THE SHARP REPORT!

An expert, independent enquiry into the concealment of child abuse in Jersey – during the 1990’s.

Follow the link from the list on the right.

Just a brief post. Someone has submitted a link to a web site on which has been posted the famous Sharp report.

I have placed the link in my list on the right.

This is the address to copy and paste, if the link doesn’t work:

http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/news/comments/the-sharp-report-jersey-abuse-download/

This report was commissioned by authorities in Jersey following the conviction of a child abuser who was a teacher at Jersey’s leading private school, Victoria College.

An enquiry was felt to be necessary because it became clear that the school had been receiving complaints of child abuse for years – and had simply ignored them.

At the time of the commissioning, the Jersey authorities said the report would be published – warts and all.

The Jersey oligarchy are real experts at employing the “right” ‘independent expert’ – whenever they need to spin in order to make themselves look like a responsible administration by holding an “investigation” into something which has gone wrong.

98% of the time, they’re very clever at choosing the ‘independent experts’ who will say exactly what they want him or her to say – quite regardless of the facts. Witness the Andrew Williamson report for example – a report which so embodies the he-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune syndrome as to actually be fall-about comical in its absurdity.

However – the law of averages dictates that the Jersey oligarchy will sometimes get it wrong.

Very occasionally – they’ll make the profound mistake of employing a person of high quality; real professionals – people with good ethics.

People who tell the truth – and tell it like it is.

An example of this being Kathy Bull – who – to the outrage, anger and fury of the senior Jersey civil service spivs – produced a report which was comprehensive, detailed – and utterly damning – from cover to cover.

That report too, would have been kept secret had I not given it – to the fury of my “esteemed” political colleagues – to Anthony Lewis of the Jersey Evening Post. The resultant reporting was one of about three occasions I can recollect the JEP doing a real, journalistic job on a really important matter.

Tony has had some health problems. Tony, if you’re reading this, or someone who knows you does, take our best wishes.

But, what of the report by Mr. Stephen Sharp?

Mr Sharp – to the perpetual nightmares of the Jersey establishment – was also a real professional – a man of immense integrity and high ethics.

The report he produced was accurate, succinct, very well researched, informed by his own great expertise – and apocalyptically damning.

When the Jersey authorities received his report, they took one look at it and ran screaming into the distance.

Upon reading it – they saw – immediately just how atrociously damning the report was to the whole Jersey oligarchy – at the highest levels; all the sleazy back-scratching, cover-ups and mutual protections which comprise “The Jersey Way”.

Suddenly, they decided that the report would not now be published after all. Their attempted justification for this was the simple lie that the report identified victims. It does not – but obviously they needed some excuse to keep it under wraps.

Follow the link – the report isn’t that long – have a good read of it.

There is much in the report, the significance of which may not be immediately apparent to people not familiar with the Jersey oligarchy, it’s monopoly of power – and how it runs this rock according to “The Jersey Way”.

But don’t worry – now we have the report posted – for my next post I’ll provide a lay-persons guide to the report, what it says, what it means, who’s who – and the damning implications of it all.

Watch this space.

Stuart.

64 thoughts on “THE SHARP REPORT!

  1. Anonymous

    JEP Fri 22 Aug 08

    AG: We are not slowing down inquiry
    By Diane Simon

    Six cases are currently with the Law Officers department for consideration in the major child abuse inquiry – Three of which have led to prosecutions.

    In response to recent claims that his department have been sitting for months on files submitted by the police for prosecution in this major inquiry, Attorney General William Bailhache said that of the six files which the police had put forward, three had led to prosecutions.

    ‘Two of the others are still being considered and the other is the subject of further police investigation,’ he said.

    Mr Bailhache is also assuring complainants of child abuse that their statements will be taken very seriously.

    In an interview with the JEP, which is being published tomorrow, he said that he had been alarmed by claims that some of them believed Island authorities would prevent the police from carrying out the investigation.

    ‘I give them my absolute guarantee that their statements will be taken very seriously,’ he said.

    Before a prosecution took place the lawyer considering the file must believe that there was enough evidence to lead to a court or jury, when properly directed, being more likely than not to convict, he said.

    He said that the extent and skills of the team he had assembled for the job showed the seriouseness with which he had taken the investigation.

    The prosecution team he has put together includes Crown Advocates Stephen Baker and Robert MacRae.

    Both of them are in private practice and have experience of criminal prosecutions when they were barristers in the United Kingdom.

    He has also appointed two lawyers from leading criminal chambers in the city of London.

    http://www.bakerplatt.com/doc.asp?doc=164&cat=233

    http://www.careyolsen.com/profile.asp?pID=250

    How CAN these two Crown Advocates be seen as objective & above influence?

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

    Come on rest of the world ~ help us out here!

    Reply
  2. The Moving Finger

    What can you say?

    No wonder they wanted to keep it under wraps.
    Hopefully this will be all over the Nationals(UK,not Jersey (grin))and the pursuit of justice is furthered.

    Well done Stuart for getting this out. No matter who has a go at you, they cannot deny proof.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    At long last. Thank you Stuart. I’m left speechless by the whole report. What is Mr Baker doing these days? Well paid no doubt!

    Reply
  4. donchais

    Thank you for getting the Sharp report out! Think the flame was just turned up another notch.

    Having read it, all I can say is…oh my God!!!!

    Reply
  5. voiceforchildren

    Stuart.

    After reading the article submitted by Diane Simon in tonights rag (online) “Police investigate leaked abuse report” I was absoluteley dumbfounded to discover readers are allowed to “have your say”.

    After I got over the shock I “had my say” and then realised there is very little chance they would publish it.

    I hope you don’t mind me using your blog to publish my response to local media publications but they are selective as to what they will publish if it goes against the grain.

    “MY SAY”

    Whoever leaked that report must have known what they were doing. By leaking it to Senator Syvret they knew it would get a wide audience in the public domain.

    Had they, on the other hand, leaked it to certain, if not all, our local media it would never had seen the light of day!!

    Doesn’t it tell some kind of a story when a sacked health minister is publishing “exclusive” news items and our entire local media are having to follow in his wake?

    You sorry, sorry bunch.

    Reply
  6. Krakow Crapaud

    A couple of questions:

    Who read the report before it was buried?

    Who buried it?

    Who said that it named victims?

    If there had been no VHS tape as evidence would this case even have gone to trial or would there have been insufficient evidence?

    I’m horrified at much of the reports contents but worst of all is the secrecy, always secrecy.

    KC

    Reply
  7. Stuart Syvret

    The views of relations.

    I have received a comment which touches upon the personal, familial relationships of some people who read this blog.

    Under certain circumstances – if I felt there was an overwhelming justification – I would publish the comment. And other similar comments concerning other people.

    But reflecting on this particular case – and what I know of it – I don’t think it appropriate to publish what are familial issues.

    The comment is critical of me to some extent – that part of it I’ll reproduce. The author says that they are not sure that my “intentions are not entirely political motivated”.

    Although not entirely hostile, the comment expresses certain doubts about decisions I have made in respect of what I publish on this blog.

    I think that encapsulates the critical part of the comment; but I’m not posting it.

    Not for reasons concerning criticisms of me – which I’ve reproduced above – but because I just don’t think it would be helpful to anyone if this blog and its comments section became a familial battle-ground.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  8. Stuart Syvret

    Ritualistic or Satanic Abuse.

    I’m posting this response under my last two blogs, as I’m not sure which one was the target of a comment I’ve received.

    Early today I did a response comment in which I said I’d had no evidence of ritualistic or satanic abuse.

    In response, I have received a plausible comment which says that such perversions were a real possibility.

    However, the commenter said they didn’t expect me to publish the comment, so I haven’t.

    But if the person who submitted it could respond by saying they were happy for it to be posted – or if they wish, to submit a revised version – I’m happy to publish.

    Let me know what you think? The person concerned will know what they wrote, so I won’t have any difficulty in knowing it to be a genuine response if it deals with the same specifics.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    Stuart,

    Re: Ritual/satanic ritual abuse (RA/SRA)

    I did not post the comment that you refer to, but there are many professionals that know for certain that RA/SRA is not uncommon. It usually is regarded as a rarity or simple ludicrous nonsense, because the system, especially police, do not investigate such extreme child abuse as such – they haven’t got the ability to do so, or are forbidden to investigate by the police bosses. Also, the politically correct NSPCC have to ignore their evidence; and the media do a great disservice to the kids in selling stories. Biological psychiatrists deny it mainly because the survivors dont trust them enough to tell; and as for social workers!! Also, most of the people who work with such clients are psychoanalytically trained or big-C Christians, so it is hardly surprising that no one knows about this or believes. Then there is the repressed memory debate, besides the well organised False Memory Society dumbos (a gang of weirdos). And so on ….., including the fatuous La Fontaine report of 1994 (paid for by the Tories!) that was based on child protection being effective – what a joke! I have met many RA/SRA survivors, BTW. A common feature, IME, is that “the high-ups” abuse these totally disempowered kids as they know they will never tell. The dynamics are similar to those in Jersey where the disempowered were also powerless. FWIW. Anyway, who was going to believe any of them?

    DT

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    Hi Suart! What can I say other than the dolemans, paisnel, his son and HDLG are the centre pieces!

    You know as I do! Please, please let us fight together with regard to the satanic cult that dominates our island! If you want my ok for publication then you have it! But, I am not (like the doleman) a candle (amongst other things) disgarded like Paisnels son blowing in the wind! (sorry stuart but like you I grew up on a Jersey gehetto ( welliington park) and every friday drink myself to oblivion so I can either forget or remember! Paisnels son (Andy) was a friend of mine! He commiited suicide when he found out! I can see him now! Sad, Sad world

    Reply
  11. Anonymous

    Well what can I say to all this regarding Mr & Mrs Bonner. I have known my friend and I will call her Miss X for nearly twenty years. Over the years my best friend has let me in to her dark childhood memories of Mr & Mrs Bonner, which literally made my toes curl with some of the shocking stories. I can always remember telling her to speak up but her confidence had deminished through the lack of support she required at the time from the appropiate authorities. I hopefully gave her the support she needed at that particular time. Miss X has dealt with many issues in her life that probably and hopefully we will not ever have to face. Miss X has not filed a complaint to any authorities for many reasons, one being that she knows that Mrs Bonner knows she done wrong with the children and being a true Catholic she will go to Hell one day, if there is a God.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    If you are a Christian or even if you don’t believe in god one must accept that there are millions that do, in turn there are those who are of the converse persuasion and are up to there necks in ritual abuse but of course this is hidden by those who work below their masters and receiving tit bits from their table in reward.

    This is documented fact throughout time and history and a diligent inquisitive mind can easily find many references to it all over the net.

    However sceptical one is or could be one can’t deny that to hide a thing you don’t want people to know you put it on open display then ridicule it yourself so it then falls into a special category called “A conspiracy theory.” It is then summarily dismissed as hocus pocus.

    Well more fool those who don’t realise that the smoke is indeed coming from the fire that you see.

    Reply
  13. Anonymous

    In situations like this it is an imperative that ALL avenues be explored especially ritualistic child abuse. Then look up what ritual means;

    “A ritual is a set of actions, often thought to have symbolic value, the performance of which is usually prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community by religious or political laws because of the perceived efficacy of those actions

    I think thats covers all the bases on the Jersey cases don’t you.

    Reply
  14. Anonymous

    The Education Minister’s statement on the Sharp Report (1999)
    I regret that there was a historic case of child abuse at one of the island’s schools, which was uncovered in the early 1990s before I was elected as a States member. In the light of recent allegations about this case I have reviewed the circumstances surrounding it, and am issuing the following statement.

    Once reported to the Education Department of the day, this incidence of abuse was taken seriously. The man responsible was successfully prosecuted and subsequently imprisoned.

    Following that prosecution, in June 1999 an independent report was commissioned (known as the Sharp Report) by the former Education Committee and the school’s board of governors, to investigate the procedures followed by the school. It highlighted errors in the way the school dealt with initial allegations, and in its failure to follow procedures.

    The report made a number of recommendations and all have since been implemented.

    1 – The procedures and forms for approval of trips must be adequately staffed by teachers with appropriate qualifications.

    2 – The existing policy on alcohol for all schools was reviewed and strengthened.

    3 – Off-island trips have now, not only to be approved by headteachers but must also be approved by the Education Department.

    4 – All teachers are trained in child protection and every school has a trained child protection co-ordinator.

    5. The Sharp Report noted that the policy, advice and procedures provided by the Education Department for child protection were appropriate at the time. These have since been updated by more comprehensive guidance on safeguarding children.

    5 – A transparent complaints procedure has been put in place.

    Following the Sharp report, the headteacher and deputy head at the school resigned their posts.

    The Education Committee of the day did not publish the report because they considered that the details contained in it could lead to the identification of some of the children who had been seriously affected. The decision not to publish the report was taken to protect those children.

    Senator Mike Vibert – Education Minister Page Last Updated: 26/02/2008

    Reply
  15. Anonymous

    Re: RA/SRA

    Understanding this subject becomes easier if you think of disempowered children (often of intergenerational families) are sadistically abused by psychopathic preverts, who on the outside appear normal (so forget about religion). Commonly, women strongly feature as significant abusers, too (this female perpetration is extremely traumatic to the survivors, and they tend to repress such). The mumbo jumbo is something that could be used by intelliegent detectives as evidence, because it is a well defined syndrome; and found in most civilised countries.

    DT

    Reply
  16. Anonymous

    Well! Well now this Report does not bode well for those involved does it Mr Breton, Bailhache and Co I believe was some sort of board director of this collage at the material times and had full knowledge of what had transpired and the relationships between Mr Jervis-Dykes Mr Baker, as well from the beginning to the end He knew about the alcohol and presumably the video and the victims and yes it was buried according to my reading of the report.

    So that’s yet another count that the AG is and would be compromised in any legal sense never mind the logical awareness of the process he Turned a blind eye and cocked a deafen. I would say he is as indictable as the abusers on the island.

    Reply
  17. Anonymous

    Thankyou for the opportunity to read the Sharp report. What a very perceptive and honourable man as you say.

    Lenny Harper talks of the “Old Boy network” in Jersey.The thing that struck me while reading this report was that the majority of people dealing with the child abuse scandal within Victoria College were in fact “old boys” of that very school! You couldn’t make it up as you say.

    Reply
  18. Anonymous

    Re: RA/SRA

    It went on, in guise. Think toyshop & faith-healer. In fact, think “respected” St Helier shop proprietors. Hypnotism &/or sedation, anaesthesia & recovery room.

    Subterfuge means most have no knowledge of proceedings & are simply “innocent” paedophiles.

    Who is there to talk to?

    Reply
  19. Anonymous

    Are any of the people mentiond in the Sharp report still involved with children in Jersey?
    Nothing would surprise me anymore!
    It is hardly surprising that people do not want tocome forward, and have no confidence in any of the authorities,what exactly is the point of having guidelines if they are not adhered to…………..how many victims of abuse went to their teacher or social worker only to be patted on the head and told to go away,,,,,,,how do these people sleep at night? Christians I suppose!

    Reply
  20. Linda Corby

    Thank you Stuart at least you are getting the truth out there. I have put your blog link on the end of some of my articles so people can read the truth of the matter. I have been republishing my articles because I got dumped by the article site I was using, um wonder why? Could it be that the powers that be don’t like what I write and put a sly complaint in, who knows money talks. However half the links on my article page do not work right now but they will be within the next week. The Sharp report will be an eye opener for some, not me, for me it held no surprises, although it does disgust me that they have not allowed it to be reported on in full in the JEP.
    Keep up the good work, it is appreciated by the decent people of the island.

    Reply
  21. Anonymous

    “Subterfuge means most have no knowledge of proceedings & are simply “innocent” paedophiles.

    Who is there to talk to?”

    Hi,

    I would be prepared to talk if you wish, though it would have to be in complete anonymity …. I don’t know that could be done? If you have been in contact with the police investigative team, we could link up via them? I have been speaking with such survivors since 1990. I even spoke to one yesterday. I accept trust is a major issue.

    DT

    DT

    Reply
  22. TonyTheProf

    Does anyone know what the local position re child protection was at the time? It seems Mrs Hydes new – and misnformed her husband and everyone else! – but what was the local policy / training given? In other words, given that UK best practice was not followed, was training given locally at the time, and if not, why not? who was the President of Education at the time?

    Reply
  23. TonyTheProf

    Ritual abuse most notably came to light in England in 1987, when a paedriadrician called Marietta Higgs decided that a test she had recently been introduced to – that of anal dilation – was nearly 100% accurate in determining child abuse. Together with leading question not unreminiscent of those at 17th century witch trials, on young children isolated from parents, dawn raids, the entire fantasy – fueled by social workers and evangelical Christians – reached epidemic proportions before collapsing when some parents finally managed to get expert opinions in Court on the fallibility of the technique. The resultant inquiry failed to stop a similar fantasy erupting among social workers with families in the Orkneys, although again the cases eventually collapsed. While there is certainly evidence of systemic child abuse – see Wales cases in Children’s Homes, or the case of children in Ireland in Children’s Homes, there is no real evidence for organised satanic rings of ordinary families outside of social workers’ fantasies and those of evangelical Christians who will tell you of fairly large scale Devil worshop in Jersey today (and they have as little evidence as their beliefs in creationism, or “the rapture”). They will of course include such people as Wiccans (which there are over here) in their diatribes. My advice: ask for solid evidence, not hearsay.

    Reply
  24. Anonymous

    stuart

    With the fact that the JEP commented on the report leak , proves the scum are watching your site closely, shame thay dont have the guts to reply to your crusade .
    god bless

    The Oak

    Reply
  25. Anonymous

    Re: Dr Marietta Higgs (and Geoffrey Wyatt)

    The Cleveland controversy related to child sexual abuse – NOT ritual abuse.

    The first notable ritual abuse cases occurred in Nottingham circa 1986/7. Mrs Justice Booth (now Dame Margaret) ruled that the children had sustained organised abuse. As usual, the police cocked up the investigation. You will discover that police always get these cases wrong, hence no evidence/data even though it is there.

    DT

    Reply
  26. Stuart Syvret

    Moving Finger

    Nice try – but I never speak of my sources.

    Any good journalist would tell you the paramount importance of protecting your sources.

    Indeed – real journalists go to jail – rather than reveal their sources. I’d be quite prepared to do exactly the same.

    Hell – with Bill Bailhache as the chief prosecutor – and his brother, Phil Bailhache as the chief judge – that’s an entirely feasible outcome. And before you dismiss such speculations as paranoia – be aware that the Jersey Data Protection Commissioner – in relation to a different aspect of information concerning the child protection issue – has already informed me she’ll be seeking prosecution. I have the letters from her – with which she threatens Simon Bellwood and me from time-to-time – under the direction of the Attorney General – Bill Bailhache.

    People need to be absolutely confident that they can speak to journalists, police officers and politicians – whoever – without fear of having their identity revealed.

    If their identity is revealed – they then become extremely vulnerable to victimisations of one kind or another. If other people see that happening to those who make public interest disclosures – then a whole vast tranche of information becomes withheld; information which would otherwise serve the public good by exposing misfeasances and/or malfeasances.

    So, given that paramount – public interest – need to protect one’s sources, no journalist, police officer or politician would contemplate taking that first step on the path of confirming or denying XYZ alleged source.

    The very moment you get into that game – you risk leading to the identification of your sources via a process of elimination.

    I have received dozens and dozens of public interest disclosures during my 18 years as a politician – and never, ever have I revealed the identity of any of those sources.

    So – to be clear – do not ask me to identify sources – or begin the elimination process of confirming or denying speculations as to the identity of sources. I will answer no such questions – for very good public interest reasons.

    I say again, to anyone out there who has any pubic interest information – you can take steps to make sure that I receive the information – absolutely confident in the fact that your identity will not be revealed.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  27. Anonymous

    It is highly feasible that SS received the ‘leaked report’ anonomously and does not know who released it – an internal investigation is underway at police headquarters according to the rag.

    I think that Emma Martins would act in a professional manner, and in the event that undue pressure was put upon her I think that she would not bend. particularly as she is involved with an enquiry into the HDLG enquiry…………small island A!

    I also think that Stuart is smart enough not to get himself imprisoned, from the Bailhaches point of view surely that would be a loose/loose situation as I am confident that the majority would back SS in his bid for transparency and justice.

    If SS did go to prison would that mean that he could no longer serve as a politician as that is what ‘they’ would really like…………to shut him away and up once and for all……….no chance Brothers Bailhache!

    Reply
  28. TonyTheProf

    Yes, the Cleveland abuse case not specifically “satantic”, but the leading questions were about groups of parents in cellars engaged in “ritual abuse”.

    I have yet to come across any evidence for satanic ritual groups in Jersey outside the tabloids. Edward Paisnel was a one-off nutter, who did believe that he was a reincarnation of a Satanist (see the book by Ward Rutherford) but those engaged at Haut de La Garenne do not seem to have had any pseudo-religious element to their abuse, just concentration-camp style torture, which is bad enough. There also is an urban myth about Paisnel’s capture and a cross which is torn to shreds by Rutherford (“The Untimely Silence”).

    I have studied the historical records in depth regarding the witchtrials in Jersey when people were burnt and tortured – and that was not evidence of satanism in Jersey, only sadistic authorities – yes, part of that 800 year old tradition of justice we keep hearing about – for it was the Royal Court which sentenced people to death for “crimes” confessed under duress.

    Reply
  29. Stuart Syvret

    Leaked Reports

    Most of what you write in this comment is accurate.

    But sadly – you’re wrong about Emma Martins. She has harassed me and Simon Bellwood for over a year now.

    Making absolutely certain that every complaint made against me was upheld – and every single complaint made against the establishment by me and Simon got rejected.

    Really – some truly quite startling examples.

    So much so, that as you mention her by name – I’ll add that topic to my list of substantive blogs to publish.

    And oh – what a story it is to recount! Stuff you just couldn’t invent – like her making sure her “findings” against me were in the hands of the Jersey Evening Post – before I was even aware of their existence.

    Precisely timed in such a manner as to dovetail perfectly with the Jersey oligarchy spin campaign.

    Being the daughter of Bergerac actor, John Nettles – she has always felt her natural station in life was to be ensconced amongst the very highest circles of society. Hence her rabid social-climbing by gaining the establishment’s favour by stamping on people like Simon and me.

    Bill Bailhache was even dumb enough to obliquely admit – in an e-mail to me last year – that he was advising and guiding her in her persecutions of me. (He didn’t quite say it in those words – but the sub-text was there.)

    There’s enough material in this subject for an episode of Midsommer Murders.

    Though I’ll probably end up being the corpse.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  30. Anonymous

    Stuart,

    I presume this has been checked out? Disabled children (of the various types) are particularly vulnerable to the various forms of abuse. I expect Jersey has some form of residential aid for these children and young adults? If so, this needs checking by someone who is proficient. I certainly would not rely on social workers.

    DT

    Reply
  31. Stuart Syvret

    That’s right – get in touch with the spin-doctors.

    On the money.

    Emma and her merry little band of fellow Jersey establishment – or would-be Jersey establishment – people – are supposedly providing some kind of “scrutiny” of the Police investigation.

    Christ – you just couldn’t make this crap up.

    Who remembers the JEP article a few months ago – complete with accompanying picture of the gorgeous, pouting Ms Martins? Pro-actively seeking “public opinion” as to whether people thought “the police investigation had been well-conducted?”

    Like – right – yeah – your average member of the public is, at this stage, in some kind of position to offer an informed comment?

    Policing by self-selecting public opinion anyone?

    Anyone out here think that’s a good idea?

    (If so, get some help, pal)

    At the same time there was even an opinion poll on Channel Television’s web site, based upon Ms. Martins’ endeavours.

    Sorry – here goes again – but, Christ – you just couldn’t make it up.

    Get this: the poll had a picture of Lenny Harper on it – and for good measure, the poll was titled “A Call For The Truth”.

    As I said to CTV in an e-mail at the time – why bother even being so really subtle about it? Why not just say what you so obviously mean and ask the question: “Should that trouble-maker, Lenny Harper, be thrown out of Jersey?”

    Phrased in such a way, it would have at least have had the saving grace of not insulting the intelligence of viewers.

    But yes – you’re quite right – the whole exercise is nothing but an attempt to spin public opinion against the Police investigation.

    I mean – what else could it possibly be – when it’s headed-up by a woman who was a pro-active part of the attempts to oppress Simon and me?

    Like I said – maybe her dad should be called into investigate.

    Nah – none of these events are even faintly plausible enough to fit into a script for Midsommer Murders.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  32. Anonymous

    brilliant stuff, I never knew half of all that about pouting Ms M – thanks for the education.

    I see a lot of recent argument on ITJ has been wiped clear, fer feck’s sake don’t waste your time on those losers! Keep the good blog entries a-coming please……..

    Reply
  33. Anonymous

    From the helpful link posted above I note that the article begins…

    “An independent group set up to monitor Jersey’s historic child abuse inquiry”

    Pardon me for being as thick as a brick, but I am having a problem understanding the word ‘independent’.

    I checked out the dictionary for some help and came up with the following:-

    1. Self-governing.

    2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others.

    3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else.

    4. Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.

    4. Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity

    5. Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.

    6. Not dependent on other variables.

    My first problem with ‘The Pout’ is that she has a gov.je email address. This means that her salary is paid for by the government. If she is acting independently of the government has she informed them and obtained permission to take up a quasi-political scrutiny role? If she is undertaking this role independently, and with the permit of the government, is she doing it in office time? If so why are the tax payers funding her salary?

    Secondly, and getting back to the definition of the word ‘independant’, I am still strugging to see how a person whose wages are paid by the government, whose prosecutions are bought only with permission of the AG and who owns a gov.je address is…

    1. Self-governing.

    2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others.

    3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else.

    4. Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization. (the Commission website states that the department “provides guidance and recommendations to the States of Jersey”)

    4. Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity
    (the staff are paid by and therefore dependant upon the government. They are clearly affilliated with a larger or controlling entity)

    5. Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting. (as above, they rely on the government for funding)

    6. Not dependent on other variables.

    More Charlie Hungerford than Bergerac methinks

    Reply
  34. Anonymous

    Three to sue over Jersey ‘child abuse’

    THREE victims of alleged abuse at children’s homes in Jersey are to sue the island’s government for compensation.

    Anna Reaney and two others will sue the States of Jersey for the abuse they claim they suffered while in care. They are the first alleged victims to launch legal action, and their case is likely to open the floodgates to dozens more claims.

    They will be represented by the Dublin-based law firm that won 1.2 billion (£970 million) in compensation for 14,000 people abused by Catholic clergy in Ireland.

    Lavelle Coleman have agreed to work on the case for free and will take no share in any pay-outs.

    Mrs Reaney and the two others, who do not want to be named, announced their lawsuit at a public meeting called by a group formed to support former residents of children’s homes.

    Reply
  35. Anonymous

    Now let us turn back time a bit and remember stuart is not the only one in this fight.

    Move to change Bailiff’s dual roleBy Elaine Byrne

    JERSEY should show the world that it is not a ‘secretive culture’ by removing the Bailiff from his dual role as president of the States and the Royal Court, says a St Helier Deputy.

    Deputy Shona Pitman, who has already called for a vote of no confidence in Sir Philip Bailhache, is now asking the States to terminate his role as president of the States.

    ‘As all Members are all too painfully aware, rightly or wrongly there is a perception from large sections of the community and, indeed, outside it, that we in Jersey are a secretive culture,’ she said.

    ‘More than ever, I would put it to colleagues the onus is now on this House to ensure that not only is justice done but that it may be seen by its people to be done.’

    Reply
  36. Kraków Crapaud

    Re: “An independent group set up to monitor Jersey’s historic child abuse inquiry”
    From: SOJ Data Protection Commissioner: appointment under Terms of appointment I note “The Appointee shall reside in Jersey and shall not, either directly or indirectly, engage or be concerned in any other service or business whatsoever, or receive commission or profits of any kind.”
    This refers to the appointment of Emma Martin and it would seem to me the reason for this is her unrestricted access to data must not be seen to influence anything at anytime.
    In other words, should she be on this Independant Advisory Group at all?
    KC

    Reply
  37. Stuart Syvret

    More Freemason Links

    Some readers have submitted more comments which assert that certain individuals are Freemasons – and some readers have submitted links to sites which make similar allegations.

    I’m not a Freemason – but my views are essentially liberal; there is nothing criminal in being a Freemason, so if people want to join such organisations – that’s a matter for them.

    However – it becomes a matter of public interest should any Masons – as with any other person – be engaging in criminal activity.

    For example – by perverting the course of justice to help one’s ‘Brothers’ – who may have found themselves on the wrong side of the law.

    After an appeal I made on this site some months ago, I received – anonymously – a copy of the 2008 Jersey Masonic yearbook through the post. It makes fascinating reading. When I have time I should do a post on all those Masons in senior positions in society.

    But, I’m no expert in these things – but as far as I can see, the number of States members who are Masons appears to be significantly less than one would imagine.

    And I can’t say I’ve spotted in the book any members of the Jersey judiciary who are Masons.

    Now – it’s feasible that there is some whole other layer of secrecy – which does strenuously protect the identities of Masons in certain, senior public positions; meaning they don’t appear in the book – but if so – someone will have to provide me with evidence to that effect.

    And evidence to back up presently unevidenced assertions that X,Y or Z person is a Mason.

    As I’ve said many times previously – I’m ready and willing to make public interest disclosures on this site – name I individuals if needs be – but I do need some reasonably robust evidence. I’m not going to publish any and every wild assertion which is made to me.

    But I must repeat – even if X or Y person were a Mason – that of itself does not demonstrate any wrongdoing on that person’s part.

    As I said, my views are liberal. If people want to be Masons – or anything similar – good luck to them.

    But if there is any hard evidence of Masonic membership and connections being used in any criminal manner – then that becomes a matter of public interest.

    So – evidence, please. Evidence?

    Stuart.

    Reply
  38. Anonymous

    Just can’t wait for the breakdown of the sharp report. It feels like I’ve been waiting a lifetime already. Keep up the fine work Stuart and I look forward to your analysis of the report.

    Reply
  39. Anonymous

    Surely the most common view of Masons is that they help each other to win business contracts, loans whatever that they might not otherwise get through merit? Not exactly bribery but kinda corrupt, no?
    Also I think its a bit off to describe Emma Martins as pouting – this has got to be sexist? She may have been a problem for you but stick to your principals please Stuart.

    Reply
  40. Don't over react

    There’s nothing sexist about commenting upon how women do what they do – things that men don’t do.

    Sexism is actually about unequal rights between the sexes, not about the many obvious differences.

    Reply
  41. Anonymous

    both male and female can pout and at times do pout so no it is not sexist.

    however some weak minded people may use the sexist card just like the rasist card.

    Grow up smell the coffee.

    Reply
  42. Anonymous

    More Freemason Links

    Stuart

    at last you have written a mature piece to dampen down the “the masons rule-the world (and particularly Jersey) brigade”.

    But as for the commenter who describes masonic colleagues being “corrupt” if they do business with each other – well really! People do business in the pub, in the gym, at football clubs, rugby clubs, cycling clubs, golf clubs, shooting clubs, sailing clubs – surfers do business amongst themselves, so do charity workers and fund raisers, Rotary, Round Table and Lions, and of course through extended family. None of this is corrupt, it is business. The cheapest price is not always the best deal overall, knowing that you will get good after sales service is often more important, and that is why people like dealing with people they know and get on with.

    What does “through merit” mean? If you think that only the cheapest price should win a contract, you have never been in business, or used to be but were no good at it. You don’t seriously think that a mason would employ another mason to do a job that would be overpriced and/or shoddy? Please grow up.

    And no, I’m not a mason.

    Reply
  43. Anonymous

    The Archbishop of Canterbury did say that he believes Christianity and Freemasonry are “incompatible” and has refused to appoint clergymen to senior posts because they are members of the Brotherhoowhen he first became Archbishop. But in April 2003 he there was such a big row about it that he had to apologise. He wrote to Robert Morrow, the Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England and apologise. for the distress he caused and disclosed that his own father was a member of the Craft.

    But I do not see why he apologised. I’ve read the Bible and it seems to me that the way Christians are supposed to live is very open, not concealing anything. It seems the exact opposite to freemasonry, which is all concealed. So I don’t understand that at all.

    I wrote to Archbishop Williams twice and told him about the secret family courts and pedophilia, I invited him to a time of prayer for the victims of abuse at St Pauls, and I had two letters back from him. One of them was a very nice letter apologising that he wasn’t able to come because he was not in Britain at the time. I thought that was very nice. Archbishop Senatu told me off about fasting. I told him I was fasting and praying for the abuse victims. He said I had better watch my health. But I am quite tubby already so it is ok.

    Zoompad

    Reply
  44. TonyTheProf

    From what I have seen from my study of Masonic membership in Jersey, it tends to be more connected with the Honorary Police (Centeniers, Constables etc) than Jersey politicians. If one was to look to a place where States members meet up in cliques, I’d suggest taking a look at golf membership, or even more promisingly the United Club! Certainly as far as masonic conspiracy theories go, the evidence is thin on the ground in Jersey.

    Reply
  45. Anonymous

    To the poster who ended with “And no, I’m not a mason.”

    No? You might as well be with that long shrill defence in your post. You throw your hands up in horror like an Island accused of institutional coverup!

    Try reading and understanding what I actually wrote before using straw man arguments.If you don’t think that often some who go into the Masons don’t believe that they’re going to get more out of it than just companionship and support in times of trouble, you must be very naive, or have never met Masons.

    Same for the poster who lacks the analytical skills to recognise sexism when they see it. What EM looks like or does in photos is irrelevant to the effects of her work

    Reply
  46. Anonymous

    IN REGARDS TO THE COMMENT ABOUT MICK GRADWELL AND THE CHARLENE DOWNES INVESTIGATION.

    As a journalist at The Blackpool Gazette newspaper I can confirm that Det Supt Gradwell was never in charge of the Charlene Downes inquiry at any stage, particularly not during the failed trial. He had been due to take over the running of that investigation before his appointment to his new role. I don’t know him personally and have never worked with him but by all accounts from members of the Lancs media he is very media friendly and from what I’ve read about him, his track record speaks for itself.
    Joe Robinson

    Reply
  47. TonyTheProf

    Just as a matter of fact, Roman Catholics are forbidden to be freemasons, under penalty of excommunication, so that rules out Deputy Troy, Paul Le Claire, Terry Le Sueur, Len Norman, Paul Routier and Ben Shenton. That cuts out a lot of the Council of Ministers!

    Reply
  48. Stuart Syvret

    Tony

    I’m no expert in matters religious – but does this mean that on the one hand, being a freemason means excommunication for a Catholic. But, on the other hand – and this is just hypothetical, you understand, not aimed at anyone in particular – being a lying, greedy, self-interested, child-torturing, shallow materialist, peddler of corruption and concealer of child abuse is merely “regrettable” – and the kind of piffling matters easily discounted with a trip to the confessional and a few hail Mary’s?

    That’s most certainly the impression I get.

    Stuart.

    Reply
  49. TonyTheProf

    No, the days of the “Hail Mary” and confessional of the old days is gone, with the few priests around they’d be swamped. Nowadays – according to a Catholic Bishop I heard on Radio 4 – they are supposed to go ONCE A YEAR, and the old shopping list approach is gone.

    But of course, religious affiliation does not mean people cannot be total scoundrels, any more than having no religious beliefs can; moral corruption cuts across the religious divide. Although the element of hypocricy is more observable with religious people. As Kierkegaard put it so sharply: “Christ was not a smartly turned-out man who, in a smartly decorated church, preached to a smartly turned-out gathering that truth suffers—it was an actual fact that he was spat upon.”

    Reply
  50. Anonymous

    To the ‘I am not a mason’ poster.

    It is not so much the cosy business deals which arouses concern about the masons – you are quite correct that these deals are done between mates in pubs etc all the time. What causes the concern is when the power is used against people rather than for people.

    e.g. Mr A (a non-mason) has upset his neighbour Mr B (a mason) over some trivial private matter such as the size of his garden hedge or the way he parks his car.

    Mr A then applies for a loan for home improvements from his bank manager Mr C (a mason).

    Mr C ‘becomes aware’ of the bad neighbour issue and refuses a loan he would have otherwise authorised.

    I am not convinced that such behaviour does not happen.

    Reply
  51. Anonymous

    `Craft’? Sounds like something else does it not! And, you would not be wrong in thinking so!!

    Reply
  52. Stuart Syvret

    OBSERVATIONS ON THE SHARP REPORT

    In response to the above ‘take’ on the Sharp report as submitted by a reader.

    I’m afraid the general thrust of your analysis of the report is badly mistaken – on some plain and immutable grounds.

    I will not go into great detail in this response – as I am writing a dedicated commentary on the Sharp report – in which I will deal with all the issues you raise – and more besides.

    You provide a lengthy – yet anonymous – comment, and then say you do not want me to “dissect or deconstruct” your comments.

    Sorry – but if I’m allowing the posting of anonymous material – I’ll reserve the right to make whatever response I see fit.

    Look – you’re anonymous: you could be Baker, Le Breton, Hamon – any one of these clowns – for all I know. So yes – I will respond in due course.

    Just to deal briefly with the frankly irrelevant criticisms you make of me;

    My “ability to deal with a crises situation in a calm manner” is extremely good. You make your comment without knowing what I know – and without having had the experiences I have over the last 20 months.

    I would defy any empathetic human being to learn what I have learned, without getting angry. And likewise, the provocations and attacks made upon me would also have tried the patience of a saint.

    But in any event, your view of events is simply wrong.

    Go back – examine the chronology; look at which event unfolded when, and in what order.

    The eruption of the political controversy last year was no decision of mine, no wish of mine – and was not caused by me. The political row erupted because the civil servants I was exposing ran screaming to Frank & Co – who all thought, ‘goody – here’s a chance to get rid of Syvret.’

    So, largely driven by Philip Ozouf – in his favourite mode, pulling the levers of power whilst safely hidden away behind the throne – letting some mug be his dupe – the Council of Ministers caused the public crisis.

    And so inept, stupid – frankly unfathomably cretinous – were they – that they caused Jersey to become the first ever democratic jurisdiction on the face of the planet to sack a social-services Minister – for whistle-blowing.

    And just to round off, you refer to my entirely apt and well-deserved description of Baker as being a “turd”.

    Sorry to shatter your illusions concerning your heroes yet further – but I didn’t distribute that e-mail to all States members. It was a private, internal e-mail from me to – Philip Ozouf, Frank Walker and Bill Ogley.

    And moreover – it was authored and sent many months before any of the public controversy.

    How did it get “distributed” – and thus made public? Ozouf and Walker choose to put it in their report against me, which was duly published by the States Greffe.

    To conclude – in your comments you attempt to portray the people in the College abuse episode as – generally – just being bloody stupid. Yes – they are all that, certainly.

    But as I said at the head of this response – your ‘take’ on the situation is badly flawed.

    Very badly flawed – as I will explain in my detailed response.

    Stuart.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.