearing cases in Jersey are not subject of conflicts of interest, or of improper influence?”

    They thought – and still do – all this stuff just fades away. That’s how they think a four paragraph letter – in response to an immensely detailed – and evidence-supported – formal complaint concerning the corrupt protection of a powerful serial-rapist, and the attendant overt – un-denied – judicial corruption – can be an adequate or lawful response.

    It isn’t.

    Obviously.

    And this is not the feudal era – but rather the age of the rule of law.

    And even for the very powerful, consequences flow from deeply unlawful actions.

    Stuart

    Reply
    1. Stuart Syvret

      Not so far as I’m aware.

      But – this Jersey – the British establishment’s corrupt feudal quasi-realm – a polity that is a Potemkin village – with a Potemkin court – so who knows?

      As we’ve learnt already, these gangsters can and will do as they please.

      Stuart

      Reply
  22. Stuart Syvret

    The next posting I’m submitting to the editors will be a look at the phenomena of murdering nurses.

    A sadly topical subject.

    Stuart

    Reply
  23. Stuart Syvret

    Busy people – different time-zones – not all with English as a first language.

    Hey, don’t get on my case – I’m merely an occasional blog hack.

    Stuart

    Reply
  24. Anon

    Stuart, I know you take a certain interest in the Jersey Financial Services Commission. I’m sure you will recall the ‘bad old days’ when Jersey’s financial regulators were not quite as independent of the banks they could have been and had to call in all sorts of favours to get themselves out of a little spot of bother. Fortunately, in today’s more open and transparent Jersey, such conflicts of interest are a thing of the past. For example, it would not be possible for a current board member of the Commission to also be Chairman of a UK building society with a Jersey subsidiary offering mortgages within the island. I mean, that would throw up all sorts of conflicts of interests, wouldn’t it? Given past debacles, there’s just no way the JFSC could be that daft.
    Err…

    Reply
    1. Stuart Syvret

      Nah, ’cause not.

      Cleaner than clean, the JFSC, innit?

      Just wot ya need for a quasi-judicial body with serious law-enforcement powers.

      No dirt on our crew, govnor.

      No career-shagging Advocates, perjuring enforcement officers, or violent serial-rapists here.

      Jersey! Jersey! Step right up! Stick ya money here! Straight-as-a-die financial regulation! Protections ya can rely on!

      Stuart

      Reply
      1. Anon

        ‘No dirt on our crew’. I’m sure there is no dirt on the Commissioner in question – and certainly no attempt to hide his involvement with OneSavings Bank plc. It’s listed in his JFSC biography (although they somehow forgot to mention that Jersey Home Loans is a subsidiary).

        In some ways, it’s almost worse that they didn’t try to hide this information. It demonstrates the utter contempt Jersey’s authorities have for the public, and their sense of invulnerability.

        The ‘dirt’ here is that the JFSC not only has the ability to appoint a Commissioner with an obvious and absolute conflict of interest, but the sheer stupidity to actually exercise this ability. They probably congratulated themselves on managing to appoint a person with his industry experience, but did they stop to think for a moment just how corrupt this makes Jersey seem to any objective observer. Yet another example of a regulator regulating himself – the Jersey Way in all its splendour.

        Reply
  25. Bounty Hunters and Philes ?

    Interesting piece on the USA’s CPS:
    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.tv/whistleblower-fights-for-our-youth-cps-exposed-as-kidnapping-agency/

    A whistleblower points out that the USA’s Child Protective Services (CPS) is funded on the basis of the number of children it removes from parents.

    This system is probably a failed attempt to expose the service to faux market forces but provides a strong incentive for removing the child.

    This is especially worrying because the outcomes for the children are apparently several times WORSE for children taken into foster homes, compared even to their far-from-perfect parents.

    I don’t know if the faux market (which puts a bounty on the heads of disadvantaged children) is an issue in Jersey or the UK but the poor outcomes and prevalence of abuse in fosterhomes certainly has been.

    Invariably the shysters who run the show deny the abuse for as long as they can, then deny it’s severity and then they hide behind their own laws and prosecution system to avoid responsibility.

    Jersey is far from unique where there are innumerable victims, but only token perpetrators who get prosecuted.

    Will the public swallow it again?

    Reply
    1. Horizontal Integration

      @12:52
      There are allegations that many in the UK’s secret family court system are motivated to keep the fosterhomes “supplied”

      This seems rather far fetched, but on past experience the Family Courts are absolutely one of the places that paedophiles and paedophile rings would want to infiltrate.

      ……along with children’s services and campaigning organisations:
      http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt

      [for the avoidance of doubt; paedophilia is “cross party” and also hijacks the right and the far-right]

      Reply
  26. Ryan

    Of all the people for CTV to interview regarding the care abuse enquiry – why Frank Walker?

    “I wasn’t involved at the time personally, nor were my colleagues in government when the awful situation emerged [in a cover up]”

    What did Simon Bellwood feel the need to whistle-blow about then, amongst other things?

    Reply
    1. DenverElle

      Stuart,

      I too, will be interested in learning what role, if any, whistleblower Simon Bellwood plays in the COI. The institutional abuse he witnessed was during the more recent era many politicians like Frank Walker, do try to distance themselves from.

      Elle

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.