Senator Stuart Syvret Blog

THE PEASANTS REVOLT

2009-07-09T21:39:00.003+01:00

THE POWERLESS CHALLENGE POWER

The Weak and Vulnerable

Strike Back at the Heart of Darkness.

“It’s more than rain that falls on our parade today
It’s more than thunder, it’s more than thunder
And it’s more than a bad dream now that I’m sober
Nothing but woe-begotten grey skies now.”

‘More Than Rain’

Tom Waits.

Those typically bleak-to-the-point-of-being-funny words from a song by my favourite musician, Tom Waits, pulsed through my mind in the brief moments of silence in between our shouted protests - which – oh so “rudely” - crashed into one of the Jersey oligarchy’s great plastic pageants this morning.

With all the “politeness” of a savage beating from Al McGuire -

With all the “appropriateness” of a bottle of Dettol poured down a child’s throat by Jane McGuire -

With all the “discretion” of a right-hook to the head of a 14 year-old, administered by Tom McKeon -

With all the “confiscating” of innocence - as inflicted on vulnerable children by the States of Jersey for decades –

With all the “respectability” of a broken arm inflicted by Mario Lundy –

With all the “responsibility” of Francis Hamon, telling a headmaster – ‘whilst they play a game of squash’ - to ignore complaints of child abuse –

With all the “compassion” of Jurat John Le Breton – trying to intimidate child victims of abuse into withdrawing their complaints – by humiliating them in front of their parents –

With all the “decency” of the Dean, openly forbidding his clergy to offer support to abuse victims – and protecting an abusing church warden couple -

With all the “kindness” of a traditional Catholic battering from Mrs. Bonner -

With all the “consideration” of a deliberately detached glucose drip – with a bung inserted in the end -

The survivors struck-back.

Today Michael Birt – former Jersey Attorney General – was sworn-in as the replacement ‘Bailiff’ – the hopelessly conflicted post of head of judiciary, and speaker of the island’s parliament.

“Politeness – uber alles” – may as well be the motto of the Jersey oligarchy.

To quote John Bale, “Though it be a foul lie; set it a good face.”

No matter what wretched atrocities are committed - and tolerated – and pro-actively hidden - by Jersey’s “Great And Good” – it simply isn’t “The Jersey Way” to speak the truth about them.

So – no matter the betrayed children – the destroyed lives – the suicides – the human wreckage – the perversions of justice – the massed-ranks of Jersey’s “polite” gradually accreted upon the States building this morning - to engage in a orgiastic ceremony of Groupthink - by which they attempted to deflect reality by wearing fancy-dress – and parading to impress the peasants and the plebs.

About 15 of us gathered in the Royal Square to begin some small protest against both Birt as an individual, and against the stagnant and defective “justice” apparatus in Jersey. And as the “polite” gradually arrived the smugness was palpable. Many of the lawyers in particular openly laughed at the survivors as they filtered into the building.

But we proles well and truly rained on their parade.

Our protest was so strong – heartfelt – and loud – that it was audible throughout the building during their delusory exercise in self-congratulation.

But such vulgarity hasn’t – hitherto – happened in Jersey during these “great” events. The expected procedure is for the adoring masses to turn-out and tug their forelocks in deference to their social “superiors”.

The culture-shock was palpable.

Eventually – realising we weren’t going to go away – the assembled “dignitaries” – amongst their number, lawyers, politicians, judiciary, jurats, estate agents and journalists - blinking and wide-eyed with shock – exited the building in preparation for their parade to the Town Church – where they’d hear a sermon – to the effect of how wonderful they all were – and what a load of scummy rabble we were – from Bob Key.

And as this toxic amalgam spewed forth like some vast, advancing slime-mould I was struck by the sense we were witnessing a step-change – a tipping-point - in Jersey political culture.

I looked across the assembled faces and just couldn’t help noticing that so much of the hauteur, the contempt, the confidence, the sense of invulnerability as displayed as they entered the building - had drained away.

Though a number of them tried to put on a brave face – rictus grins – and embarrassed attempts to applaud Birt and his entourage – one got the strong impression that even these entrenched oligarchs may have finally – in the year 2009 – caught their first glimpses of advancing reality.

Our chanting, whistles, drumming on the bins – was more than thunder.

It was something more than rain which fell on their parade.

Though they’ll have been toasting one another with Champaign and wine all day – in an effort to blot-out our vulgar intrusion into their fantasies – it will be more than a bad dream when they’re sober.

Today – after more than eight hundred years of unopposed and abused power – the culture of deference was finally put to the sword.

As far as Jersey’s oligarchy are concerned – it is, metaphorically, “nothing but woe-begotten grey skies now.”

For the rest of us – it’s a bright new dawn.

Today – people who have been powerless, ignored, abused, regarded as irrelevant and betrayed by the States of Jersey – struck at the heart of the posturing plastic fakery of the island’s power-apparatus.

And did so with all the subtlety of a Lenny Harper memo – or the tact and diplomacy of a Stuart Syvret e-mail.

As a formerly powerless abuse survivor remarked to me at the end of the protest –

“God – that was good.”

Stuart.

WILLIAM BAILHACHE’S PROSECUTION SERVICE:

2009-07-08T15:51:00.004+01:00

KEEPING JERSEY’S OLIGARCHY SAFE.

Stuart Syvret to be Arrested and Charged

For Publishing the Truth.

Eleven Child Rapists and Batterers

To be let-off.

Just a very brief posting – and sadly it might be my last for some time – as I have just learnt that I’m required at Police Headquarters at 5.00 pm this afternoon where I will be arrested and charged with supposed breaches of the Data Protection Law.

I don’t know if I’ll receive unconditional bail – if not, they’ll keep in the slammer overnight – if not longer.

I’m going to try and get there around 4.50 to speak to some of the media if you feel like coming along to watch.

Just to place my supposed gross criminality in context – I’m going to be arrested and charged – one day after Bill Bailhache – Jersey’s Attorney General - announces – without apparent embarrassment – that 11 of the accused child rapists, child batterers and concealers of child abuse are not to be charged and the cases against them dropped.

And to think – some people still labour under the delusion that the administration of justice and proper rule of law actually works in Jersey.

Though, having said that – you just couldn’t pay for stupidity of this grade.

Ironically – as far as I’m aware – as the police have never given me formal notification of any change in circumstances – Bill Bailhache, Emma Martins, Bill Ogley – and a number of similar Jersey oligarchs, remain under criminal investigation for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misconduct in a public office.

Oh well – pretty handy I guess – being in charge of prosecution decisions – when you’re under investigation.

Right – now what I need are two States members who will go and have a private, secret meeting with Bill Bailhache – and ask him to drop the charges – and there you go!

Sorted.

I mean, if it’s good enough for Roy Boschat to get away with bribing cops - following Deputy Egre and Senator Ferguson going to ask Bailhache to let him off – then it’s good enough for me.

Remember – we’re all equal before the law!

Let me leave you with this observation, made by Harry S. Truman:

“My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse – or a politician. And to tell the truth – there’s hardly any difference.”

I’m just going outside now. I may be some time.

Stuart.

JERSEY ABUSE SURVIVORS BETRAYED

2009-07-05T20:15:00.001+01:00

AGAIN.

Historic Abuse Investigation

To be Ended.

Once Again the Survivors

Are the Last to Know.

Just a very, very brief posting – as my time has been – and will be – today consumed with speaking to Jersey abuse survivors – and trying to think of some positive words that can be said.

Said in the face of the stark, brutalising – yet inevitable fact that the Jersey oligarchy has done it once again.

Misused and abused their monopoly of power – in order to protect themselves – and betray the weak.

The historic abuse inquiry is to be formally announced as “over” – by Gradwell, Warcup and their puppet-master, Bill Bailhache.

Many victims of abuse – and many other people who have made formal complaints to the police – like me, for example – have not even had the vague courtesy of being kept-in-the-loop.

Survivors out there have been labouring under the delusion that the crimes committed against them were still under investigation – that the still living people who abused them – and those who concealed that abuse – were going to face justice.

Instead – as was easily gauged from the ethical and intellectual bankruptcy of Warcup and Gradwell – as evinced in their wholly unprecedented PR, spin-doctored press-conference – in which they did their best to trash all of the prior police work – they’ve decided that it can all be wrapped-up now.

These two men have plainly thrown aside whatever professional and intellectual credibility they may have once possessed – back in the distant, early years of their careers.

I doubt very much whatever paltry reward they’ve received – for becoming a part of the cover-up apparatus – approaches adequate compensation for having destroyed their souls – and reputations.

Because know this – the memory of this horrifying, decades-old history of foul and monstrous abuse – and the memory of those who contributed to the concealing of that abuse – is not going away; will never be hidden – will never be forgotten about.

So this is not the end.

On the contrary – we live in the 21st century – when those who were weak have now become strong.

The war simply moves into its next phase.

The abusers, those who have failed to prevent that abuse, those who have concealed that abuse, those who have contributed to the barbarism and criminality of the suppression of the truth – are going to be beaten.

Even those who have latterly joined them – like Mick and Dave.

This issue has not gone away.

It will never – ever – go away.

Those who have failed to do their duties in properly enforcing the law – and properly enforcing justice – know this.

Henceforth – you – each and everyone of you – will live the rest of your lives looking over your shoulders – for the approaching hand of justice.

One day – you will be in the dock – standing along side the child abusers you’ve supported and concealed.

It may take two – or five – or ten years – but this conspiracy by the powerful and wealthy against the week and vulnerable will be exposed – and it will be beaten.

There is no hiding place.

There is no rest.

Those who have participated in the betrayal of the survivors during the last two years – are now in the same team as child rapists, psychotic torturers, murderers and abusers.

One day – justice will catch up with you.

Stuart.

JUSTICE FOR JERSEY

2009-07-01T22:40:00.001+01:00

Access to real justice for everyone.

Time to let your voice be heard

A PUBLIC PROTEST
SATURDAY 4TH JULY
12.00 NOON
PEOPLES PARK

Have you ever been let down by Jersey lawyers?

Charged too much – for incompetent service?

Have you ever had to call upon legal aid - only to find the standard of representation provided to you abysmal?

Have you been the victim of a crime – only to find the standards of Jersey’s prosecution service hopeless?

Have you had to go to court in civil proceedings – and found the standard of the judging to be atrocious?

Do you feel you’ve been failed by the Family Division of Jersey’s courts?

Have you ever got the feeling that those who are “well-connected” have received favourable legal treatment?

Do you ever get the impression that the administration of justice in Jersey is contaminated by politics?

Do you believe that we should be protected by a genuinely objective and impartial judiciary – that has no unhealthy overlap with the States?

Do you believe that the people of Jersey should be able to access an effective and properly funded legal aid system?

Do you believe that the good administration of justice has to be a fundamental feature of any civilised society?

IF YOUR ANSWER TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ABOVE IS “YES” – THEN COME AND JOIN THE PUBLIC PROTEST

SATURDAY 4TH JULY
12.00 NOON
PEOPLE’S PARK.

Many people will have been dismayed at the failures of Jersey’s prosecution system and its courts to bring child abusers to face justice.

The well-connected – the wealthy – and the powerful seem to get away with their crimes - and their failures to do their duty in protecting children – whilst the victims of these terrible crimes are marginalised and ignored.

It was these considerations which originally motivated the organisers of this public protest movement.

But the more we have explored the issues – the clearer it has become to us that the entire administration of justice in Jersey is hopelessly defective – in many different ways.

It isn’t only abuse survivors who have been failed and betrayed by the Jersey judicial system; people from all walks of life have been let down – in many different ways - time and again.

So whilst initiated by child protection failures, the protest which will be taking place this Saturday will be expressing much broader concerns.

A cross-section of our community will be launching a campaign for genuine, affordable, objective and accessible justice – justice for all – not only the well-connected and the wealthy.

A Protest for Justice on Saturday 4th July 2009 had been planed on behalf of victims of child abuse - both past and present. This protest was in response to the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute former States employees against whom there is overwhelming evidence that they were responsible for child abuse.

The failure to prosecute has come as a great blow to the victims who will now never see justice. We cannot accept the Attorney General taking to himself the powers to be judge and jury – as well as prosecutor. We believe that it is in the public’s interest that the guilt or innocence of an accused person should be decided by an impartial court – not one person, such as the Attorney General, making the decision - behind closed doors - in his office.

But as we have learned more, spoken with other people, examined the issues in greater detail, and shared experiences – we have come to the conclusion that the administration of justice in Jersey – as presently structured and run – has far greater failings than those which are apparent in the child protection issues.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the entire administration of justice in Jersey is defective.

Which is why we have decided that the protest this Saturday will be the beginning of a campaign for the good, affordable and objective administration of justice in Jersey.

Justice for all.

We invite anyone who has personal experiences of the inadequacies of justice in Jersey – in whatever context – to join us this Saturday – where we will begin a campaign for the fair, affordable and impartial rule of law.

We will march to the Royal Square, where one of the protest organisers, Carrie Modral, will address the gathering.

Also saying a few words will be Senator Stuart Syvret – who fully supports our campaign.

SATURDAY, 4TH JULY
12.00 NOON.
PEOPLE’S PARK TO ROYAL SQUARE

PLEASE JOIN THE CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE.

CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT, 2009.

2009-06-25T18:00:00.002+01:00

JERSEY CHILD PROTECTION FAILURES:

NO ONE WANTS TO LOOK UNDER THE ROCK.

The Jersey Parliament;

Still Failing Vulnerable Children.

In case I hadn’t communicated this in a clear and uncryptic manner previously, fighting the child protection battle as I have during the last two years has been personally exhausting.

I say this, not because I’m looking for a medal – fighting for the proper protection of vulnerable children – and justice for the abused - is simply no more than one would expect of any decent person.

But after breaking the trail in this campaign for two years – in the teeth of rabid opposition and hostility from the Jersey oligarchy and their “friends at court at Whitehall” – I was hoping to have been able to hand over the baton a long time ago.

There is only so much that one person can do – especially when the “reward” for your efforts consists of such things as getting arrested and held in locked cells for seven hours whilst the police turn over your home – without a warrant – because you might have broken the data protection law when exposing wrongdoing.

Politically and personally, the costs of fighting this battle have been immense – not only for me, but for those close to me.

So every few months during the last two years I have looked for certain successes – certain events – certain stages at which I could step back from the front, confident that the correct actions would be taken, or that others would take up the fight.

My most recent great hope that the truth would be exposed, the lessons learnt – and the necessary changes be made – was in the States of Jersey’s formal Scrutiny system.

I should have known better – but I imagined that once a Scrutiny Panel – the Jersey parliament’s equivalent of a Select Committee – had been charged with the task of uncovering what really went wrong, I could relax a little; step back and let others take the issues forward.

Predictably – that was another vain hope.

The relevant Scrutiny Panel – Chaired by Senator Alan Breckon – quite remarkably didn’t actually want to formally scrutinise the States response to the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster. I had to argue in the Assembly for the issues to be referred to Scrutiny.

And so, frankly bizarre, was the reluctance to scrutinise the policies that even a majority of States members agreed with me and declined to debate the proposals until they’d been reviewed.

The response, methodology and attitude of the panel has been atrocious. Really – so inept and inadequate as to be stunning.

Hence the self-explanatory e-mail I reproduce below.

Today I wrote to all States members, and explained just why I – and others – couldn’t engage with this Scrutiny Panel.

The belligerent indifference exhibited by the Panel towards the task it is charged with undertaking cannot be regarded as anything other than a further manifestation – in the year 2009 – of the Culture of Concealment.

Often during the last two years many people have said to me, “Where are the other States members? What are the rest of Jersey’s politicians doing?”

In response, I have defended a minority of States members – saying, “well, some of them at least share our concerns; they’re on our side. It’s just that they prefer to approach the subject in a different way.”

In truth – I’ve said this more frequently in hope – rather than in experience.

As I contemplate the general response of Jersey’s politicians to the child protection disaster – I can only honestly say that there are four of us who have exhibited the appropriate commitment and genuine concern.

Two – who prefer to keep a low profile – but are actually taking the issues seriously.

And me and one other.

The other being Deputy Paul Le Claire, who has publicly fought for the interests of vulnerable children – and has, through his political pressure, achieved great advances for children in need of effective legal representation.

That’s four people – out of a total of 53.

Whither the other 49?

I just can’t answer that question.

But I can inform you just what I think of the performance of the relevant Scrutiny Panel – as you can see in my e-mail below.

Stuart.

From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 25 June 2009 10:48
To: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: Child Protection and the Failure of Scrutiny

Dear Colleague

I felt I should inform you that, sadly, I will be unable to contribute to the work of Senator Breckon's Scrutiny Panel in its examination of child protection matters. I will explain why this is so.

I was already troubled by the quite startling reluctance of Scrutiny to examine these issues, when the un-policied funding proposals were tabled for debate.

Nevertheless, the States had the wisdom to recognise that a subject this important required formal scrutiny. However, the reluctance of the panel to fully and enthusiastically engage with this task has remained all too evident.

Firstly, the woeful inadequacy of the panel's work is illustrated in the fact that so few witnesses have been examined; there are at time of writing, merely 10 headings described on the web site. Of those 10, only two - the NSPCC and the Jersey Care Leavers could be said to represent the interests of vulnerable children. A further exception could be made in respect of Professor Thoburn. That leaves 7 individuals/organisations which represent the edifice of the customary States/quasi-States interests in this subject.

This is not to say these individuals/organisations should not be interviewed; rather, it displays the utter inadequacy of the panel's work and methodology that the vast majority of evidence so far taken - has been from representatives of the very self-same apparatus which has so catastrophically failed.

It must also be pointed out that the quality and standard of the cross-examination, as is evident from the transcripts, is so inept as to be laughable in a tragic kind of way.

Notwithstanding the above observations, I have engaged in repeated e-mail correspondence with the panel in an attempt to be able to come before it and provide evidenced and informed testimony.

Sadly - all my efforts were a waste of time.

Though I could go into great detail - I will confine my observations to three factors.

1: My duty of care to survivors and other witnesses.

I am in close contact with a significant number of survivors and witnesses. Many of these people are those who have been repeatedly betrayed by the Jersey public administration apparatus again and again over the decades. Whilst the JCLA represent a small number of ex-residents, and a smaller number of actual survivors, the JCLA can, in no way, claim to be representative of a broad cross-section of potential witnesses.

That leaves us in a position where the vast majority of the most important and relevant witnesses have not been courted by the panel and have not been interviewed.

This is a ridiculous state of affairs. Tragic, in fact - to look at the panel's web site - and observe the absence of dozens of other interviews which should have taken place - and, instead see the great majority of the panel's interviewing time consumed with passively accepting a load of diversionary and vacuous guff - from the very people and organisations responsible for the catastrophic failures, and the concealment of those failures.

I have repeatedly asked my self this question: - "Should I be pro-actively suggesting to survivors or advising them that they should attend the panel and give testimony?"

I would very much have liked the answer to that question to be "yes".

However - in many of the most relevant cases we are dealing with people of all ages who have been repeatedly betrayed - time and again over the years - by Jersey's public administration. The States, the Police, the prosecution service, the courts - the list goes on.

And - yet again - the vast majority of them are now being betrayed again by those self-same forces - notwithstanding the deeply distressing trauma endured by many of them in revisiting - again - what happened to them when giving interviews to the police.

I have had to ask myself: - "Would it be ethical of me to guide and advise survivors to give evidence to the panel - knowing perfectly well that the panel has precisely zero interest in doing a proper job - and would merely leave the survivors traumatised yet further at yet another betrayal by the States?"

The answer to that question can only be "no".

2: Flat refusal of panel to obtain highly relevant evidence.

I have, on several occasions, advised the panel on the identity and whereabouts of a variety of key evidence; evidence which goes to the very heart of the systemic and cultural failure by Jersey's public administration to protect and nurture vulnerable children. Absolutely core evidence which would prove the toxic self-interest which pervades the higher management structures of Jersey's so-called child "protection" apparatus.

For reasons which are utterly mystifying - the panel simply refuse to even ask for that evidence.

Again - it is simply impossible to imagine the panel getting even close to adequately addressing its terms of reference in the absence of such evidence.

3: Threat of criminal investigation and breach of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.

I would have been prepared to run the risk of contributing to further harassments and criminal investigations against myself - and the consequent risk of prosecution - if I thought for one instant that some real benefit would be generated in terms of assisting the island's vulnerable children and making Jersey's public administration face its gross failures.

However - for the reasons described above - and others - I can have zero confidence in the work of the panel.

I cannot, therefore, perceive any benefit in me taking evidence before the panel - or giving personal testimony to it - knowing that I would be running the risk of providing further alleged evidence and grounds for the pursuit of criminal investigations and potential prosecutions against me. I have questioned this matter with the Attorney General, because the relevant laws on testimony and protection of witnesses seemed far from clear.

I quote a part of the Attorney General's answer here:

"But my starting point in relation to prosecution would be the same, namely that anything you say to the Scrutiny Panel would not be used in any criminal proceedings brought against you other than as an inconsistent statement where that was relevant, though it might also be used for the purposes of gaining other evidence; and no criminal prosecution, based on other evidence, would be prevented just because your evidence to the Panel happens to go into that territory." [Emphasis added.]

It can be seen from this answer that I could possibly be running the risk of contributing to the 'gaining of other evidence' against me, and possibly being prosecuted even though the 'work of the panel was going into such territory'.

The territory in question - for clarity - are the alleged breaches of the Data Protection Law, for which I was arrested, detained in locked cells for the best part of 7 hours, and subjected to a "fishing expedition" type search - undertaken without a warrant.

The fact remains - and States members would be well-advised to reflect upon this - that very substantial quantities of the evidence brought to my attention and obtained by me has had to be provided - and obtained - outside of formal procedures.

The reason for this is - I would have thought - extremely obvious. Namely that much of this information and data - evidence of gross failings, malfeasances and even criminal acts by various parts of Jersey's public administration - is the very type of material which has been deliberately concealed from politicians and public over the decades.

Concealed quite deliberately - in order to protect those responsible for the failings, concealments and crimes.

I repeat - I have to ask myself the question - why should I make the sacrifice of being subjected to yet further oppressions by the Law Officers' Department and others, by revealing evidence to the panel - when the work of the panel is - manifestly - useless and absurd?

I must also make the point that the threat of criminal investigations and prosecutions against me - I consider to be an unambiguous breach of Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.

The surveillance, arrest, detention and searching I have been subject to have all arisen out of my attempts to do my political duty; namely hold the government - the executive - to account by exposing malfeasances and inadequacies in the system. This is entirely legitimate work for a politician - indeed, even a duty. In much the same way as the Conservative MP Damien Green was doing his duty - yet was obstructed and oppressed for doing his job.

The actions of the Attorney General, the Data Protection Commissioner and the States of Jersey Police have all conspired to obstruct and prevent me from doing my political duty. I have been - and remain - under threat of obstruction, compulsion and menace - in direct contravention of Article 47 of the SoJ Law. Such compulsion and menace is influencing me in my ability to give testimony to the panel.

But - given this panel - not that much use would come of it, even if I did give such evidence.

The panel have, incidentally, also refused to call the Attorney General and cross-examine him on these issues. Again - another startling and bizarre reluctance - given the profound and broad implications for the effectiveness of Scrutiny generally.

Conclusion.

I intend - in spite of the panel - to do all I can to contribute to the genuine advancement of the interests of vulnerable children in Jersey, and the necessary addressing of the gross malfeasances of our public administration. I will do this through several different avenues - one of which will be to bring before the assembly for debate a detailed analysis and set of proposals for the genuine and effective protection of the island's vulnerable children.

As far as Senator Breckon and his panel are concerned - as already communicated to him - I would bring a vote of no confidence against him without further prevarication - if I thought the exercise would be a productive use of time. Instead, I shall concentrate on my work with survivors and in the generation of meaningful proposals for improvements in the system.

I will simply confine myself to asking Senator Breckon to resign.

He and his panel are manifestly disinterested, disinclined and simply unable to do the necessary work.

I explain the above, so that members understand fully why I - and a number of other key witnesses - cannot and will not engage with this panel.

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey

BILL OGLEY

2009-06-23T13:55:00.001+01:00

THE “SECOND INDIVIDUAL”

BEHIND THE “OPERATION BLAST” FILES;

Secret Police Reports on Politicians

And Members of the Public.

So – I can now confirm that the “second individual” behind the “Operation Blast” secret files on Jersey politicians is – Bill Ogley.

The Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers and the island’s senior civil servant.

Following the revelation of the existence of these secret files, Graham Power wrote a memorandum to the Home Affairs Minister explaining why the files existed – and who had asked for their compilation.

He said that there were two individuals expressly behind the request for the files to be compiled – former Senator and Chief Minister, Frank Walker.

And Bill Ogley.

Ogley – knowing that this information effectively terminates his career – has taken desperate and futile steps to keep his identity secret. This has even included threatening the JEP with injunctions and legal action if they named him.

Well, I said it was a plainly doomed attempt on the part of the “second individual” to keep their identity secret.

And sure enough – thanks to the Quite Vile Blog – Jersey people can now know that the man we pay £250,000 a year - as a – supposedly – non-political head of the civil service is, in fact, more akin to something from the old East German Stasi.

As I said – this is, effectively, the end of his career. How can we have a head of the civil service who is politicised and demands that secret files are kept on all politicians and certain members of the public?

And it is not as though the Operation Blast exercise is his only failing.

The man is an extremely well-documented liar – as I will demonstrate with some powerful evidence in a later posting.

He is incompetent, unethical – and in classic Jersey civil service fashion – always puts the support and protection of his senior civil service colleagues over and above the public interest. No matter how grossly incompetent, dishonest and unethical they are – he supports them through thick and thin.

To the profound detriment of the public good.

And to those who might be tempted to think senior civil servants wanting to keep intelligence files on all your politicians is no big deal – just remember – Britain hasn’t fought consistently and steadfastly to be a free and democratic society only to have unelected functionaries effectively usurping your democratic power and undermining your democratically chosen representatives.

And – let us not forget, the Operation Blast files are not confined solely to your politicians – they might well have a Blast file on you.

Ogley must go now.

And, frankly – it will be a case of good riddance.

I shall write in more detail about this subject later this week.

Stuart.

IS THE MONSTER DEAD?

2009-06-21T21:21:00.000+01:00

DID STATES OF JERSEY APPROVED

CHILD RAPIST AND TORTURER

AL MCGUIRE DIE RECENTLY?

A rumour reaches me to the effect that “Big Al” McGuire died at some point during the last two weeks.

I have broken this news to survivors – who will now try and get the Jersey cops to confirm or deny the story.

This will, of course, require the cops to actually do some work – as they’re most unlikely to have had him under surveillance. Let’s face it – it took BBC Panorama to track him and his disgusting, psychotic monster of a wife down last time.

But – I have to say – I could only be confident in the accuracy of the story once officially confirmed. I don’t doubt the honesty of my sources – but I just can’t stop myself from thinking ‘wouldn’t it be terribly “convenient” all round – if he “died” just now?’

It’s feasible that that his “death” could just be a lie that is being fed to unsuspecting people, who are then contacting me in good faith.

Let us remember – when he and his wife were on trial in 1998 – he collapsed in court with – allegedly – terminal bladder cancer, claiming then to have 6 months left to live.

That was a complete lie.

A lie that the Jersey oligarchy – in the person of Michael Birt – gratefully seized upon as part of the excuse for corruptly abandoning the prosecution.

And – quite “remarkably” – McGuire wasn’t actually independently tested to see if his “illness” was genuine.

I mean, why should the prosecution bother with such mere details – when they’re as desperate for the trial not to go ahead as he is?

So – here we are again – but this time it is – allegedly – death.

As I said – whilst I’ve no doubt my sources are sincere – it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the story of this States of Jersey approved and protected maniac having met his end were just another fiction – another example of the Culture of Concealment.

Sorry if that seems paranoid – but in truth – it is no stranger than many other examples of “The Jersey Way” we have had to become familiar with.

The McGuires were big time Jersey Catholics – and thus had a good deal of protection and support from the island’s Catholic establishment – which goes some way to explaining how they were able to get away with their foul and monstrous crimes.

If he is dead – he has escaped human justice. But – let us console ourselves with the thought that if his religious beliefs are well-founded – and there is a God – McGuire will have now begun a very much deserved eternity - burning in hell.

Stuart.

THE ASCENT TO JUSTICE.

2009-06-18T23:51:00.001+01:00

A Long Climb Begins.

In my youth, I used to climb mountains. Admittedly, it’s been some years since I awoke at 1.00 am – and meticulously armoured myself with the appropriate layers of clothing, plastic boots, crampons and equipment, grasped the ice-axes, switched on the head-torch – and set out into the minus 20 degrees darkness with a view to summiting in time for the sunrise.

I do want to take up climbing again. As I wrote in a blog post last year – it seems the ideal mid-life crises activity.

Well, it was either that - or acquiring a 170 horsepower motorcycle.

But the more hideous scars that pock-mark my body like a kind of memory made flesh, come from impacting against cars and various bits of street furniture at – err – possibly unlawful speeds. My lower left leg looks like someone’s taken a shotgun to it.

So, as attractive as the thought is – of getting something like a Triumph Speed-Triple – and doing two-mile wheelies along Victoria Avenue whilst listening to Motorcycle Emptiness on the iPod – I think avalanches, hypothermia and getting struck by lightning are probably the safer options.

Not to mention, of course, the fact I could do without yet more attentions from my law enforcement friends. Not that I’m advocating irresponsible road activity, you understand – it’s just that large, powerful motorcycles can inadvertently get out of control.

And, getting back into climbing has another profound advantage – in that it would require me to get fit - lose a stack of weight, build up my stamina and attempt to regain some upper-body strength.

Climbing is a bit like boxing in that respect – the more intensely you do it, and the fitter you get – the closer one comes to getting acquainted with death.

There’s also a great advantage to Jersey tax-payers in that my proposed mid-life crisis won’t be claimable on expenses – unlike Pollard’s guitar lessons.

But – back to mundane reality – I’m overweight, unfit, broke - and my time is totally consumed by having to fight several wars on various fronts.

Yet in today’s battles I can draw strength from my experiences with mountains – remembering the absolute focus and determination required. So whilst being a politician for the time being has reduced me to physical wreckage – I can embrace my present wars as a metaphor – a virtual mountain ascent – requiring the same commitment.

So – today, after the inevitable inertia – the oligarchy began their attempted prosecution of me. Metaphorically, for me – the first step on my bid for the summit.

Will I get there? Won’t I make it, and have to retreat? Shall I metaphorically ‘perish’ in the attempt?

I just don’t know. But like making an attempt on a mountain – I’m going to try, regardless.

What passes for a prosecution system in Jersey has determined that they need to cast aside and abandon such cases as those against child rapists – and those who have criminally concealed such foulness – and, instead must devote their time and resources to pursuing the really monstrous threats to society.

Like me – for allegedly forgetting to renew my driving licence and not registering a change of address.

Well – we’re all equal before the law. I, therefore, want to secure for myself the same rights as all people in Western Europe enjoy – particularly the right to a fair trial.

So that is the distant peak which I seek. One can occasionally capture a distant glimpse of it – beneath a lowering wretched sky - in brief moments when the clouds part. It is many miles away - with foot-hills, moraine, glaciers, bergschrunds, avalanche-zones and formidable rock-faces standing between my first step – and that distant summit.

A fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Regular readers of this blog will recognise just what a desperate landscape stands between here and that established right.

Some people may wonder why I’m mounting such resistance in respect of what are, comparatively trivial alleged offences?

Because unless someone takes a stand against the manifestly incompetent, politicised farrago that is the administration of “justice” in Jersey – serious injustices will continue to be inflicted on other people.

I recently wrote about a young constituent of mine – a victim of institutionalised child abuse – torture, basically – at the hands of the States of Jersey.

He got sentenced to 3 years for dealing a bit of ecstasy.

The same judge – two weeks later – sentenced a well-connected local businessman to 270 hours community service - for conspiracy to import over £20,000 worth of cocaine.

That’s 270 hours community service – as opposed to the sentence the Crown was seeking – of 10 years in jail.

Another, more recent example of the ministrations of Jersey’s courts is to be seen in the sentencing of the JDA 2. These two non-oligarchy States members got prosecuted – for such heinous offences as helping a disabled British ex-serviceman to apply for a postal vote.

The sentence? A total of £12,000 in fines.

£12,000.

Those are just a few of the, frankly barking mad, extremist, politicisations, biases and incompetencies of Jersey’s banana-republic style judicial apparatus.

I don’t believe such a festering and invulnerable system can remain unchallenged if we want genuine, objective and impartial justice - applied equally to all – regardless of social standing or political views.

The Jersey oligarchy – having decided they want to rub my face in it – maximally persecute me for the heinous alleged crime of forgetting to renew my driving licence – have presented me with all the opportunity I needed to challenge the stagnant and festering shambles that passes for the administration of justice in Jersey.

That challenge began today with the first court appearance.

I won’t go into great detail in this posting – as I’ll keep you informed at each stage of the process – a long process, undoubtedly.

Suffice it to say that my first pleading to the court today was a recusal application. This is when a party to a court action argues that the judge, or some other component of the judicial apparatus involved in the case, is either actually biased – or runs the risk of appearing to be biased. In that case – the applicant asks that they ‘recuse’ themselves and step down.

Naturally – my recusal application was rejected – and equally naturally – I’m appealing that decision.

There was one amusing moment in the exchanges – when the magistrate in question – one Bridget Shaw - asked me to agree that I wasn’t objecting to her as an individual – rather my objection was to the Jersey court as an entity?

I replied that, actually, as it happened, yes – I was objecting to her personally, as well as generally objecting to the Jersey apparatus.

It just so happened that one of the items of evidence I had in support of my recusal application was one of Phil Bailhache’s many Political speeches.

Can we guess which one?

It was a Political speech he gave on the 30th June 2008 – in court – at the swearing-in of a new magistrate.

This is an extract of what he said on that occasion – and which I quoted in court today:

“You take up your post at a time when the judiciary and those in public office in the Island are, for better or for worse, under greater scrutiny than has been the case for some time. No-one can object, of course, to holding individual members of the judiciary to account for their judicial conduct or indeed for their conduct outside the court room. Indeed you have become, by virtue of your office, a member of the Jersey Judicial Association which last year adopted a Code of Ethics and Conduct setting out quite clearly what is expected of judges and magistrates in this Island. But wholesale attacks upon the judiciary and suggestions that they are collectively incapable of dealing with any outcomes of the current child abuse inquiry are ignorant and unwelcome, and I deplore them. Senior politicians, should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda.”

Now – can we guess just who is the “deplorable senior politician” – who has had the temerity to make, supposedly, “ignorant and unwelcome” criticisms of Jersey’s judiciary?

That’s right – me.

Can we now guess which magistrate was being sworn-in on this occasion – and being subjected to this contaminating Political assertion from her boss?

This just isn’t difficult – is it?

Bridget Shaw.

At the conclusion of my recusal application, she adjourned for around 15 minutes to consider the pleading – and insisted on taking my human rights law-book with her.

Don’t the courts and the judges have these things readily available as a matter of course?

The fact she had to take the work on the relevant authorities from the defendant before being able to make her judgment would hardly lead one to feel imbued with confidence in the administration of justice in Jersey – even if one didn’t regard it with contempt already.

As I said – I’m appealing her refusal to recuse.

And when I come before the higher court – I’ll be making exactly the same recusal application in respect of them.

And when that application is rejected – again, a recusal application will be made before the court of appeal; a court appointed by – Phil Bailhache.

On and on – towards that metaphorical summit – the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.

It is a long, strenuous and challenging route – but as with trying to climb a mountain – the metaphysical and existential journey is a reward in itself.

I’ll keep you up-dated.

Stuart.

AND SO IT CAME TO PASS.

2009-06-10T22:30:00.002+01:00

JERSEY “JUSTICE” FAILS THE CHILDREN -

AS PREDICTED -

BEFORE WE WERE EVEN AWARE OF THE COVERT POLICE INVESTIGATION.

In a moment of exhausted trawling through my mass of records, files, e-mails and other information – I came upon the e-mail I reproduce below.

It was, of necessity, a long e-mail.

I wrote it on the 15th November 2007 – over a month after I had been given the bullet as Health & Social Services Minister – and – before I and the people I was working with were aware of the covert police investigation into historical abuse.

I wrote the e-mail with two things in mind, back then.

Firstly - that there would – inevitably and unavoidably – be a need for police investigations; decisions on prosecutions; and court-cases – both criminal and civil.

Secondly – that the Jersey police force, prosecution system and judiciary would betray the survivors – just as that apparatus had – so many times before – if left to its own devices.

Which is why I wrote the e-mail below to the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force; to the Attorney General; to the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff; and to the Magistrates.

By that date – 15th November, 2007 – I had discovered and learnt enough about the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster to realise that we had a catastrophe on our hands.

Well, actually, I had come to that conclusion some months earlier - in April or May 2007. Which is why I was covertly working with survivors and whistle-blowers throughout most of the year, in an effort to compile a substantial dossier of evidenced cases to thrust upon the States of Jersey Police Force.

Why was it necessary to assemble the evidence to give in substantive form to the police?

Because, as will be plain from the e-mail below – I had every good reason to have recognised the Jersey police force to have been a substantial part of the problem – over the decades.

But – and please note this crucial point – survivors and I were making that assessment based on the traditional, past “performance” of the Jersey police – the incompetence, the bias, the politicisation, the cronyism, the concealment of crimes – indeed, the out-and-out corruption routinely exhibited by the force over a sustained period of decades.

However – we failed to take into account the professionalism, integrity, ethics and honesty of the then leadership of the Jersey police.

Graham Power and Lenny Harper.

Both tough, straight, no-nonsense cops of the highest calibre.

So – when reading the e-mail below, please discount my criticisms of the police force – at least in the context of when it was led by Lenny and Graham.

Indeed – the only single one of the people I addressed the e-mail to – from whom I received a professional and civilised response – was Graham Power – who replied the very next day.

It was a day or so later that I was asked to attend the police station – though no reason was given. I went with resignation – imagining the oligarchy were trying to stitch me up with some fabricated nonsense.

Instead Lenny Harper and another senior officer spent around two hours explaining to me the covert investigation they were undertaking into all the concealed child abuses of the past.

I can’t really describe how I felt at that moment – the best I can do is say it was as though a mountain had suddenly been lifted from my shoulders.

Suddenly – ten months of nightmare and disgusting political warfare upon the survivors and me seemed to end.

No longer were we alone – no longer were we facing years of struggle to expose the truth. Now – we actually had a straight and decent police force on our side.

But, as true as that was at that moment – we all know what happened – in the end.

The investigation was obstructed at every turn by the Jersey oligarchy; baseless smear-campaigns were mounted against Lenny; eventually they even – with brazen illegality – suspended Graham Power.

Oh how our hopes have been dashed.

Despite the best efforts of highly dedicated, tough, straight cops like Lenny & Graham – the decadence, immorality, corruption, concealment and self-interest of the Jersey oligarchy wins – again.

Forgive the length of this post, but the e-mail below is an important document in this wretched history.

I desperately wish it wasn’t so – but sadly every concern I expressed on the 15th November 2007 has come to pass.

And worse: - Birt is Bailiff – Bill Bailhache is Deputy Bailiff – and so the whole, wretched, self-perpetuating cess-pit of turpitude and failure continues.

The tragedy for this community is that the dangers were all so easily predicted – before we even knew of the covert police inquiry.

Stuart.

From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 15 November 2007 20:18
To: Graham Power; William Bailhache; Bailiff of Jersey; Michael Birt; Ian Le Marquand; Ian Christmas
Cc: [Cc’d names excised.]

Subject: The Rule of Law & Child Protection in Jersey

Gentlemen

I write concerning the present examinations of the standards and performance of Jersey's child welfare and protection apparatus. I am including the Lieutenant Governor as a recipient to this e-mail, given the UK government's ultimate responsibility for the rule of law, the administration of justice and of good government in Jersey.

Although this e-mail is, of necessity, long, all I require from each addressee is a simple yes or no answer to the questions I ask at the end of this text.

Earlier this year, I began to become more and more dissatisfied with the performance of child welfare and protection services. I first made these concerns public in an oral answer in the assembly to a question from Deputy Judy Martin. Following this, and various concerns I was raising within the department, various civil servants, who understood perfectly well their inadequacy, set about engineering my removal from office.

However, since early summer up to the present, I have been researching the various issues in great depth. This has included speaking to very substantial numbers of people, including teenagers, young adults, parents, older people and front-line staff. This work is continuing - and looks as though it will continue for some time, such is the nature of the material.

This brings me to my point in writing to you.

I have no doubt whatsoever - and this is a view shared by experts from the UK who are advising me - that a variety of criminal offences against children have been committed, over a sustained period of time, by the States of Jersey through its various departments, and the Crown, through the Courts. Moreover, I am increasingly of the view that not only are we considering a variety of unlawful practices, conduct and policies of the state, but also prima facie criminal offences committed by individuals employed by the States.

The scope and scale of the offences clearly involves every arm of the state; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. I will explain why this is obviously so in more detail below. But in essence, the situation is this: all three arms of the state are deeply and inescapably conflicted in these matters. This would not be the case in a large nation-state, but in a very small self-governing jurisdiction such as Jersey, the conflicts of interest are boundless, obvious and inescapable.

Personally, I find it very difficult to imagine how some criminal investigations and prosecutions could not now take place. And in the interests of possible victims, in the interests of the good administration of justice, and in the interests of Jersey's reputation - any arising criminal investigations, prosecutions and trials cannot now be carried out by the relevant local agencies.

The Police Force is conflicted, what passes for a prosecutory service in Jersey is conflicted, and the judiciary are conflicted. These conflicts exist for both specific reasons, and also for certain general principles.

I do not believe the island has any choice other than to commission a specialist team of police officers from an unconnected force in the UK to investigate any and all complaints; no choice other than to invite the Department for Constitutional Affairs to assign a suitably qualified person to act as Crown Prosecution Agent; and no choice other than to invite the DCA to assign a Judge or Judges to hear any trial.

1: The Conflictedness of the Police.

During interviews with teenagers, young adults and their parents, it is alleged that various assaults, unlawful conduct and abuses of children under both the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 have been committed by the police on various occasions.

The police force appears to have not comprehended the fact that the legal requirements to protect, and safeguard the welfare of children does not cease to exist merely because the child in question has committed an offence. This, it would appear, has led to the fairly regular use of excessive force against unruly, drunken or abusive children. I have had reports of worse; of incidents which appear to be little more than violent assaults. To refer to just one victim as an example: arresting a drunken and abusive girl in the police station foyer by the method of dragging her across the floor by her hair. The same child on another occasion was arrested for drunkenness and was actually lifted off the floor by a male officer by the handcuffs around her wrists. The same girl was also re-arrested when due for release from Greenfields after 2 weeks on remand - and held for another 4 weeks in an attempt by officers to make her confess to a breaking and entering offence they needed to clear up. Whilst in the custody of the police, the police have "parental responsibility", as defined by law, for any child so held. I have had several accounts of this legal obligation not being met. To take just the female referred to above, on one occasion she was held in a police cell overnight, locked in despite her heavy state of intoxication, the cell call-buzzer was switched off, she was unable to call for water, her mother was not permitted to see her when she came to the station, no female officer dealt with her, her period began in the night and she had no sanitary product available to her. When she was eventually released to her mother in the morning, she was severely dehydrated, ill, exhausted and covered in blood from her period. It should also be pointed out that people in a heavily intoxicated state can die if left unattended, usually through such mechanisms as choking on vomit. That this didn’t occur in this case is more down to luck than judgement.

This is but one example. There appears to be a cultural view that the unlawful maltreatment of children somehow becomes acceptable if they have committed an offence. So widespread and so persistent does this culture appear to be, that it is, frankly, impossible to imagine the States of Jersey Police Force carrying out an acceptably objective wide-ranging enquiry into its own long-term conduct.

2: The Conflictedness of the Prosecutory Service.

In Jersey, decisions whether to prosecute are ultimately made under the authority of either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. As has already been accepted by her and the Attorney General, the Solicitor General is conflicted as she has also been the legal adviser to the Children's Service for many years.

As far as the Attorney General is concerned, some time ago when I was Minister for Health & Social Services I sought from him (I still have the correspondence) the full police report and its six appendices into the abuse scandal at Victoria College. My reason for needing this information was that I was examining what went wrong in that case, whether the then current law was defective, how it compared to our present Children Law – and whether what we were doing today – in the light of the Bichard Report – was adequate. It proved immensely difficult for me to obtain anything from the Attorney General. After much persuasion he eventually sent me a version of the police report – with no appendices – but the version was so redacted as to be utterly useless. Indeed, it contained far less information than that contained in the Sharp report – which he knew I possessed already. I was not, therefore, properly able to consider this key material with a view to ascertaining what went wrong and why only one prosecution was mounted. The Attorney General's actions in behaving in this way actively obstructed me in my lawful work under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in that I was not able to carry forward my investigation into improvements in child protection, and the relevant legislation. This obstruction of the lawful duties of the Minister for Health & Social Services, as defined in the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, may well have been unlawful.

In any event, it certainly matches a pattern of "political" decisions made by both the present Attorney General and his predecessor. The present Attorney General is noted for his "political" interventions. For example, his recent political interference with the work of a Scrutiny Panel in respect of the lawfulness - or otherwise - of the present prosecution and trial procedures engaged in by the honorary police and the Magistrates Court. It appears likely that the present procedures are not human rights compliant - or rather were not human rights compliant, given the Attorney General's very recent instruction to change procedures. Were it to be found that the procedures were not human rights compliant, the implications for the reputation of Jersey and of its ability to properly pursue the rule of law would be severe indeed. It could, for example, lead to many people - perhaps hundreds from over the decades - seeking to have their conviction at the Magistrates Court overturned on the grounds that their right to a fair hearing was compromised. The Attorney General has even been publicly quoted as saying that the disclosure of the Cooper opinion "would not be in the public interest" - a political comment if ever there was one.

It is also the case that, having repeatedly exhibited such concerns for the public image of the States of Jersey, the Attorney General could hardly be relied upon to set aside such political considerations and instead view his prosecutory duties entirely impartially in the present controversy. Quite obviously, the reputational fall-out for the island's oligarchy from any widespread prosecution of States departments and of individuals employed by the States would be very considerable and very serious.

It is entirely feasible that many of those children, many of whom are now young adults, who have been convicted of offences will now seek to have their convictions considered unsafe given the human rights issues arising out of the somewhat bizarre prosecution arrangements, and for other reasons too.

The Law Officers in general are also conflicted for this reason. As well as providing a prosecutory service, they also routinely act as legal advisers to both the island’s parliament and the various executive departments. Whilst this of itself is clearly unsustainable, what is the proverbial 'man on the Clapham omnibus' supposed to make of the likelihood of these senior establishment figures - actually prosecuting the very departments and executive they routinely give legal advice to? No reasonable person could see them as meeting a reasonable test of objectivity.

A further - and in some ways even more insurmountable conflict - is this. It is plain that many States departments have - for very many years - been breaking various laws in respect of the care, protection and welfare of children. Obviously and inescapably so. Therefore one of the most pressing and obvious questions is this: ‘why has neither the Attorney General or the Solicitor General ever correctly advised the relevant departments that their practices were unlawful? Why have no departments been prosecuted?’ It is plain that much - perhaps even a great deal of - the culpability for the States of Jersey engaging for decades in policies which were unlawful lays with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

Therefore, for the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to undertake any widespread prosecution of States departments would be to effectively put themselves on trial as well. Possibly as defendants; certainly reputationaly. Not a sustainable or credible situation.

We also have to consider the long-term record of the Office. The previous Attorney General - now Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt - in fact exhibited all of the politicised and conflicted behaviour I describe above. As is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice Principle, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. Just as should the Principle. Just as should Francis Hamon, a Governor of the school at the time and a person who went on to become Deputy Bailiff. Just as, of course, should Piers Baker, the man who thinks paedophilia is "teachers perks". Whilst a strong case could be made for the prosecution of Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker for attempting to obstruct the course of Justice, the relevant Law, prima facie breached, was the then current Children (Jersey) Law 1969.

I quote Article 9 here:

9 Cruelty to children under 16

(1) If any person who has attained the age of 16 years and has the custody, charge or care of any child under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes him or her, or causes or procures or permits him or her to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him or her unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, limb, or organ of the body, and mental derangement), he or she shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Le Breton, Hamon, Hydes and Baker should have been prosecuted for breaking this part of the Law. Unambiguously so. At best, all four of these creatures ‘caused’ or ‘permitted’ the children to be ‘assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause him or her unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.

No such prosecutions took place. It is plain that Michael Birt placed the "reputational" considerations of the Jersey Establishment above the proper protection of children - and above the rule of law.

But this was not the only example of political considerations overriding the rule of law. When Attorney General, Michael Birt also abandoned a prosecution for very serious offences.

The case I refer to was the prosecution of Mrs Jane Marie Maguire and Mr Alan William Maguire. The Act of Court records that the prosecution was abandoned on the 20th November 1998.

"Her Majesty’s Attorney General declared that he abandoned the prosecution against Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support it.
The Court therefore discharged the said Alan William Maguire and Jane Marie Maguire from the prosecution and, by virtue of Article 2(1)(c) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law, 1961, ordered the payment out of public funds of the costs of the defence".

The Maguires were routinely beating, abusing through grotesque punishments, neglecting and treating with great cruelty many of the children that passed through the “group home” they ran at the time for the Education Committee, which body had responsibility for child “protection” at the relevant time (1980s to mid-1990s).

When I was Minister for H & SS, just one of the many issues I had recently had drawn to my attention by whistle-blowers was the case of the Maguires. I requested access to the relevant files. I read the two very substantial lever arch files and one smaller ring-binder file. The evidence contained in these files seemed absolutely compelling. Many witness statements, affidavits of victims, statements from other members of staff, an “internal” report from 1990 by Social Services, which concluded that the actions complained of were happening (though the “performance” of Social Services in this matter is another question entirely) and, essentially a catalogue of utter savagery against the children.

Yet Michael Birt concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to continue the prosecution. The evidence described many children being routinely – over a period of years – beaten with fists, implements and other items which were used as weapons against them. They were frequently made to eat soap. They were made to drink Dettol. One child had his head smashed violently against a bunk bed frame. One of the part-time support staff witnessed Mr Maguire throw a child a distance of about 7 feet across a room to impact against the wall because the child was not tidying up to Maguire’s satisfaction. Psychological and emotional cruelty and abuse were routine. A female child resident was sexually abused by Mr Maguire.

Most of these offences were evidenced, and witnessed by former victims and junior staff members – and yet the then Attorney General claims to have had “insufficient evidence” to mount a prosecution?

It just won't wash, I'm afraid.

Clearly - to have prosecuted the Maguires would have been to expose to outrage and contempt a States of Jersey department for permitting the abuse to continue for a decade, and to have acted unlawfully in not informing the police the instant the abuse came to the department's attention. Further, the department would have been viewed with even greater contempt and disgust by the public when it became known that Mrs Maguire was kept in employment by the department for some years afterwards - working in the Child Development Centre! It would, of course, also have meant exposing to contempt and disgrace that Establishment icon, Iris Le Feuvre, then President of the relevant Committee who happily went along with all this in 1990 and, moreover, wrote a quite sickening letter of "thanks" to the Maguires.

It is plain that the failure to see through the prosecution in this case represents a complete breakdown in the rule of law. An abandonment of justice in order to protect the "reputation" - such as it is - of the Jersey Establishment. The victims of the Maguires were denied justice.

In case you do not remember the relevant documents, I attach to this e-mail copies of the Sharp Report into the Victoria College abuse scandal, the 1999 H & SS report into the Maguire case, and the associated letter from Iris Le Feuvre.

I'm afraid the facts make it plain that the people of this island of Jersey cannot rely upon this prosecutory service delivering the expected protections normally afforded by the rule of law. At least not when the reputation of the Jersey Establishment is at risk.

There can be no possibility of the necessary test of the appearance of objectivity being met by the Jersey prosecutory service in respect of any possible prosecutions arising out of these grotesque failures by the States in child welfare and protection cases. We must invite the DCA to appoint a special prosecutor who has no association with the island.

3: The Conflictedness of the Judiciary.

It is not even remotely possible to conclude that the Jersey judiciary could realistically be involved in hearing, and adjudicating upon, any case arising out of these child welfare and protection issues.

It is, for example, plain that the Jersey Magistrates Court has been acting unlawfully for many, many years in its approach to imprisoning children; using remand, as a de facto sentencing device, failing to deliver the requisite 'fair hearing' as required by the ECHR - and, perhaps most seriously, actually assigning and prescribing the type of accommodation which remanded or sentenced children would be held in. For example, specifying they be held in a cell at Les Chenes or Greenfields, as opposed to a bedroom. This was through the device of designating the child as a "Status 1" or a "Status 2" prisoner. Status 2, being those who were allowed to mingle with other child inmates - and Status 1 being the isolation regime, which included very substantial amounts of punitive and coercive solitary confinement. Solitary confinement when used in this way is classified as torture by international convention, it is deeply harmful and damaging to children, it is unlawful. To treat children in this way has been for the Courts and the States of Jersey to be committing straightforward criminal offences against children. This is institutionalised abuse.

The Status 1 cells - quite contrary to the impression the Minister for Education sought to portray - until recent times had unpainted cement walls with no furnishings. The bedding consisted of a school gymnasium-type crash-mat on the floor. Even this would be removed during the daytime. One of the cells, cell 4, did not even have an eye-level window, but merely a high, inaccessible skylight.

As explained above in the context of the prosecutory conflicts, the facts show that the Deputy Bailiff , when Attorney General, has - on more than one occasion - demonstrated himself to attach far greater importance to protecting the image of the island's oligarchy, over and above the rule of law and the protection of children. Indeed, it is entirely feasible that his very position should be brought into question following the full public exposure of these issues.

The Bailiff too, cannot be seen to be objective. He too is conflicted. The reasons for this are several. He is one of the individuals who needs to face questions over his past failure to protect children from paedophiles. For example, when he was Attorney General, he failed to take the appropriate action to prevent the paedophile Roger Holland from joining the St. Helier honorary police. Holland went on to abuse children whilst a parish police officer.

The Bailiff was also the Chairman of the Board of Governors of Victoria College during the early phases of the child abuse which eventually lead to the conviction of Jervis-Dykes. The paedophilic activities of this man were brought to the attention of the School leadership again and again - yet he was allowed to remain in post and committing abuse for years before - eventually - being arrested and charged. Again, this is a matter that should be investigated, and upon which the Bailiff should be required to answer some serious questions.

As already pointed out above, it is plain from the now widely distributed Sharp report, that the now Jurat Le Breton, who, at the time was Vice Principle, should have been prosecuted at the time of the child abuse scandal at Victoria College. His actions, along with the Principle, were disgraceful - scarcely believable. He and the Principle - instead of contacting the police at the very first hint of abuse, instead made a clear attempt to humiliate and intimidate some of the victims into withdrawing their complaints by disbelieving them, questioning them in a school office environment - and doing this in front of other people! These actions were a prima facie breach of Article 9 of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969, as quoted above.

Were all this not bad enough, we must recollect that Le Breton deemed himself a fit person to sit in Judgement on the then St. Helier Constable Bob Le Brocq who had had the misfortune to have the paedophile Holland as a member of his St. Helier honorary police force. The Superior Number of the Jersey Royal Court on this occasion being led by the Bailiff, who pronounced the judgment. It, apparently, not occurring to him that Victoria College had tolerated paedophiles amongst its staff when he was Chairman of the Board of Governors. In addition to the Court records, the events of the Le Brocq trial are explained in the front-page lead news story of the Jersey Evening Post, dated 27th February 2001. That Le Breton had the sheer gall to be in Court for this occasion beggars belief.

Perhaps the fact that Le Breton was a Governor of Les Chenes goes some way to explaining the unlawful and abusive regime which existed there.

The position of Le Breton is completely untenable.

It would also take a deeply fanciful construct to maintain that any of the Jurats could be considered sufficiently remote and impartial in these matters. All are friends and colleagues of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff; friends and colleagues of the Attorney General and Solicitor General. But in particular, all are friends and colleagues of Jurat Le Breton. It is well established in respectable jurisprudence that people cannot be a part of a jury if they personally know any of the key actors in a case.

All of the Jurats fail this test.

Moreover, each and everyone of the Jurats is drawn from the traditional ranks of the island's Establishment. As detailed above - an Establishment that puts its own interests - the protection of its image, and of its power - over and above the pure consideration of the rule of law, should the oligarchy be threatened in any way.

Given the above facts, it is plain that we are dealing with the customary failing of public administration in Jersey. This being the habit of tolerating incompetence, derelictions of duty, institutional inadequacy and disgraceful mal-conduct - so when things begin to get exposed - every relevant person and agency shares the same collective interest in the cover-up and in the oppression of dissent.

Politicians, the police force, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff, the Jurats, the Magistrates - essentially the entire panoply of agencies, have a shared, substantial and very, very serious collective interest in burying all of the above-described past issues - and certainly all of the forthcoming issues - which are going to be exposed - whether Mr Williamson wants to do it or not.

In the case of this long-term, sustained cultural failure to properly protect and defend children, the entire edifice of public authority in Jersey is on trial. It, therefore, has an inescapable self-interest in again sabotaging the rule of law and engineering another cover-up.

It is a fact well established by centuries of respectable jurisprudence that not only must the administration of justice be impartial – it must also be seen to be impartial. No aspect of the current policing, prosecutory or judicial apparatus in Jersey could remotely hope to meet this test in respect of the child protection issues arising out of the present episode.

Although the Jersey Establishment is heavily characterised by its overweening arrogance, megalomania and invulnerability, sooner or later, even it will have to face facts. The year is 2007 - not 1897.

My question to each of you is simple:

1: Would each one of you please confirm to me that you recognise the hopeless level of conflictedness of each of your services, and that you agree to invite the Department for Constitutional Affairs to independently appoint the necessary and relevant agencies from the UK to undertake any necessary police investigations, prosecution, and to hear any relevant trial?

Thank you for your assistance.

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey

THE MCGUIRES’ POLITICAL PROTECTOR

2009-06-07T20:46:00.001+01:00

IRIS LE FEUVRE:

A JERSEY OLIGARCHY MONSTER.

The Official Response of the States of Jersey

Upon Learning of a Decade of Child Torture.

This is a very brief post – as its core subject matter is self-explanatory.

Very self-explanatory.

I reproduce below a vomit-inducing letter of “thanks” to the McGuires, written by the then President of the Jersey Education Committee – one Iris Le Feuvre.

Until 2005, Jersey had a Committee system of government, as opposed to a Ministerial system. And, until the late 1990’s, child protection responsibilities lay with the Education Committee, of which Iris Le Feuvre, a States member at that time, was the political boss.

After 10 years of child-torturing, the activities of the McGuires became too problematic – even for such scum-buckets as Anton Skinner, Geoff Spencer, and Marnie Baudains to carry on ignoring.

So in 1990, with reluctance they carried out an “internal” investigation into the matter – during which many of the McGuires’ atrocities were so well-evidenced and exposed as to transcend continuing disguise.

Iris Le Feuvre and her Education Committee received the resultant – albeit utterly lame and inadequate report – which had been authored by Skinner and the child rapist Geoff Spencer – and they decided the best way to avoid embarrassment all-round was to let Jane McGuire “retire” from running the Blanche Pierre group-home at Le Squez – and, instead, move to working in the ‘Family Development Centre'.

Le Feuvre, Skinner, Spencer and Baudains failed to inform the police of the abuses they had been forced to confront. Instead the police only discovered the abuses eight years later – purely by happenstance.

And even though they tried to prosecute in 1998 – the atrocities were covered up then, in 1998 – by the child rapist Danny Wherry – and the child abuse concealer, Michael Birt.

But – eight years earlier – back in 1990 – the typical Jersey oligarchy ethical bankruptcy, arrogance, self-interest and hubris prevailed on the first occasion of betrayal.

And - for spending 10 years torturing, abusing and sexually molesting little children – the McGuires were rewarded with the following letter – from Iris Le Feuvre.

Read it and weep.

Stuart.

Iris Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee

Our Ref: ILEF/SJR/G.H

26th July 1990

Mr. & Mrs A. Maguire
Flat 4, 80 St. Marks Road
St. Helier
Jersey

Dear Mr & Mrs Maguire

On Wednesday the 25th July, 1990, the Education Committee was officially informed of your decision to retire as house parents of the group home, Le Squez.

The Committee recalled that you have been house parents to the children of the group home since 1980 and during the past ten years had cared for many children on our behalf.

Several members of the Committee, including myself, were already familiar with your excellent work during this time having served on the Children’s Sub-Committee, and have always been impressed with your total commitment to the children in your charge.

It is therefore with regret that we learn of your retirement. Although we fully appreciate that after ten years of extremely hard work for our children a change of direction and a rest from the 24 hour-a-day commitment you have shown over all these years was well deserved.

My Committee therefore asked that I write on behalf of every member to thank you for your many years of excellent service on behalf of the children in your charge and to wish you all the very best for your future. We were delighted to learn that Mrs. Maguire will continue to work for the Committee in our developing Family Centre service and therefore would not be losing your services all together.

Once again many thanks for your 110% commitment and hard work, the proof of which will live on in the children for whom you have shown much love and care.

All best wishes

Yours sincerely

J. M. Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee.

JERSEY CHILD TORTURERS

2009-06-03T12:23:00.004+01:00

JANE AND ALAN MCGUIRE

NOT TO FACE JUSTICE.

Bill Bailhache Lets Off

The Blanch Pierre Abusers

To Protect Michael Birt

And The Rest of The Jersey Oligarchy.

Well – although it was inevitable – the news is yet another savage abuse inflicted on the survivors by the Jersey oligarchy.

Jane and Alan McGuire – the two psychotic, abusing maniacs who tortured children for the best part of a decade during the 1980’s – will not be extradited from France – and will not face justice.

Forgive the brevity of this post – but I’m literally too angry to type properly.

I heard from my sources that a press-release, embargoed until midnight, will be issued by Bill Bailhache this afternoon.

I called survivors and asked them how they were.

What follows – you just couldn’t make up.

The survivors didn’t know.

They – the most important people involved in this situation - hadn’t been told of the decision.

Jersey oligarchy media had been informed of the story, and are waiting for this afternoon’s embargoed press release – before the survivors were informed that the two maniacs and thugs who abused them will not face justice.

This is abuse – all over again.

For the Jersey oligarchy – it’s far more important to get their spin-doctoring in-place first – rather than inform the most important people – the survivors; people whose lives have been wrecked by the States of Jersey.

You see - it's a "convenient" time to make the decision public - as Birt is on holiday - so can't be subjected to the media fire-storm this contemptible creature deserves.

The words disgusting, contemptible, sickening, disgraceful and dishonest just do not suffice to describe this conduct by Bill Bailhache and the Jersey oligarchy.

The survivors – having been informed by me, contacted the police – who reluctantly admitted that, yes, the McGuires would not face justice, and that their plan had been to call the survivors and inform them this evening.

That’s after the press-release will be in the hands of the media.

Yet the cops – under the “New Management” of David Warcup & co – were far more interested in how the survivors found out about the spin-doctoring of the decision.

The Jersey oligarchy – rotten to the core.

These people who have an iron grip on power in Jersey – have now delivered to the McGuires a hat-trick of corrupt let-offs.

1990.

1998.

and now we must add to the catalogue of shame and disgrace –

2009.

As I said – I’m too angry and upset to write at length now.

But be assured – in the coming days I will write in detail about this stinking betrayal.

In the mean-time – I must do what I can to support the survivors.

Stuart.

THE LAW IN ITS MAJESTIC EQUALITY

2009-05-27T20:24:00.001+01:00

The Administration of “Justice” in Jersey:

How it Works.

In my last, brief posting, I suggested several topics I might examine in the coming days. Three of those subjects are so closely related in their overlapping iterative causality, that I was tempted to deal with them all in one post; the three topics being -

The prosecution of two non-oligarchy members of the Jersey legislature.

Governmental reform in Jersey.

And ‘Groupthink’ as a psychological explanation for the stupidity, ignorance and folly we observe so frequently manifested by Jersey’s public administration.

But, I shall confine myself to the first of these three subjects; let us consider the prosecution of Deputies Geoff Southern and Shona Pitman.

Elections in Jersey occur in two phases; the last elections having taken place in October and November 2008.

The Jersey oligarchy has for many decades – centuries even – carefully inculcated a cultural hostility to the concept of organised politics. Indeed, so heavily propagandised are the Jersey population into believing that political parties would be the harbingers of anarchy and chaos – that even today the average Jersey voter regards political parties with suspicion.

The thinking reader will understand immediately both the motivation for, and consequences of, the anti-organised politics doctrine of the Jersey establishment.

Jersey has been a self-governing jurisdiction for over 800 years. Throughout that entire period, there has not been an occasion when the traditional ruling elites of the day did not have control over the island. Some might say that the Nazi Occupation during WWII represents the sole time when the Jersey oligarchy didn’t have control. Yes – but, frankly, even then things seemed to rub along quite nicely for the local oligarchy who remained comfortably in power before, during and after the Nazi Occupation.

As Norman Le Brocq pointed out to me - the Channel Islands being the only jurisdictions to be fully occupied by the Nazis throughout all of Europe in which the collaborative local leaders remained comfortably in power after occupation – rather than being subjected to a much-deserved purge. And I’ll mention at this point, the Guiton Group – the Jersey company that owned the island’s only newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post. The Rag spent the occupation years cheerfully and profitably churning out Nazi propaganda. The relevance of this point? Wheels within wheels. The Jersey Way. I’ll explain the connections later.

The Jersey establishment’s remarkable – and unique – capacity for survival, post-Nazis, should speak volumes to you in respect of just how entrenched our oligarchy is.

Effectively and functionally, Jersey is a de facto single-party state.

And the covert Jersey Establishment Party want to damn well make sure it stays that way. By pretending to not be a political party – and fostering the suspicion of organised politics – the island’s oligarchy are never opposed by an organised opposition.

There have, from time-to-time, been attempts to establish political parties, but such is the hostility towards such organisations by the oligarchy and its media, that the nascent parties always struggle. Nevertheless – we have one non-establishment political party presently operating in the island; the Jersey Democratic Alliance.

And to the undisguised terror of the oligarchy, they haven’t faded away. In the last elections they fielded 5 candidates – four of who were successful.

You won’t be surprised to discover that the two Deputies prosecuted are JDA members.

And if you’re familiar with what passes for ‘democracy’ in Jersey – you’ll be even less surprised to learn that the clause under which they were prosecuted was – quite extraordinarily – rushed into place – halfway through the elections - for the sole and express purpose of obstructing the JDA and other candidates who may draw on working class support.

This mind-boggling assault upon the basics of democracy was a desperate and panicked attempt at gerrymandering the Jersey elections by minimising the already very low voter turn-out in working-class areas – and obstructing efforts by non-establishment candidates to enfranchise voters by helping them register to vote.

The Jersey oligarchy thought, “We have a problem here. These JDA types are working hard to try and increase voter participation in working-class areas. Oh dear – we can’t have that! More damn proles in the chamber!! Don’t worry – we’ll simply make it a criminal offence for candidates or their team to assist voters to even apply for a postal vote. That’ll sort them out!”

The crypto-fascistic law failed in its prime objective – namely keeping working-class votes down to a sufficiently low degree to prevent pleb representatives from getting elected.

However, it fulfilled its secondary function in enabling the Stalinist show-trial of two JDA Deputies – and the consequent peddling of lies and propaganda against them to the effect that they had, somehow, engaged in ballot fraud.

The “offence” committed by the two Deputies was, in fact, to assist people in their district to apply for a postal vote. Just that.

Nothing to do with actual ballots – just enabling the elderly, the infirm, over-worked parents, and those who don’t have English as a first language – to apply to be able to cast their vote by post.

Voter turn-out in Jersey is extremely low – especially in the densely populated working-class areas. It is these districts which also have the highest densities of elderly, the infirm, those whose work demands make it difficult for them to go to a polling station and those who are not native English speakers.

The Jersey oligarchy frequently pays lip-service to the need to increase voter participation. But yet – when it comes to people making an effort to enable the otherwise disenfranchised to vote – suddenly it’s a terrible menace.

‘Yes’, say the Jersey establishment, ‘we want more people to vote – but they’ve got to be the ‘right kind’ of people – not these dreadful stroppy oiks – who might want the rich in Jersey to start shouldering a proportionate part of the tax burden.’

So – the Jersey oligarchy – in all its shameless ignorance, arrogance and inadequacy – rushed in – half-way through the elections – a law so brazenly anti-democratic as to have no known equivalent in any Commonwealth country.

And – it is not as though the madness stopped there.

It is widely known that at least four other candidates faced prima facie allegations of having broken the Elections Law, and at least two of these involved the same “offence” as that for which the two JDA Deputies were prosecuted.

How many of those four were charged?

None.

Of the six candidates known to have credible allegations against them of breaking the Elections Law – only the two JDA members were prosecuted.

And – you’ll like this – the cops and Bill Bailhache even tried to stick the offences of one of these four others onto the rap-sheet against Deputy Southern. How’s that for the “rule of law”!

Shall we just remind ourselves of who runs Jersey’s prosecution service?

The Attorney General, William Bailhache.

The self-same oligarchy lynch-pin – who is terribly fond of bellowing “every one is equal before the law!” – but then goes on to rather spoil his case by only applying the law against uppity plebs – like the JDA members in the case of the Election Law, or me, in the case of alleged breaches of the Data Protection law.

We – it seems – must bear the full weight of Bill Bailhache’s – in-no-way-Political – decisions on prosecutions.

Meanwhile oligarchy politicians can routinely breach data protection laws, the election laws – and even take kick-backs for supporting land development proposals – with, apparent, immunity from the law.

And as for child abusers – forget it! Extradite child abusers from France back to Jersey? No chance – “not in the public interest”.

Child rapists now living in England? “Oh dear – we just couldn’t have them returned here and face trial – just think of all the bad publicity!”

No – instead, the law in all its Majesty in Jersey prefers only to prosecute these two non-establishment, working class candidates – and fine them the, frankly, insane sum of a total of £12,000.

That’s £12,000 – for doing things such as provide welcome assistance to a British ex-serviceman who would not otherwise have been able to vote.

The gentleman in question even wrote a statement to the court in mitigation for the accused Deputies – which I reproduce here, with his name removed.

“18th May 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

I, [name excised] would like to make the following statement in support of Deputy Shona Pitman’s court case, regarding her breach of the public Elections law.

I can confirm, as I did reluctantly with the Police, that Deputy Shona Pitman visited my home on the 2nd of November last year during the Deputies elections. Upon opening the door to the Deputy, I told her that I could not vote because I was going to be away on Election Day. She replied saying that I could vote by post and handed me an application form to fill in so that I could do this. However, I explained that I have restricted use of the hand that I write with and asked if she would fill it in for me. So the Deputy did so, and when she’d finished she went through the form with me to check everything was OK and I signed it.

The problem with my hand is that it has trapped nerves so I have great difficulty in writing with it. I was very grateful that Deputy Shona Pitman filled in the form, as firstly, I wouldn’t have known that I could vote by post and therefore wouldn’t have voted. Secondly, I don’t know that I would have been able to get someone else to fill the form in because I live by myself, and my family live in the UK and America and I did not know that I could go to the Parish hall to ask someone for assistance.

I was not happy to give a Police statement and felt that the Police questioning, over 3 interviews at my house were intrusive and a bit forceful at times. When I explained to them that I had difficulty writing because of the trapped nerves in my hand and how this happened, they asked me whether or not I could write with the other hand. They seemed to disregard what I had just said and it was none of their business!

Deputy Pitman did not coerce me in filling in the form or in voting for her or any of her colleagues. Had she put pressure on me in anyway, I would not be supporting her court case now. In fact, I was happy to see that she had bothered once again, to take the time to visit me during the elections as other than JDA candidates no other candidate visited me.

As an ex-Honorary Policeman and a veteran Green Jacket with the Special Forces who served my country for 9 years, I can not understand the injustice that the Deputy and her colleague Geoff Southern are being treated with in being taken to court. All she did was to assist somebody who needed some help and if it wasn’t for her, I wouldn’t have known that I could exercise my right to vote and wouldn’t have done it at all. Surely this is a good thing.

Yours truly, [name excised]”

A British ex-serviceman – with a disability – being subjected to three intrusive, aggressive and intimidating police visits - because a candidate helped him to apply for a postal ballot – so he could exercise his democratic right to vote.

You couldn’t make it up.

The average person might imagine that out of sheer embarrassment and shame, the court would have administered some symbolic sentence on the two Deputies – taking into account the extremely powerful mitigation.

For example, the fact that both Deputies immediately pleaded guilty to the offences.

Or that the law in question was manifestly absurd and unworkable.

Or that, as is plain from the record of the debate, the States Assembly didn’t actually have a clue what it was doing.

Or that the law was defective – and rushed into place halfway through the election period.

Or that the law is plainly wholly incompatible with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.

But, no.

Instead – fines totalling £12,000 were imposed on the two working class Deputies.

The vast majority of thinking, decent people will be appalled at such excesses.

I – however – was not surprised.

When I heard that one Advocate Julian Clyde-Smith was presiding over the case, as a Commissioner of the Royal Court, I knew exactly what to expect.

He is a production-line, identikit Jersey oligarch; ultra-conservative and as Right-wing as hell.

Indeed – so perfectly does he fit the template, the oligarchy have no-doubt got him lined-up to replace Bill and Phil in due course.

I have personal understanding of Advocate Clyde-Smith’s attitude to administering “appropriate” sentences to troublesome plebs.

He sentenced a 19 year-old constituent of mine to three years in jail for dealing ecstasy.

The boy was a victim of institutionalised abuse carried out against him over a sustained period by the States of Jersey.

This included keeping him locked-up in solitary confinement – at the age of 14 – for two months.

I’ll just state that again.

Solitary confinement – for two months.

Unsurprisingly, one month into this unlawful and abusive imprisonment, he had an emotional breakdown. The response of the States of Jersey was to send a councillor from the local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service to ‘speak with him’ – for half-an-hour – once a week.

But, naturally, they still kept him in solitary for another month.

So – following a frankly contemptibly inadequate mitigation pleading from another Jersey Advocate – and the rabid judgment of Julian Clyde-Smith – this child – messed-up by the States of Jersey – got three years.

That case stands out in my mind because of the truly remarkable contrast with another sentencing carried out by Clyde-Smith two weeks later.

A “prominent local businessman” – who was guilty of conspiracy to import a yacht load of cocaine – was sentenced by Clyde-Smith to – wait for it - 270 hours ‘community service’.

Next time you hear the Jersey oligarchy, or their supporters, claim that “everyone is equal before the law”, or that the administration of justice in Jersey works perfectly well – just laugh in their faces.

Don’t let yourselves be taken for fools.

I mentioned earlier the remarkable resilience exhibited by the oligarchies of the Channel Islands – uniquely in occupied Europe - to any consequences or meaningful reform for the shabby conduct of the ruling elites under occupation. And how the Guiton Group, and its ‘newspaper’, the Jersey Evening Post, had carried on churning out Nazi propaganda during the war.

The various scions of the Guiton Group have ended up fabulously wealthy.

People like Frank Harrison Walker – former Chief Minister of Jersey.

And one Sally Le Brocq – nee Harrison – presently 1 of the 12 ‘Jurats’ of Jersey’s Royal Court. Jurats being a form of lay-judge – placed in Office by an electoral college of Jersey lawyers and politicians.

Jersey’s lawyers and politicians – doesn’t that just sound like a recipe for producing a balanced and objective judicial apparatus?

So when Advocate Clyde-Smith – adorned in the faintly comical fancy dress they like to wear to make an ‘impression’ on us plebs – entered the Royal Court to cast down damnation on the two Deputies – he was accompanied by two Jurats.

You know where this is going – don’t you?

Yep – one of the two Jurats was Sally – nee Harrison – Le Brocq. Cousin of Frank Walker – and multi-millionaire scion of the Guiton Group.

Not satisfied with this, frankly, laughable excuse for a judicial process – Clyde-Smith further trampled into the ground the principles of natural justice by constantly and repeatedly interrupting the lawyer who was making a mitigation plea on behalf of the two Deputies – thus ruining the presentation of their case.

“Yes, yes, but they broke the law!” he kept bellowing. An observation which would, perhaps, have been faintly credible – if the law in Jersey was actually applied fairly and impartially – as opposed to being used as a tool to keep the proles in-line.

But some people will take an unforgiving view of law-breaking. They will argue that the laws of the day should be obeyed – especially by politicians – as they make the laws.

Such a view does not withstand scrutiny when contrasted with the history of social change.

Many, many political leaders and reformers and ordinary members of the public have ignored ridiculous legislation. Think of the civil disobedience of the suffragettes – who frequently broke laws in their fight for the rights of women to vote.

Or those who fought against slavery.

What of Nelson Mandela – a great man who broke the laws of South-Africa because those laws were monstrous and disgraceful.

Or Rosa Parks – whose ‘criminal’ action in sitting in the “whites-only” part of the bus did so much to galvanise the civil rights movement in the USA.

The plain fact is that there is a fine and noble tradition of breaking manifestly absurd and unjust laws in acts of non-violent civil disobedience.

Consider the struggles of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King – both men who confronted the laws of the day – ridiculous, contemptible and absurd laws – and stood against them – because the laws were wrong – and the cause of these men had truth and decency on its side.

Just as enabling the poor and disenfranchised to be able to vote is the right and decent thing to do.

I do not know what, if any, further resistance will be undertaken by the two JDA members. All I can do is place myself in their position – which isn’t a fair thing to do, as they, quite rightly, must make their decisions themselves.

But, had it been me charged with these offences, I would, most certainly, appeal the sentence – and take it through the judicial Committee of the Privy Council all the way to Strasbourg if necessary; and I would undertake this resistance in parallel with some of my voters who would have been disenfranchised had I not helped them to apply for a postal vote.

And, at this stage of my career – I wouldn’t pay the fine in any event – and would take the jail sentence.

Just as I will if convicted of any alleged data protection law infractions. As I recently remarked in a comment – frankly, a couple of years in La Moye nick would provide me with ample time to write my memoirs – in addition to the added advantages of being debarred from being a politician – and being able to spend the next couple of years in the company of far fewer liars and crooks than my present occupation requires.

Stuart.

FORTHCOMING ‘ATTRACTIONS’:

2009-05-26T21:33:00.001+01:00

A Brief Speculation on What I Might Write Next.

Apologies for not getting a fresh post up for a while. But, in mitigation, I do get the impression most people appreciated the previous post, so that kind of makes up for its longevity.

I’m mega-busy with a variety of things – essentially, I’m trying to fight a war on approximately four fronts.

I’m battling a variety cases for my constituents.

Whilst I’m trying to fight off various assaults by the Jersey oligarchy.

Whilst preparing and writing-up my personal legal action against the UK Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.

Whilst occasionally wondering around the, now, tidy workshop and trying to meld bits of tree into something people might want to buy one day.

Sadly, this latter activity always comes a distant fourth. Though having said that, I did buy two wonderful pieces of Douglas Fir recently – following an epic excavation through the largely unimpressive timber stock of a Jersey merchant.

And – I’ve even managed to get a mirrored, razor edge on the blade of my Lie Neilson No. 8 try-plane using my 8000 grit Japanese waterstone.

Not an easy ask – with a blade made of A-2 cryogenically treated tool-steel, hardened to Rockwell 60-62.

But no – I must restrain myself from going into woodwork-nerd-mode - for the time-being.

I’m saving that as a ‘special treat’ for my loyal readers.

No – I thought I should just provide you with a bulletin as to what I’m planning to try and write in the coming days.

Firstly – I will be writing about the prosecution of two non-oligarchy Jersey politicians - for the heinous offence of helping disabled ex-servicemen apply for a postal vote.

To be clear – not, as the Jersey oligarchy have portrayed it – something akin to ballot fraud as seen in certain UK elections in recent years. Instead this “crime” was simply helping the elderly, the infirm, those who do not have English as a first language to merely apply for a postal vote.

I’ll save all the surreal, crypto-fascist absurdity of the situation for the substantive post.

Then I thought I would write a post concerning governmental reform in Jersey; the only jurisdiction in western Europe actually heading back towards feudalism.

And – I thought I might write something concerning the sheer mind-boggling stupidity and ‘Groupthink’ we see manifested in the Jersey polity.

Actually – I may well combine the above two subjects – so well do they compliment each-other.

Then – in a few days time – I want to produce a post about a subject that still fills me with bitter anger.

Tomorrow – Wednesday 27th May – a trial begins in New York city.

On trial are the oil company Royal Dutch Shell.

Effectively, this western transnational corporation was complicit – and thus guilty – in the 1995 murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa.

Ken was a leader of the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta; he was an immensely brave campaigner for the rights of Delta people and against the environmental genocide which was being inflicted upon them by the military regime – with the backing and complicity of Shell.

The murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-campaigners happened in November 1995. It so happened that, shortly after, the States of Jersey were debating a proposition to sell some land at the airport to Shell.

When the debate began, I stood and strenuously opposed the sale – saying that Shell had blood on its hands.

The resultant political fire-storm had to be experienced to be understood. It attracted international media attention – and, when the States inevitably agreed the sale – left me feeling appalled and sickened.

I will write a detailed post on the subject – but only when I feel strong enough.

When I look back and try and contemplate the attitude of most States members during that episode - I find myself thinking of lyrics from a Nick Cave song.

‘People just ain’t no good.
I think that’s well understood.
You see it everywhere you look –
People just ain’t no good.

Stuart.

“JASON THE MAVERICK”

2009-05-20T15:51:00.005+01:00

UNMASKED!

JON HAWORTH:

JERSEY’S SADDEST AND MOST INADEQUATE TROLL.

Read All About it!

Join me upon a hunt – a dangerous yet necessary digression into the sad hinterland of late-night, multi-IP, tragic loser, Billy No-mates trolling that has burgeoned in Jersey cyber-space; for on this quest we must enter a festering and pestilential swamp into which few decent people venture – but which has become the favoured habitat of a handful of inadequates who sit – one hand on the keyboard – whilst delivering to themselves a delusory sense of anonymous omnipotence – but in truth, possessing all the substance and appeal of some pixelated bog-creature from an obsolete computer game.

There are many strange beings to be found in this nocturnal midden. Such creatures have always been with us – but until they found the ideal habitat for their No-Life fantasy existences, one would have to seek them out in back-street pubs where they’d be found, alone, muttering to themselves and staring resentfully at women. And if not there – then they’d be tracked down to a backroom in a house – where they’d still be living with their mothers.

Whilst the curious adventurer can still find specimens in those more traditional habitats – these days, it’s into the void of the coruscating electron nothingness that we must go. Though the habitat itself is invisible – manifestations of it break into the real world – and can be spotted by the faintly lighted windows of tiny bed-sits or back-street flats that enshroud the 2.30 am apparitions – magicked into simulacrums of power and relevance by nine pints of Stella - and an invisible girl-friend.

But – troll-hunters – beware. To spot and catch your troll – you must use guile; for some, like vampires, can only operate at night. And others yet posses shape-shifting powers – and go abroad amongst us in daylight hours – cloaked in the appearance of a normal, functional human being. Great can be their craft at such disguises; but – being trolls – the camouflage they adopt for the real world can rarely withstand close probing and examination. For if you suspect a person you know is, in truth, a troll – you may quickly unmask them – should you be prepared to risk some close acquaintance. Draw them into speaking of their magnificence – converse with them about their friends in high-places – give them every opportunity to explain their brilliance – and especially ask them about the size of their computer.

Soon enough – the troll shall be uncloaked – and revealed in all it’s revolting, twisted, resentful isolation.

And in the flood-tide of flickering binary non-existence occupied by Jersey’s tribe of trolls – there sits one – more gross and poisonous than his fellows – the spiritual tribal leader of the island’s lonely, fantasising inadequates -

“Jason the Maverick” -

‘JTM’.

‘Jason Roberts’

‘Debumblebee’

‘Mean Dean’

‘Kate’

‘Mean Bean’

And a vast load of other avatars – too tedious for me to type.

Step forward – you sad, inadequate - formerly anonymous - clown –

JON HOWARTH.

That’s Jon Howarth - of Flat 1 – behind W.H. Smiths.

Jon Howarth who works – so he claims – for -

Baker Tilly Channel Islands –

“A leading chartered accountancy practice based in St Helier, Jersey.”

Trolls occupationally say things which are simply not true – but let us assume that he does work for this organisation.

Do his employers – I wonder – know that he engages in such activities as multi-IP trolling?

Of establishing fake Facebook identities – such as ‘Jason Roberts’ – which he then uses to lure people into giving him their electronic contact details.

That he uses his troll nerd-powers to track-down private IP addresses – and then threatens to expose other commenters and bloggers to their employers – if they’ve dared to express non-oligarchy opinions?

Do, I wonder, his employers recognise this for the form of blackmail and menace that it is?

Many of us real people use the realm of cyber-space. Some, like me, do so openly, rather than using a fake identity. Many others – for understandable reasons – keep their identities secret.

But what distinguishes Jon the Troll – like others of his kind – is that they spend their bitter, lonely nighthours trolling and flaming and defaming and wrecking forums - all the while doing so anonymously – and anonymously under 23 different avatars.

So – for all the lies, hatred, spin, vitriol, smears, blackmails, crazed obsessions, threats, defamations, obnoxiousness, intimidation, thuggery and manipulation he has inflicted upon dozens and dozens of other people – today The Quite Vile Blog has bravely tracked down this troll – across the electronic ether - to his rancid cave.

Where we can now observe him.

Contemplate his serious gambling habit.

Consider his weekend paralytic drunkenness.

Listen to his boasts of being real good friends with Phil Ozouf.

Reflect upon his unsurprising state of singleness – given his propensity to make drunken death-threats to those poor women who have the misfortune to encounter him, and then rapidly reject him.

Do – I wonder – the Police know of such conduct?

Oh well – they do now.

Just as, no doubt, do his employers.

Though trolls are not an endangered species – I don’t believe in harming dumb animals. But these strange creatures can be dangerous to people - in all kinds of ways.

So, occasionally – we must answer the call of duty; prepare ourselves for the hunt – and expose the trolls to the light. It can be difficult; it can be dangerous – but those of us who are Knights of the Jersey Chapter of Troll-Hunters shall always be ready to drive away such menaces whenever they emerge from their isolated swamps and intrude into the real world.

Eternal vigilance, my friends – and with a little patience and deduction – trolls can be hunted down and exposed.

Now that the troll JTM – or Jon Howarth – has been exposed, perhaps readers would like to finish off the job by sharing with us the rest of his known avatars?

And any other useful information?

And in the mean time – let us give some thought to the next troublesome troll.

The light shall always win.

Stuart.

JERSEY OLIGARCHY –

2009-05-14T19:39:00.002+01:00

REAL PARLIAMENTARIANS ARE WATCHING YOU.

Resolution in my Support

Tabled in House of Commons.

I thought readers would be interested in the fact that a parliamentary, ‘Early Day Motion’ has been tabled in the House of Commons in condemnation of the police-state type action taken against me, and in support of the freedom of politicians to effectively represent their constituents.

Early Day Motions rarely get debated, and are, in practice, a means of MPs expressing their concerns about particular topics. Nevertheless, MPs don’t put their names to serious EDMs – unless they understand the importance of the subject, and agree with it.

The procedural quirks of EDMs require that they be no longer than 250 words – and that they must read as one sentence – no full-stops permitted – except at the end. This explains why the language of the resolution may seem a little strange.

There isn’t usually a party whip on EDMs, so MPs from all parties are pretty free to add their names to an EDM if they so choose.

Interestingly, the EDM in defence of my position – and in condemnation of the Jersey establishment - has three initial signatories representing each of the main parties.

Peter Bottomley, of the Conservatives, Austin Mitchell of Labour, and John Hemming of the Lib-Dems.

I reproduce the text of the EDM below – and observe that sooner or later – inevitably – the Jersey oligarchy are going to push their luck too far.

If, in fact, we have not already come to that point.

Stuart.

Early Day Motion.

ARREST OF SENATOR STUART SYVRET

“That this House deplores the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret by the Jersey Police Force for alleged infractions of data protection laws; notes that the Senator was in receipt of information disclosed in the public interest, with which he is attempting to hold the Jersey government to account for a variety of profoundly serious child protection and clinical governance failures; condemns the manner of the Senator's arrest and the subsequent searching of his home by the police without a search warrant; further condemns the fact that substantial quantities of his constituents' private data were taken and copied by the Jersey police; considers this an intimidatory and anti-democratic action which the Senator is virtually powerless to challenge given the politicisation of the Jersey judiciary and the propensity of the Jersey legislature to oppress minority members; and calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to fulfil his duties by exercising his constitutional powers to intervene and ensure good governance and the proper administration of justice in Jersey through requiring a separation of powers and the imposition of effective checks and balances in order that survivors of child abuse, and other victims of malfeasance gain the proper protection of justice; and considers that through such actions the UK will return to compliance with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, obligations which are breached by tolerating the situation in Jersey.”

John Hemming.

Peter Bottomley.

Austin Mitchell.

NO CHILD ABUSE IN JERSEY?

2009-05-10T16:30:00.003+01:00

SO CLAIM THE JERSEY OLIGARCHY.

But - Read the Sunday Times Magazine Article Below.

And - Read my Introductory Information.

I reproduce below the entire article from today’s Sunday Times, concerning Child abuse in Jersey and the Culture of Concealment.

It is yet another example of professional, investigative real journalism – of the kind notable for its near-complete absence in Jersey.

So, what do decent Jersey people make of the horrors revealed?

I like to think the vast majority of islanders fit into the category of decent people – but because the Jersey media has been a part of the problem - for decades – a central component in the Culture of Concealment – many readers may be shocked to begin to grasp the true nature of how power, official positions, connections and mutual self-interest have – effectively – reduced our island to a state of near lawlessness.

Today – conditions prevail in which child rapists – and those who have concealed their crimes - remain free in our midst’s and untouched by the law – and I – the only Jersey politician really trying to fight for the survivors and expose the truth – get arrested as I step from my home by a team of 10 cops, who then turn over the house from top to bottom – without a search warrant - whilst I’m locked in a small windowless cell for 7 hours; supposedly, in the name of alleged Data Protection Law infractions.

The time has come for decent islanders, even those who don’t usually support me or my approach – to wake up to what our society has become – and unite to restore civil society.

But, sadly, to gain a real understanding of just what a crypto-dictatorship Jersey has become – we must turn to the external media. Not just today’s article – but many, many others as well.

Of course, the local media does – very occasionally – produce some good reports – such as that which appeared on the front page of the Jersey Evening Post of Thursday, 7th May.

“Children Failed by the System”, was the headline. The article went onto describe how the case of three children, said to be the ‘most damaged in Jersey’, was being urgently reviewed.

The article went on to say, “It has been claimed that the children, whose specialist treatment in the UK the States are being asked to fund, suffered years of sexual abuse and neglect because the authorities failed to take them into care despite being warned that they were at risk.”

So let no one think that child abuse, gross child protection failures – and the systemic covering-up of such things – is all in Jersey’s past, and doesn’t happen today.

And we can’t, frankly, be optimistic that things are going to change – and I’ll explain why with a relevant and topical example.

An example the average person will find so jaw-droppingly extraordinary, you’ll rub your eyes in disbelief.

And no – the JEP won’t take a close look at the example.

By way of background information, regular readers will be very familiar with the fact that the Jersey oligarchy had my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister engineered in 2007; my supposed ‘offence’ was that I was “undermining staff moral” – by attempting to hold the collection of clowns accountable for the kind of atrocity described in the JEP story of Thursday.

I had spent the first half of 2007 uncovering more and more examples of catastrophic child protection failures, and was compiling a detailed dossier to give to the police. It had to be detailed, and rock-solidly evidenced before presentation – because as the Sunday Times article makes clear – for decades, the Jersey police force was a part of the problem itself.

When it became widely know, especially amongst the culpable civil servants, that I was beginning to rip the lid off decades of child protection failures – they had to get rid of me in order to protect their jobs.

Hatred, lies, abuse and slander were heaped upon me by the oligarchy and its media back in 2007.

For example, several JEP leader comments – of frankly barking-mad vituperativness were directed against me – indeed, the full might of the Jersey oligarchy was used in an attempt to crush and discredit me.

But here we are – 15 months later – with, very sadly, my original concerns, and more besides, having been proven to be correct - many time over. Not least by the case featured in the article in Thursday’s edition of The Rag.

I said I would provide you with an extraordinary example which shows not only the persistence of child protection systems failure in Jersey, but, in fact, also illustrates a complete breakdown in good governance and political leadership.

In the case of the three children, they have been victims of years of profoundly damaging abuse and neglect – this notwithstanding repeated warnings made to Social Services management.

It’s the kind of case which would be on the front page of the national newspaper if it occurred on the mainland. Rather like the atrocity of the “Baby P” case.

So gross were the failures of Haringey’s social services in that tragedy, that the head of Children’s’ Services, Sharon Shoesmith, was sacked.

Now, let us speculate just what the response of the Jersey authorities has been to the failures in the case of the three children – and many other similar failures?

Has THE civil servant with prime responsibility for child “protection” been sacked?

Has she even been suspended?

No. The utterly incompetent, dangerous, lying, unethical shyster concerned – one Marnie Baudains – has been subjected to no such action.

Instead – and you couldn’t make this up – Baudains, the Directorate Manager of Social Services – has been placed in charge of directing the organisation of the placements these children need.

Just let me run that by you again.

THE immensely expensive, yet dangerous and despicable clown responsible for the service failures to protect these three children from years of the most appalling abuse – has been placed in charge of directing the care and placement they need in an effort to help them recover from that which they suffered as a consequence of her professional inadequacy.

Let nobody wonder how the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster was able to happen – and let nobody wonder why the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster continues to happen to this very day.

Throughout the battle of the Jersey Child Protection Disaster, the oligarchy have been wrong – and I have been proven to be right. Every time.

My “reward” for being on the right side in these battles on behalf of abused children and adult survivors has been hatred and oppression from the Jersey oligarchy – including, as I said, getting arrested and held in a windowless locked police cell for 7 hours.

I will not – however – be deflected by these crooks and gangsters.

So, let’s deal with some information which is not in today’s Sunday Times article.

The Sunday Times article says, “In two specific cases the alleged abusers were men who had risen up through the care-home system, where they were said to have ruled by terror, to become high-ranking officials of the States of Jersey. Both men stand accused of numerous assaults.”

These two “men” are Tom McKeon – former Director of Jersey’s Education Department.

And Mario Lundy, the man who succeeded McKeon as Education Director when he retired about a year-and-half ago.

McKeon is widely known amongst a large cohort of former victims of the institution he and Lundy ran in the 1980s, Les Chenes, as “The Pinball Wizard” – because of his predilection for battering children by bouncing them of walls and furniture.

I have written previously about these two despicable thugs, in my blog posting of the 1st October, 2008 – which you can read in my archive.

In a letter to his sister, Rickie Tregaskis – who is serving life for murder - wrote this: “I have to thank people like Mario Lundy for teaching me discipline and refining my later life skills.”

McKeon is happily retired – on his vast, gold-plated pension.

And Lundy – extraordinarily – is not even suspended, and is still running the Education Department – where he is probably raking in around £200,000 per year – plus pension provision – at the expense of Jersey taxpayers.

The Sunday Times Article goes on to refer to the meeting at which the victims of the Blanche Pierre group home were told by officials that case against their abusers was being dropped for “lack of evidence.”

Having read that evidence myself – I can state categorically that it is a complete lie by the Jersey establishment to say that there was “insufficient evidence.”

The meeting at which the kids were betrayed – again – was led by what the Sunday Times describes as a “senior childcare officer”. The paper goes on to describe the series of allegations against him, and several arrests – but no action having been taken.

The individual concerned is the infamous Danny Wherry – an ex-cop.

The Article goes on to recount the occasion when a victim, one Raymond Duchesne, was convicted of attempting to blackmail his abuser.

Interestingly, the court at his trial assumed the allegations of abuse were true for the purposes of the case – not something the court would have done unless the claims were credible.

As the article says, “The man, a volunteer at Haut de la Garenne, used to take children out on boat trips from the St Helier marina — a recreational activity common to many Jersey abusers. Andrew Jervis-Dykes had adopted it while he was a maths teacher at Victoria College, taking teenage boys out on sailing trips as part of Combined Cadet Force training.”

The man who was being blackmailed for the abuse allegations, which were deemed credible by the court, is Rene Le Sueur.

As the article correctly reports, the use of sailing boats - which provide abusers with opportunities to have children at their total mercy – and beyond all help – is very common amongst child rapists. This is not a phenomena confined to Jersey, but appears to be widespread, certainly across the UK – and even in Royal Navy circles.

It is not, therefore, surprising that many abusers and their friends were associated, in one way or another, with the St. Helier Yacht Club.

The article goes on to say, “There were suspicions that others might also have been involved in sexual assaults alongside Jervis-Dykes, but when one officer tried to investigate at the St Helier Yacht Club, he was hindered by a higher-ranking colleague. That officer, who has since retired, was known to other abusers.”

The good officer referred to – who was trying to undertake the investigation, but being obstructed, was one Anton Cornelissen. He was one of the officers who heard Piers Baker utter the words “teachers’ perks” upon being shown home-video footage of abuse taking place on a yacht. Incidentally, Baker remains working for the States of Jersey – in an extremely well-paid post - at Jersey’s Harbours’ Department, funnily enough.

The now retired police officer who obstructed that investigation into St. Helier Yacht Club was one John De La Haye.

When two abusers, Powell and Romeril, were being investigated, it became know to police that they had inside contact with De La Haye. He appears to have leaked information to the two civilian abusers, and certainly, his name featured in text messages. He was described by Romeril, who admitted knowing De La Haye from ‘bridge games’, as “one of the boys”.

Another good cop, increasingly concerned at allegations arising from Haute de la Garenne and other matters, sent a report to another senior colleague.

The report was simply ignored.

The officer who ignored the report was one Andre Bonjour.

Those then are some pieces of information which the Sunday Times Article doesn’t use. But those facts are widely known to the journalist, the paper, and, indeed, a significant number of others – journalist and civilians.

And, sadly, I have to tell you that this is not the end of the material.

When will the full truth emerge?

Frankly – unless and until the vast majority of decent, honest Jersey people – regardless of their political views – finally say, “we’ve had enough of this. We want the proper rule of law in our community” – the truth may never emerge.

Fighting this war as I have done – and bringing you these facts – has been a hell of a burden for one man to shoulder. I’ve already been jailed and had my home searched – without a warrant.

Let us hope enough decent people will now see what needs to be done to return our community to civilised standards.

Thanks.

Stuart.

FROM THE SUNDAY TIMES

MAY 10, 2009

IT'S OFFICIAL: THERE WAS NO CHILD ABUSE IN JERSEY

Jersey’s authorities say its child-abuse inquiry was a waste of time — that the police got it wrong. So was all the ‘evidence’ a red herring or a whitewashed inconvenient truth?

Accusations of abuse and cover-up reached into the heart of the jersey government. Many are being made public for the first time here.

David James Smith, Britain’s foremost crime writer, investigates
Haut de la Garenne

As one dissident Jersey politician who wished to remain nameless said to me when we huddled together one lunch time in a cramped St Helier cafe, you might have thought Jersey — its politicians and civil servants, its police force, its tourist industry — had something to celebrate when the police concluded that there had been no murders at Haut de la Garenne, the now-notorious children’s home.

Good news at last! Nobody died! Jersey’s reputation is restored. Well, perhaps that last sentiment might have been taking things a bit far, especially bearing in mind what you are about to read, but still, no news was good news, up to a point… Weeks of digging, dog sniffing, soil sifting and bone-fragment analysing had resulted in what appeared to be a clear verdict: no bodies at the old children’s home.

So perhaps it is now time for the perpetrators of the abuse to be brought to justice. We know who they are, the police know who they are, the authorities know who they are. So what is holding things up?

While the media had been fixated on Haut de la Garenne’s cellars, the police inquiries had been wide-ranging. As part of their investigation, they examined the accusations of abuse and cover-up that had reached into the heart of the Jersey government. Many of those accusations are being made public for the first time here, and while we are bound by laws that prevent us naming names, we know the identities of those said to be involved. We do not know why they have not been charged, and that is exactly what the alleged victims would like to know too. The victims have been waiting for action since November, just over eight months after the digging had begun at Haut de la Garenne. We know there were no bodies, but it still seemed the inquiry should move forward. Nobody could have guessed what would happen instead.

On November 12 last year, the media were summoned to a press conference at police headquarters, where one team of senior police officers proceeded to launch an unprecedented attack on the work of another, effectively accusing the former head of the inquiry, Lenny Harper, of misleading the world with inaccurate, sensationalised claims of multiple homicides, and of wilfully misrepresenting the evidence he had found during the searches at the former home.

Harper had been the senior investigating officer for the child-abuse inquiry until he retired, as planned, in August. He had also served six years as deputy chief officer of the Jersey force, second in command to Graham Power, the chief officer who was still just over a year away from retirement, and a recipient of the Queen’s Police Medal for distinguished service. Harper and Power must have been doing something right: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary had assessed the Jersey police as an efficient organisation with strong leadership.

That morning, while Harper’s work was being traduced in front of the press, Power had gone to a meeting with the then Jersey States home-affairs minister, Andrew Lewis. The chief executive, Bill Ogley, was also there and took notes. Notes he later admitted he had destroyed. Power had been summoned to the meeting in a call by Lewis the previous evening, without being given any idea what the theme of the meeting would be. He was told that the Jersey Council of Ministers — the equivalent of the cabinet — had been briefed by his own police colleagues the night before and the content of the briefing had been so bad they had no option but to suspend him. The officers who had given ministers the briefing were the same two officers who were just then delivering the stinging judgment on Harper to the media.

Power said that he refused an offer to take an hour to consider resigning. He was then handed a letter that referred to an earlier meeting when he had been warned he faced the suspension that was now being put into effect. There had been no earlier meeting. It looked like an unsubtle, outrageous attempt to belatedly satisfy a disciplinary code. Power returned home and was still there at the time of writing this article; he has just won the right to have a judicial review of his suspension.

I had written in detail about the child-abuse inquiry last year. I had never given much credence to the more lurid tales of possible homicides, mainly because I had been counselled against them by Lenny Harper. There were no missing children, he said, clearly and often, and there was no evidence of murder. I knew, too, that Harper believed he was engaged in a struggle with vested interests among Jersey’s ruling elite, who were trying to undermine the inquiry and would rather the whole thing went away. It soon became apparent that allegations of abuse were widespread throughout the Jersey childcare system and had been around for years, but only a handful of the most blatant cases had ever reached court.

When I looked at the story again, I found allegations that point to years of systematic abuse among a loose structure of suspected abusers. Meanwhile, the officers who replaced Lenny Harper have continued to brief against him, off the record, and to minimise or downplay the extent of the claims. In two specific cases the alleged abusers were men who had risen up through the care-home system, where they were said to have ruled by terror, to become high-ranking officials of the States of Jersey. Both men stand accused of numerous assaults. The Sunday Times Magazine knows their identities — half of Jersey knows who they are — but we are forced by law to protect them from public exposure.

One among many of the two men’s alleged victims is Rickie Tregaskis, who claims to have been subjected to endless assaults and abuses while a teenager in a Jersey care home: being made to lie naked on a mattress every night for two weeks in front of a female member of staff; being made to stand in the dining room while one of the men poured food over his head; repeatedly punched and knocked about by that same man, and once having his nose broken by him. At least three of Tregaskis’s peers from the home committed suicide or died young of drug abuse. Others have led chaotic lives, often in and out of prison and/or psychiatric care. Tregaskis himself is serving life for the violent murder of a disabled man in Cornwall in 1997. “In a way,” Tregaskis had once written, not without bitter irony perhaps,

“I have to thank people like him [his abuser] for teaching me discipline and refining my later life talents.” So, while there may be no bodies at Haut de la Garenne, make no mistake, there is certainly a trail of corpses across the wider inquiry.

Since Harper retired, there have been no new charges against alleged perpetrators. Only three people face trial for abuse, and one of those is nothing to do with Haut de la Garenne or any childcare institution. In one case, the charges went ahead only because Harper pretended he had not received a last-minute message from a senior official trying to stop the prosecution going ahead.

The police are now hinting that there may be few, if any, further charges. I heard that one officer is saying he has “bad news” to deliver to alleged victims — the bad news being they may never get their day in court. The officer clearly believes, or wants us to believe, that Harper is to blame for raising expectations and misrepresenting the evidence and the scale of the abuse. Is this true — or are Harper and Power being made scapegoats?

The claims of misconduct, incompetence and self-interest against Harper are so many that it is difficult to know where to start. His replacements certainly have it in for him, letting it be known they think he has lied and jeopardised future prosecutions with his public pronouncements.

During the inquiry he sought and acted on a great deal of external advice, and was told by a security department of the Metropolitan police not to maintain “day books” that could be read by others. So, no daybooks, only a diary in which, he says, he kept personal records relating to his wife’s illness and other matters unrelated to the inquiry.

During the press conference, and in subsequent briefings and interviews, Jersey police have sought to create the impression of Harper as a maverick, bullying figure. Yet, far from going it alone, Harper early on sought the advice and support of the homicide working group of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), who sent a team of three officers to Jersey to monitor and review the inquiry. The team was led by one of the country’s most eminent detectives, André Baker, now a deputy director at the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca). The others were Anne Harrison and John Mooney of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA).

If you mention this team to the new Jersey police, they will say they were not there to review the inquiry and only had a limited role. This, so far as I can tell, is not true. I have seen the team’s terms of reference, and they clearly state that its role was to “quality assure” the investigation. They did indeed make many recommendations, and all were implemented except, by mutual agreement, two or three that were deemed not relevant.

The team made four visits. Its role was to “monitor the 27 recommendations, to maintain the role of mentors, and to identify any further work”. Later it reported: “The recommendations from the initial visit have been acted upon, some within a very short period. The States of Jersey Police are to be commended for their positive reception of the report and for their extremely prompt response in implementing recommendations.” Two team members also gave a private briefing to Frank Walker, the then chief minister, and some of his most senior colleagues, which would have presented another opportunity to report concerns. There were none.

Harper first contacted Acpo on February 23 last year, the day of the discovery of the now notorious fragment that was initially considered by the forensic anthropologist who found it as having the appearance of a small piece of a child’s skull. The inquiry was then in the fourth day of what might be called a recce, a preliminary dig to see if anything would turn up. This approach had been agreed at a conference Harper had organised with the NPIA and scientists from LGC Forensics in Oxford, where the discussion took place. If they did not find anything, they would pack up and leave, but if anything significant turned up they would start a more thorough search.

The decision to start digging was not taken idly. Haut de la Garenne had cropped up repeatedly during other earlier child-abuse inquiries, touching on a number of organisations such as the Jersey Sea Cadets, St John Ambulance, Victoria College and the St Helier Yacht Club. Haut de la Garenne was a common thread. One of Tregaskis’s two alleged abusers had also worked there before going on to manage the residential home where Tregaskis lived during his time in care. Those two alleged abusers are linked to a series of allegations. One victim claims he was punched by both men; another that he was punched by one of them; still another that he was punched and stamped on by the other man. This victim also claimed to have been “pinballed” — bounced around the walls of that official’s office — by that official, punched to the floor by the other man, assaulted by both regularly. He also witnessed the second man hit another boy, now dead, with a cane so hard that he drew blood. Another resident saw someone assaulted by a third member of staff before being dragged by the second man into his office to be “pinballed”. He later emerged marked and bruised. In one further case, a victim claims to have been punched and kicked for 20 minutes by the second man while the other one was there, and also took part in the assault by kicking the boy. This same boy saw two other fellow residents being “pinballed”, one after complaining to his mother about an earlier assault. A boy also said he was picked up by his ears by the official before being punched in the stomach. A witness watched as that same man punched a boy in the face after pinning him against the wall by his throat.

Neither of the men has ever been charged over the allegations, though The Sunday Times Magazine is aware that the police have assembled a file of statements from both alleged victims and witnesses to incidents of abuse. The police say the inquiries are continuing. Let’s not hold our breath.

A former employee at Haut de la Garenne is Jane Maguire, who went on to run the care home Blanche Pierre with her husband, Alan. A case against them for alleged physical abuses reached court in the late 1990s before collapsing for lack of evidence, even though a number of alleged victims were ready to give evidence and some of the more routine abuses had actually been recorded in a daybook. A court official said the correct procedures had been followed before the decision to throw out the charges.

The victims were told about the collapse of the Maguire case at a meeting attended by a senior childcare officer, who was himself a former volunteer at Haut de la Garenne and who had left the police force to join social services. This man’s name is also known to The Sunday Times Magazine and to the police. There are claims he failed to act on several occasions after children reported allegations to him, and also that he abused them himself. He had first been arrested and questioned in 2003. He was not charged.

A second claim of assault did not result in any charges either. He has always denied the allegations. He was arrested for the third time last year over three fresh claims of assault, one on a female, two on boys.

I have also learnt the name of a man whose identity was protected during a 2004 trial in Jersey when he was the victim of blackmail. The alleged blackmailer, Raymond Duchesne, claimed to have been repeatedly sodomised between the ages of 6 and 10 while he was in care at Haut de la Garenne by the man he was now trying to blackmail. After some debate, the court agreed to accept the allegations were true, for the purposes of the case. The man, a volunteer at Haut de la Garenne, used to take children out on boat trips from the St Helier marina — a recreational activity common to many Jersey abusers. Andrew Jervis-Dykes had adopted it while he was a maths teacher at Victoria College, taking teenage boys out on sailing trips as part of Combined Cadet Force training. Jervis-Dykes was eventually jailed for six indecent assaults between 1984 and 1991.

There were suspicions that others might also have been involved in sexual assaults alongside Jervis-Dykes, but when one officer tried to investigate at the St Helier Yacht Club, he was hindered by a higher-ranking colleague. That officer, who has since retired, was known to other abusers.

The Jervis-Dykes inquiry in the 1990s was reportedly plagued by internal obstruction and claims that exhibits were going missing. Three junior detectives were so troubled by the obstacles being put in their way that they went over the heads of their team leaders, including the officer with his own boat, to report their concerns to senior colleagues. There was no action, but the suspicions lingered. Then the name of the officer turned up in text messages between two civilians accused of indecent assaults on boys. He appeared to have leaked information to them, and the two paedophiles agreed he was “one of the boys”. One of the two men, David Powell, was convicted and jailed for 3Å years in 2007. His co-accused, Paul Romeril, was suspected of around 60 offences of serious sexual assault on boys, most of which had taken place on his two boats. Romeril hanged himself while on remand at Jersey’s La Moye prison. Two other suspects in the inquiry were not charged. Meanwhile, long before Harper took an interest in Haut de la Garenne, other officers had been concerned by allegations, and one of them produced a report proposing further inquiries at the former home. Duchesne’s alleged abuser was the subject of a number of allegations of vile abuse.

Nobody should be in any doubt about the extent and seriousness of the crimes being considered: in one claim he was abusing a boy who was draped over the side of the boat, the abuse so violent that the boy’s head was bobbing in and out of the water while the offence took place. The report was passed on to a senior police officer in early 2006, but it was ignored until Harper’s inquiry began. The officer who had produced the report at one stage asked his superior what was happening and was told: “I haven’t got to it — other priorities.” An outside force was brought in to consider the officer’s conduct in sitting on the report. That was early last year, involving officers from South Yorkshire. This all formed the background to the beginning of Harper’s own inquiries at Haut de la Garenne.

Harper has since been challenged that the supposed claims of dead or disappeared children came from unreliable witnesses and should not have been given credibility. Many of the victims told me that they have been trying for years to get someone to take their claims seriously. They had never felt listened to or believed until Harper came along. I don’t imagine, however, that Harper was driven by sentimental regard for the victims. As he told me in March 2008, and is still saying now, he could not ignore the information, but did not at first believe it warranted a full-scale dig. Hence the recce. The dog was brought in. The cadaver dog that alerts to human remains, the same dog that nearly did for Kate and Gerry McCann after it alerted at the boot of their car. Unlike the Portuguese police, apparently, Harper’s team understood that the dog’s alerts were not evidence of a crime being committed, merely an indicator of something to be explored. I have heard that Harper’s replacements have spoken cynically about the dog, implying that its handler, Martin Grime, fixes the dog’s demonstrations by priming it in advance with his own scent. But Harper gave convincing accounts of how the dog would pick up the merest trace of human remains and ignore animal remains, and how it would not be tricked into making errors. They decided to dig where the dog alerted and where radar equipment picked up anomalies in the ground. One of those locations was the stairwell where the builders had found bones in 2003, and also where the “skull” fragment was found by the LGC anthropologist Julie Roberts on February 23. The item was labelled JAR/6. She described it as “degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child”.

Did Harper, as his detractors have claimed, misrepresent the fragment, or claim it was one thing when he knew it was another? Perhaps too, though he would deny it, he was keen to find something to justify the more thorough dig. He would say he was simply passing on what the anthropologist said. Certainly he told it as she had described it. The anthropologist’s employer has since said they told the inquiry the very next day, February 24, that JAR/6 was in a 1940s layer and so “would appear to have been beyond the parameters of the investigation”. Harper denies ever hearing this. He says the first scientific doubts about the age were raised by the radiocarbon-dating lab at Oxford University on March 14, when they suggested it was very old or badly degraded. Everyone then was still assuming it was a fragment of human skull. But there is a clue to Harper’s real thinking in a Jersey Evening Post story, dated March 3: “The deputy police chief Lenny Harper told the JEP that it was not possible to say whether the skull fragment was from recent times or from before the 1950s, the period to which the inquiry dates back. ‘It could be a red herring — we just don’t know yet. But if it is, we will not have wasted much time during the inquiry on the item, as it has been bagged, sealed and sent to the UK for forensic examination,’ he said.”

On March 14, the scientists told the police that there was not enough collagen to date the fragment; a week later they said there was enough after all. Collagen is only present in human bones — not in wood or coconut shells. Then another week later, they changed their minds again: there was probably no collagen after all. It was only in early April that the experts began to suggest it was probably — not definitely — not human after all. So far as Harper is concerned, that is still the position now. The suggestion was that it could be wood or a seed. The idea that it might be a fragment of coconut shell was a secondary opinion never given directly to the inquiry. The anthropologist who had originally thought it was a piece of a child’s skull re-examined it over April 8 and 9 and noted it had changed texture, weight and colour since she first saw it. Now she thought it might not be bone, though she too could not be certain. But by now it was established that the fragment, human or not, came from a pre-1940s/Victorian layer of the dig. They agreed to put it to one side and not waste further resources on more tests. It was no longer relevant.

Harper says that perhaps he should have made the message clearer that the possible partial human remains were probably not human in origin. But at the time, with all the political flak around the inquiry, he decided it would be best to put it to one side and move on. Still, the press office would tell anyone who asked that the fragment had now been ruled out of the inquiry. There was never any attempt to maintain a deception that it was still a skull fragment.

One victim claimed to have been shackled in the cellars, and the 2003 builders had described finding shackles. When the inquiry recovered the items the builders had apparently seen, they did not describe them as shackles, but that was the word the media picked up from the builders. Harper says that he resisted the word for a long time, but eventually began using it himself. I have seen the “shackles” and, taken out of context, they are not convincing: one looks like an old stretched-out bed spring. But taken with the victim statement, the builders’ accounts and the circumstances in which they were found, you would not rule them out altogether.

The new inquiry told me that only three pieces of bone that were likely to be human had been found at the former home. Harper said it was 16. In fact, they were both wrong, though the Sheffield University anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain, who had examined those pieces, went out of his way to emphasise that he had never heard Harper say anything that contradicted or distorted his findings and had never found the inquiry to be anything other than professional.

A total of 65 children’s teeth had also been found — an extraordinary number, made more extraordinary by the anthropologist who had found them suggesting that some appeared to have been deliberately concealed in the cellars and elsewhere and by further evidence that many had not been shed naturally. The new police had attempted to make light of the discovery, suggesting the “tooth fairy” was the explanation, as a dentist had given evidence of removing teeth and handing them to staff for the children. Perhaps the staff had not bothered playing the tooth fairy and simply hoarded all the teeth. Perhaps. There was no witness evidence to explain the teeth. Perhaps they too were very old. Perhaps. Nobody could say unless they were dated. I was told the new inquiry had considered sending the teeth to be dated, but had been told not to, to save the cost.

During Harper’s inquiry, under public pressure to be seen to be doing the right thing, the Jersey States had told Harper that money was no object. Indeed, the chief executive had complained when Harper had said in a press release that he was weighing up the financial implications. Don’t do that, he was told. Spend what you need to spend. In truth, Harper is still not convinced that there were no relevant human remains at Haut de la Garenne. He points to all the odd circumstances: the teeth, the burnt bones, the builder’s finds, the stories of former residents, the pits dug in the grounds and lined with lime — nobody has ever explained what they were for. But, as he knows, the bodies just never materialised.

When Harper retired, his role had been split in two and he had been replaced as deputy chief officer by David Warcup from Northumbria police and as senior investigating officer for the abuse inquiry, known as Operation Rectangle, by a Lancashire detective, Mick Gradwell, widely praised for his handling of the inquiry into the deaths of the Chinese cockle-pickers in Morecambe Bay.

I believe that Mick Gradwell came to Jersey with his reputation as a major-league senior investigating officer expecting to run a multiple-death inquiry, and was disappointed and frustrated to discover there were no murders after all. He packed his desk and took his plaques down from his office wall before Christmas and was about to resign and go home to Lancashire after only four months, only changing his mind at the last minute. He tells colleagues he is not putting the plaques back up, since he doesn’t anticipate staying for long. Whatever has gone on in the police camp, it has certainly meant that resources — and the long, painstaking work of once-trusted officers — have been squandered.

Perhaps, you will wonder, as I have, why they are spending so much time picking over Lenny Harper’s work and reputation when men who helped turn children into murderers and suicides, and a man who made a small boy’s head bob up and down in the water, have not been called to account.

David James Smith.

THE SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE:

2009-05-08T13:07:00.005+01:00

A FURTHER, DETAILED EXAMINATION

OF JERSEY’S CHILD PROTECTION FAILURES

SUNDAY, 10TH MAY.

Make Sure you get a Copy.

Many readers will recollect that on May the 4th last year, the Sunday Times Magazine carried a very professional, in-depth article on the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

The author of that article, David James Smith, has revisited Jersey’s child protection failures one year on - and has written another in-depth article which will appear in the Sunday Times Magazine this coming Sunday.

I would strongly recommend that everyone interested in how so many child abuses were able to be concealed for so long in Jersey obtains a copy.

I haven’t seen the article, but I’m given to understand that it is focusing on the centrally important subjects of the ineffectuality of checks and balances in Jersey, and asks such questions as “where are the prosecutions?” It questions the apparent invulnerability of certain key figures, for example certain current or former public employees? It challenges the police – and asks why on Earth have the “new management” of the police force been spending so much time and effort in attacking Lenny Harper – rather than bringing child abusers to book?

I believe the article will also be taking a look at the real devastation wrought upon the lives of many victims. The trail of human wreckage that is the direct consequence of the failures of “The Jersey Way”. People whose lives I am, in many cases, familiar with.

If the quality of last year’s article is any yardstick – I’m certain this Sunday’s piece will make a fascinating – and probably angering – read.

Make sure you check it out.

Stuart.

THE POWER MEN AND THE MEDIA:

2009-05-04T19:24:00.001+01:00

When All Unite to Crush Dissent

Dark Days Cannot be Far Away.

Last Thursday, the Jersey parliament debated a proposition which asked the legislature to, essentially, express concern at the implications for private communications between elected representatives and their constituents. Indeed, the privacy of communications between politicians – and the right of people and their elected representatives to freely work together – without facing intimidatory and unlawful police harassments of the kind one might expect to encounter in a banana republic.

The proposition – which can be found in my posting of the 16th April – was, naturally, heavily defeated.

To the great self-satisfaction of the Jersey Establishment Party.

It apparently not occurring to them that the States of Jersey is certainly the only legislature in western Europe that would have expressed satisfaction at the fact that one of its members had been arrested and held in police cells for 7 hours – whilst his home was turned over – without a search warrant - by the police who took and copied privileged communications between him and his constituents – all because the member was doing an effective job in holding the executive to account.

And they wonder why so many people around the world regard Jersey as a failed jurisdiction?

Still – the outcome was predictable. The “thinking” of the oligarchy politicians being well-know beforehand.

As far as the detail of the debate is concerned – so very fascinating is that that I will write a posting in which I will analyse the content of the debate – and one or two other issues – later this week.

In the interim, a few reflections on the Politics of events.

A number of States members have been saying, both publicly and privately to other people that the police raid and search of my home without a warrant was – somehow – “justified” as some form of “punishment” or “retribution”.

That it was “high-time Syvret was punished for being so rude about establishment people on his blog.” And no – I’m not making that up.

Yes – a majority of Jersey politicians seriously believe that because someone is critical of the government of the day and rude about senior establishment figures – they get what they deserve if raided by the police without a search warrant and held in locked cells for 7 hours.

As a significant number of older Jersey people have said to me, “the last time they remember that happening to anyone because they had annoyed those in power, was during the Nazi occupation.”

For example, when I spoke during the debate of the police raid and search of the office and home of Damien Greene MP, the predictable round of giggles and huffing and puffing went around the oligarchy benches. The mood seemed to be that Mr. Greene is a respectable Conservative MP, which, indeed, he is. And I, by way of contrast, was – well – just some kind of anarcho-commie prole who refused to respect his social superiors – so the action against me was just fine.

The fact that the action taken against Mr. Greene – and the action taken against me are qualitatively identical was of no interest to the Jersey Establishment Party.

In fact, we must draw two disturbing conclusions concerning the “thinking” of most States members. A number of them will have understood perfectly well the threat to parliamentary democracy which arises from the police-state-type action – but were quite indifferent to such considerations – and only really interested in the debate as a vehicle to vent their visceral hatred of me. Fear, you see, breeds hatred.

And of greater concern – the importance of the fundamental issues clearly went completely over the heads of a substantial number of members; they just didn’t “get it”.

The degree of political illiteracy displayed by a majority of States members will appear quite startling to any thinking person with a grasp of the workings of representative parliamentary democracy.

The action against Mr. Greene elicited very, very substantial cross-bench support for him from all the main political parties, and attracted heavy criticisms from all sides of the House. In fact – with the exception of the Labour cabinet, it’s junior Ministers and a few other Labour apparatchiks – you would have been hard-put to find any MP who was not deeply concerned about the dramatic implications of the police action against Mr. Greene.

Yet, the States Assembly showed itself to be incapable of likewise setting aside partisan politicking – instead just viewing the issue as yet another occasion for the dominant party to endorse the abuse of power against minority members.

The States of Jersey is the only democratic legislature which positively revels in the intimidation, harassment and oppression of minority members. A frequently exhibited tyranny by the majority – enthusiastically supported and facilitated by Phil Bailhache & Michael Birt.
.
It was openly said by a number of members after the debate that if the target of the police action had been any member except me, they would have voted in favour. A fact which, again, tells us a great deal about the non-existent capacity of these people to make competent decisions.

I was a politician for nearly 20 years – and during that time had some pretty - err – fractious relationships with political opponents, and was frequently on the receiving end of various insults, oppressions and obstructions from them.

But I could confidently state under oath that I have never voted in the chamber in a way I felt was wrong – just because to have done so would have been an opportunistic dig at political opponents.

Look – I even spoke and voted against a censure motion brought against Frank Walker.

I did so, because in my opinion, the censure motion was undeserved under the circumstances. And this was not that long after he had organised and led the unjustified efforts to have me terminated from Health & Social Services.

We carry a great responsibility for this community – which is why, as far as I’m concerned, personal antagonisms get left outside the chamber – and I speak and vote for what I genuinely believe to be the right decision.

There are a number of other States members of whom the same could be said.

However, they’re in a minority.

And that fact was illustrated yet again in Thursday’s vote.

The presentation of the debate by The Rag was very, very interesting – it dripped fear.

“Syvret Arrest: States Back Police” – screamed the headline. As though to have objected to the unlawful action against an elected member of the assembly and his constituents would have been some form of anarchist up-rising against the forces of law and order.

When the JEP displays such comical desperation to prop-up the establishment, you know they’re worried that the oligarchy may have gone too far this time. Well, they have - but that’s for another occasion.

Speaking of the Jersey media, I had to have a little chuckle when reading Rob Shipley’s A Backwards Glance column, in which he condemns my ‘imaginative invective’ – and begins to trot out – under the cover of an innocent musing – that tired old Jersey oligarchy device “patriotism”. That infamous “last refuge of the scoundrel”.

The Rag is nothing, if not predictable. I’ve been bombarded with this particular weapon by the JEP on too many occasions to remember during the last 20 years.

I make a critical remark – and even use a metaphor perhaps – to attack our stagnant oligarchy – and in JEP world – ‘it’s a traitorous attack on Jersey!’ “Syvret – the enemy within – insults Jersey!”

“Again!”

Look, Rob, there is this literary device called “metaphor”. The word is derived from the Latin, metaphoria, which is itself derived from the Greek terms for ‘transference’, ‘to carry over’, ‘to bear between’.

A metaphor is produced by a writer, say, for reasons of dramatic effect, hyperbole, economy of words or the making of a powerful connection between different things. Thus metaphor uses one word or phrase – to describe another, perhaps even unrelated, thing.

So when I described Jersey as the North Korea of the English Channel – I was using a “metaphor”, intended, with admitted hyperbole, to alert people to the dangers of excessive, abusive and intrusive policing being used by the establishment as a political device to harass and intimidate opposition politicians.

I don’t, actually, recollect – even indirectly – suggesting that the Jersey oligarchy have a growing stock-pile of nuclear warheads and are about to start testing an inter-Channel Island ballistic missile to take-out our odd-toed ungulate cousins upon the neighbouring rock.

For such devices would be terribly expensive – so why bother with them – when we can just send over Matt Banahan?

When you consider the oligarchy media and its various internet forums, you will read the out-put of their spin-doctors – who have evolved into trolls, and now sit desperately thrashing away under 20 different avatars.

You can tell it’s text-book spin – fresh from the production-line – because the tactic embodied in it is one of the oldest tricks in the book, namely, the diversionary counter-attack.

Ignore the real issues – and instead try and draw fire from your malfeasances by mounting a largely irrelevant attack on your opponent.

Thus in oligarchy-world the decades of the concealment of child abuse, the demonstrable lying and cover-ups by certain of today’s politicians, the many gross malfeasances of senior civil servants, the efforts being made to stitch-up the survivors – again, the use by the oligarchy of the police force to mount an illegal search on a politicians home and the consequent theft of a great quantity of constituents’ data - all virtually irrelevant.

The far, far more important subject being – apparently – what a rude bastard that Stuart Syvret is.

Certainly, my approach to my political work is a good deal more forthright and passionate than that of the average States member.

But before I be condemned for that, let us reflect on my political history.

I was elected as Deputy in 1990, at the age of 25, and three years later was elected as a Senator, a position I still hold 20 years since first getting elected.

Throughout that period, I have been entirely consistent, honest, reliable and determined in my representation.

The reality of politics in Jersey is, essentially, that of a single party state. And battling the greed, incompetence and short-term self-interest of the entrenched elite has been my work for 20 years.

The consequences for me personally of honestly representing my constituents – and trying to do what is right – have been 20 years of untrammelled abuse, smears, defamations, biases, insults, oppressions and lies.

I have had to put up with this kind of treatment at the hands of The Rag, BBC Jersey, and the rest of the unprincipled clowns and shysters – with no real or effective means of fighting back.

Until, that is, January 2008 – when I began blogging.

Citizen Media has finally empowered me, as it has millions of others, to get our voice heard – despite the old-fashioned control by the powerful over the traditional media.

We can no longer be silenced.

The fear and hatred this has evinced on the part of the traditional hacks does, I confess, produce a certain schadenfreude. Times were bad enough for traditional media in any event. But with the economic meltdown and the drying up of advertising - sites like this are helping to hasten the long over-due demise of the Jersey oligarchy’s propaganda rag.

But – I must say this for the Jersey Evening Post.

If my blog is aggressive, insulting, rude, upsetting to its targets, unfair – etc. – I must confess I learnt everything I know from the JEP.

Before I started this blog, I had been subjected to over 18 years of lies, smears, abuses and bias by The Rag.

So if what I write now seems belligerent, just reflect upon the fact that during these last 14 months I have simply begun to fight back – to give as good as I have been subjected to - for 18 years.

Do you know how many absurd, dishonest and biased – and anonymous - Rag editorial leader comments I have been subjected to over all those years?

I confess I’d have to search my archives - well, at least those the police haven’t stolen, to get the number quite right – but take my word for it – it’s a very large number.

In fact, I’d guess second only amongst all Jersey politicians to the avalanche of hatred and oppression heaped upon the late, great Norman Le Brocq.

For example, when I was illegally thrown out of the States Assembly for 6 months – by Phil Bailhache for exposing his mate as a shameless crook – The Rag printed no less than five editorial leader comments attacking me during that episode, as though I were the villain of the piece.

In fact – so comical, ignorant, Warsaw-Pact and, frankly barking-mad were these leader comments, I copied them and put them in a frame.

Much like today’s episode – when a corrupt, entrenched, stagnant oligarchy exhibits quite so much undisguised terror, and attempts to crush political dissidents – you know you must be doing something right.

Later in the week we’ll take a look at what emerged during the States debate, and consider the legal and political ramification for power in Jersey.

Until then – if you are a supporter of the Jersey oligarchy, just remember – concealing, and thus supporting and condoning, child abuse - is just fine - as far as your leaders are concerned – provided you’re terribly “polite” about everything.

Stuart.

PHIL BAILHACHE:

2009-04-28T22:36:00.002+01:00

THE ETHICS OF A BANGKOK PIMP?

You be the Judge!

Well – what a fascinating and entertaining day it’s been!

For those of you not immediately familiar with the day-to-day workings of the Jersey legislature – let me bring you up-to-date.

Today Phil Bailhache lost the plot – as usual, because he was being challenged and being held to account; a cultural phenomena utterly alien to this man and his brother.

Phil & Bill are neo-Victorians – men who believe it is still 1898 – and that we, the scumbag, uppity proles, should simply defer to them – as our ‘social superiors’.

The culture-shock evinced by both men whenever someone challenges their “authority” is a wonder to behold.

Incidentally, whilst I’m on the subject of the Bailhache Brothers – people in Jersey will be very familiar with the irreversible fact that, at the time of my unlawful arrest and detention – and the consequent searching of my home without a search warrant – Bill Bailhache issued a flat and unambiguous denial of any prior knowledge of the raid.

Following this manifest lie from him, I sent him an e-mail – in which I described him as a liar and a crook.

This plain statement of fact was simply seized upon by the Jersey oligarchy and its media – such as BBC Jersey – and used to peddle lies against me, whilst denying me any right of reply.

But – dear oh dear – what happened today in the Assembly?

Bill Bailhache admitted that, in fact, he did have prior knowledge of the raid.

QED.

A brazen liar – straight out of the mould of Jimmy Perchard.

Now – onto Phil!

He has been obstructing my efforts to table a proposition seeking a Committee of Inquiry into the unlawful killing of a patient at the Jersey General Hospital.

He doesn’t like me stating facts in the accompanying report – so has taken and assumed to himself – an unelected, unaccountable functionary – the supposed ‘power’ to sensor and edit that which elected members write in their reports.

No such power exists anywhere in the standing orders of the States of Jersey.

So, this morning, I made a perfectly reasonable request to him – namely that he provide me with a written explanation as to which standing order he was relying upon in his obstructions of my report?

Naturally – he was wholly unable to answer this question – so in his fury the best he could do was assert that he “would not correspond with someone who had written to him that he had ‘the ethics of a Bangkok pimp’”.

Now – I had often considered publishing the September 2007 e-mail in question – but, and Christ knows why, had held off from doing so – because I thought revealing the full picture of this man’s malfeasances would be too unkind upon him.

But – hey! If I needed an excuse to publish it – Phil delivered it today in spades.

So – never mind a selective quote from Phil – read the full text below – exclusively brought to you by Jersey’s leading news source!

But –

Before reading the e-mail – in order to place it in context – and gain a clear understanding of just what it is we are dealing with in Phil Bailhache – a little history.

The e-mail I reproduce below was written on the 10th September, 2007 – the eve of the oligarchy dismissal debate against me as Health & Social Services Minister.

The senior civil servants and the oligarchy politicians decided that I had to be terminated from the post – because I was – and I’m not inventing this, OK? - “Undermining staff moral”.

The cause of this supposed grave offence was the fact that I had – through my own efforts, and in the teeth of opposition from the over-paid, under-worked clowns in the senior civil service – been ripping the lid off decades of catastrophic child protection failures.

The first and only time a Jersey politician had recognised what was taking place, and then tried to do something about it.

To say the 8 months preceding September 2007 had been personally taxing would be a serious understatement.

And the months of July and August had been an utter nightmare.

It still makes me feel nauseous to recall some of the conversations I had with survivors and whistle blowers; to reflect upon so much documentary evidence which I had had to read.

From January 2007, I had begun the slow process of digging into and discovering the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster; a process which had led me – by May of that year – to conclude that Jersey had a catastrophe on its hands.

I went public with my concerns when answering - honestly – a question I was asked in the Jersey parliament in July, 2007 – when I said words to the effect that, “if I’m being asked do I have any confidence or faith in Jersey’s child protection apparatus, frankly, I have to say no – and I’m going to commission an independent, external inquiry.”

I didn’t discover this until months later – but within around two-and-a-half hours of me giving that answer, the Jersey senior civil service had swung into action, and had set about engineering my dismissal.

You see – and this is crucial to understanding the evolution of events – none of us knew at that stage of the covert police investigation which had begun at the end of 2006. Not me, not the oligarchy politicians, not my whistle blowers – and not the culpable senior civil service claque.

I was, unknowingly, engaging in the same kind of inquiries as the police – and I was able to do this thanks to the tremendously brave efforts of whistle blowers, witnesses and survivors.

But throughout that period – we were all in ignorance of the covert police investigation.

So throughout that period, it still appeared to the oligarchy that they could jam the lid back down – bury everything – maintain the Culture of Concealment – if only they could get rid of me.

Hence the engineering of my dismissal.

An action that Phil played a crucial role in.

As the Minister who was facing an imminent dismissal debate, I had every right to have tabled a report, in the form of Official Comments, in response to the dismissal proposal against me.

To use an analogy – the oligarchy proposition was the case for the ‘prosecution’ – and my Official Comments were the case for the ‘defence’.

Throughout the entire episode, Frank Walker, the CoM and the Jersey oligarchy media ruthlessly pursued the propaganda and spin that I had, somehow, just invented everything – that I had “no evidence”.

So brazen was this big lie that the oligarchy effectively bet their shirts on it.

They simply could not afford to let the lie be exposed.

But exposed it was going to be – permanently, irrefutably, and reportably - via the parliamentary privileged Official Comments I was going to table.

I say “was” – because this is where Phil comes in.

Utterly extraordinarily – and wholly without precedent – he refused to allow my Official Comments to be lodged and officially published.

That this was an all-out assault on my rights to a defence was bad – but far worse – it was yet another example of the Culture of Concealment.

Another startling betrayal of the survivors who – for the first time ever in Jersey – had the opportunity to have many of the key facts published.

Facing, as we were at that time, the prospect of years of battle to expose the truth – Phil Bailhache’s denial of democratic freedoms was a savage blow to survivors – several of whom I had had to call that evening and explain that we were not now going to have the facts recorded permanently in a parliamentary document.

They were shattered – I was bloody furious – we had tearful telephone calls.

Hence the e-mail below.

Before turning to the e-mail, let us be clear about a few, immutable, facts.

Phil Bailhache was – and remains – conflicted from any involvement in the child protection issues. This because of his failures in the Roger Holland affair – and in this context, the Jervis Dykes abuse episode. One of the 16 appendices I attached to my Official Comments was the Sharp Report – which you can read via the link.

Phil routinely interferes with, and tries to obstruct, democratically elected non-establishment politicians – and then refuses to be accountable for his actions – just as in today’s episode.

And, frankly – he has a record of outright political oppression; an infamous example of which I refer to in the 2007 e-mail.

In 1996, I exposed the then leader of the oligarchy politicians, former Senator Reg Jeune, in his corrupt use of his position in the Jersey parliament to support the introduction of a profoundly controversial piece of financial legislation, the Limited Liabilities Partnership law.

This law was being introduced – “fast-track” – at the sole and express request of the law firm of which he was a founding partner, and in which he retained a financial interest.

Phil Bailhache’s response to this exposure of wrongdoing was to ask me to remain behind at a meeting in July 1996.

The conversation went like this.

He said to me that he was ordering me to withdraw every word I had said about Jeune and apologise for having said it.

I put it to him that this was a perverse notion – given that the facts were evidenced by documents which had been leaked to me.

He said that made no difference – I would still have to withdraw everything I had said and apologise.

I pointed out that Jeune had, in fact, committed a prima facie breach of the law which stops politicians in Jersey from acting for their own financial interests (note to Dave Minty – get someone to read the law for you) and that he deserved prosecuting.

Phil said – “that’s a hell of a thing to do to a man at the end of his career”, to which I said words to the effect that that was tough – he should have thought about that before.

He said I had to withdraw everything – and if I didn’t – “it would have very serious consequences for me.” This threat itself being a breach of the law which protects States members from being compelled to do certain things in the Assembly.

I asked him what those consequences might be?

He said – “never mind about that – just know that there will be very serious consequences for you – and that would be such a pity – as you had such a lot to offer as a politician.”

Naturally – I refused to surrender to this thuggery – so Phil carried out his threat – and caused me to be suspended indefinitely from the Assembly – even though such action was illegal, given no provision for indefinite suspension existed in the States of Jersey Law or the standing orders.

I prepared to see-out the remaining three years of my term of office just doing constituency work – but the oligarchy caved-in after 6 months, and had to re-admit me.

I explain that, as I said, in order to provide a clear understanding of the type of individual we are considering when we contemplate Phil Bailhache.

And when reading the e-mail below reflect upon the context of the battle I was fighting at the time.

Woking 7 day weeks – for two months, occasionally working literally 24 hours a day.

Struggling desperately to do what I could to help those survivors I had come to know – and to put in place a few of the necessary improvements in the child protection apparatus – such as sacking Iris Le Fevre – and recruiting June Thoburn. And inviting the Howard League for Penal Reform to Jersey to undertake their independent review.

Trying to do what was right for abuse survivors and today’s vulnerable children – after at least 6 decades of near-total and disastrous failure by public administration in Jersey.

And all the while being politically assaulted, oppressed, obstructed, smeared, lied to, lied against, denied due process, harassed by Bill Bailhache and Emma Martins and trampled into the ground by Frank Walker, his Council of Ministers and the rest of the oligarchy – not least Michael Birt and Phil Bailhache.

Simply for trying to do the right thing for vulnerable children – and those who had already been betrayed.

Reflecting upon the e-mail below, written in response to a message from the Greffe that Bailhache was obstructing my Official Comments – I can genuinely say I’m proud of it. Every syllable is true.

That even under the assault of massive and undefeatable odds – I still had the strength of character to stick to my guns – do what was right – and carry on fighting.

Just as I do today.

My granddad, Ernie Gould, would have been proud of me.

He certainly would not be proud of those who have, effectively, tried to destroy the democracy he fought for.

Stuart.

E-MAIL TO PHIL BAILHACHE:

1OTH SEPTEMBER, 2007.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 10 September 2007 19:51
To: Michael De La Haye (States Greffe); Bailiff of Jersey
Cc: Anne Harris; Lisa Hart
Subject: RE: Ministerial comments

Michael & Bailiff

‘News of the World’ it is then.

When I think that my grandfather fought the Nazis at Dunkirque, I know he would be spinning in his grave to see such a contemptible, disgusting, corrupt, self -interested perversion of the level playing field of democracy.

It isn’t bad enough that you, Phil, had me illegally and unconstitutionally excluded from the States for 6 months in order to help cover-up the brazen corruption of your friend Reg Jeune when he abused the island’s legislature to get a law through for his own law firm – but you seem too stupid to learn from your mistakes – and now you again apply a restrictive practice to me – and total freedom to your Jersey Establishment friends.

Not content that your Deputy Michael Birt allowed and endorsed a fast-tracked dismissal motion against me – outside of due process – you suppress the information which shows him, when Attorney General, to have failed to prosecute then Deputy Bailiff Frankie Hamon and your friend Jurat Le Breton, and Piers Baker – the man who thinks paedophilia is “teachers perks”.

You yourself have claimed that “parliamentary privilege trumps all”. Indeed, you relied utterly on such immunity yourself when you and Hamon had me thrown out of the States for 6 months – simply for pointing out that your friend Reg was being a crook. But now, however, when it comes to my right to access parliamentary privilege - not to mention my right to defend myself – suddenly there are a dozen and one reasons why my document cannot be printed.

You are anti-democratic – a gangster – and a spiv. But perhaps more fundamentally than this – you are simply thick.

I will repeat to you some of what I said recently to your brother William, the Jersey Attorney General – lest you be labouring under the delusion that you and your mobster friends hold any remaining power over me:

“Do you feel proud of all this? Does it make you feel good, as a Jersey man, that in the face of repeated grotesque failures in child welfare and protection – the entire panoply of the island’s oligarchy should unite to crush the two ordinary people who have spoken out on behalf of these children?

Let me tell you what I think. Though with hindsight, it was clear enough before; but this episode has demonstrated once-and-for-all the utter festering decadence of the Jersey Establishment. Its casual and ruthless use of its unchallengeable power - always to cement its own position and to trample down dissent. The self-satisfied wallowing in a cess-pit of wealth, power, greed and moral turpitude. It is the leadership by this Establishment that has led the community of Jersey to its ruination.

Although I’m not a religious person, on several occasions during this episode I have been tempted to look to the horizon to see if the Four Horsemen are approaching.

Personally, I will be immensely relived to get out of the intellectually and ethically bankrupt festering midden that is Jersey politics. You and the collection of halfwits you advise seem to be labouring under the delusion that I might be concerned about my political position. No William; on the contrary, I need to escape and cleanse myself after 17 years of swimming in the lake of filth, greed, stupidity, corruption and bacchanalian decadence that is Jersey politics and the ‘high’ society that controls it.

I suggested to my Ministerial colleagues a while ago that they might want to go and see a performance of Gotterdammerung. I think the message went completely over their heads. You, at least, are intelligent enough to, perhaps, just begin to see the waiting pyre.

But Wagner isn’t really my thing.

I don’t suppose you are familiar with the work of Bob Dylan. An extremely insightful writer of song, I have found a lot of comfort in his music recently when thinking about my own future.

“Go to him now, he calls you, you can’t refuse
When you ain't got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose””

So there you have it, Phil. It does not seem to me as though there is, frankly, much point in me coming to the Assembly tomorrow. I might just stand in the Square and hand out my “disallowed documents” to the public and journalists instead. And this e-mail, naturally. In fact – given your contemptuous – and contemptible – behaviour towards unbiased parliamentary democracy so clearly would I be wasting my time attending the farrago tomorrow – that I might just spend my time pushing all this material on to the internet and the national press?

This would, quite clearly, be a greater contribution to democracy than appearing in any legislature chaired by you.

You are a disgusting and silly little man – with the ethics of a Bangkok pimp – and a grasp of democracy that wouldn’t be out of place in Zimbabwe.

Senator Stuart Syvret
Minister, Health & Social Services
States of Jersey.

FREEDOM FOR SURVIVORS;

2009-04-26T21:22:00.001+01:00

LEARNING THE LESSONS:

Will Jersey’s Government Embrace the Truth?

A Readers’ Quiz.

It’s a while since I ran a readers’ quiz, so I thought the next couple of days would be an opportune time to test your powers of imagination and deduction.

Before I put the question to you – a little background information.

Below this post I reproduce a proposition and accompanying report which I have tabled for debate in the Jersey parliament. We will probably reach it on Wednesday, perhaps, given other items on the order paper.

The report & proposition is self-explanatory – so I won’t repeat its contents. In nutshell – I am asking the States of Jersey to embrace the truth; to exhibit honesty – and to ensure that we learn the terrible lessons of the last 6 decades.

Crucial to that objective of ensuring that children are genuinely better protected in the future – is listening to those who have endured these terrible things.

I also strongly believe that all survivors do have an unassailable right to free speech as guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights.

And, frankly, ECHR or not – the least we can do for survivors is let them speak freely.

Predictably – that thinking – that approach - features nowhere in the response and ‘game-plan’ of the Jersey oligarchy. Instead they are striving mightily behind the scenes to get survivors to agree to confidentiality - or ‘gagging’ – clauses in exchange for some paltry compensation that wouldn’t even buy a decent car.

Silence is central to the position of the oligarchy. It is yet another brazen example of the Culture of Concealment – that they should be so indecently desperate to silence people – and prevent the truth from coming into the public domain.

But – of course – they would never admit that that was their motive.

So here is the readers’ quiz.

As we await the debate in the next couple of days – let’s hear you most imaginative ideas as to what arguments the oligarchy are going to use publicly – in their desperate opposition to the proposition below?

The establishment really has its work cut out this time; there is no rational, decent or ethical reason for opposing the proposition.

So let’s hear your predictions as to what intellectually and ethically bankrupt load of cobblers they’re going to churn out this time?

Stuart

CHILD ABUSE COMPENSATION CLAIMS: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR SURVIVORS.

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion –

that in respect of claims being made against the States of Jersey by survivors of child abuse, the States shall not offer, seek or impose any form of confidentiality clause in any negotiations or settlement with claimants and their representatives, and to further agree that the States shall not make any request to a court, future redress board or similar body considering compensation claims, to impose such a clause as part of any judgment or settlement.

Senator S. Syvret

REPORT

This is a simple proposition which is easily understood, and has several objectives.

By adopting this proposition, the States of Jersey will be agreeing that, in the event of any civil claims being made against the States by survivors of child abuse, that no “gagging-clause” will be sought or required by the States, either in any out-of-court settlement, redress board or any civil proceedings before court.

The objectives of this proposition are:

1: To secure for, and guarantee to, survivors their Right to free expression as described in the European Convention on Human Rights.

2: To enable survivors, should they choose, to write books about their experiences, or engage in other public expression of their experiences and opinions.

3: To relieve survivors of the pressure and de facto blackmail many are being subjected to in an attempt to make them sign agreements which contain gagging clauses.

4: To enable survivors to contribute to the protection of children today and into the future, by bringing to public discourse their experiences and the changes they believe may be necessary.

5: To enable survivors to contribute to a full, transparent and honest public understanding of the facts, any deficiencies of public administration and the failings of specific services which may have occurred.

6: To enable the States of Jersey to benefit from the knowledge and experience of survivors, so that the public good is served through learning lessons from any mistakes that may have been made in the past.

Having described the objects and purposes of this proposition – we must also have a clear understanding as to what this proposition does not do.

• It does not pre-judge the conduct, culpability or liability of the States of Jersey.

• It does not pre-judge any current or potential criminal cases.

• It does not pre-judge the merits of any civil cases nor of any potential claims arising therefrom.

• It in no way obliges survivors to make public their experiences and opinions, should they prefer privacy.

• It does not relive survivors of any obligations they may have to maintain the confidentiality of their witness testimony in respect any criminal proceedings which may arise.

• It does not confer any immunity upon survivors from the established laws of defamation.

To summarise the above observations, by adopting the proposition, the States would be agreeing that survivors will not be gagged, and instead, will retain their Right to free speech as described in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that any restriction upon their Right to self-expression shall be no more than that which applies to any person.

I include Article 10 of the ECHR in full as Appendix 1, and quote the relevant section of Article 10 here.

The key part of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 says this:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

THE NEED FOR THIS POLICY

It would be oh so easy – would it not – for the States to brush under the carpet its many failings towards the island’s children over the decades? To quietly put the failings behind us – having ensured that the truth remains hidden?

Very easy, indeed, to preserve and maintain the very culture of concealment which has enabled these issues to remain hidden for decades.

Whilst maintaining the culture of concealment would be very, very politically convenient for the island’s establishment – it is an inescapably clear fact that the public good – the public interest – requires the opposite.

Secrecy and concealment are the friends of child abusers.

If the government of this community cannot tolerate to hear, or to read, the experiences of survivors – to listen to them, to take them seriously, to believe them – then how can we – without shame – expect people in our society to take the subject seriously?

If no less an authority than the island’s government pro-actively strives to keep its malfeasances secret – what example, what moral leadership, do we exhibit in the battle against the secrecy that enables child abuse to flourish?

We must not carry out further oppressions against survivors by attempting to prevent them from expressing their experiences and feelings, should they so choose.

And the States of Jersey must, finally, show some leadership and responsibility by willingly accepting that the facts will emerge – so that we, as an administration, may learn from the mistakes of the past – and better protect children in the future.

Senator Stuart Syvret.

Financial and Manpower Statement

No financial or manpower implications arise from this proposition – save the possibility that from learning the truth, we may need to increase expenditure on child protection measures.

If necessary, could such measures seriously be opposed?

Senator Stuart Syvret.

Appendix

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2: The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

COMPASSION AND SOLIDARITY

2009-04-23T14:19:00.005+01:00

A PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF DECENCY

Join the Public March this Saturday

12.0 Noon – Peoples’ Park.

In Jersey this Saturday, we will be holding a peaceful demonstration in the form of a march from Peoples’ Park to the Royal Square.

Organised by survivors, supporters of survivors, and organisations such as the Care Leavers Association – this march will be an opportunity for decent people to come and join in and express support and compassion for survivors of abuse – wherever they may be.

Though organised by survivors, by taking part in the peaceful protest you will be helping to make a more general point concerning the frequently poor standards of public administration in Jersey.

Full details below.

Hope to see you there.

Stuart.

THE MARCH

On April the 25th 2009 at 12 noon there is to be a silent and peaceful march from Peoples Park to the Royal Square. The march will be in support and acknowledgement of victims of child abuse past and present across the world.

On October the 21st 1996 up to 300,000 Belgian citizens took to the streets wearing white ribbons and arm bands as a symbol of hope which became known as “The White March”. It was not only a march for hope but also a silent peaceful protest against their governments handling of the of the Marc Dutroux case which bears many similarity’s, not only to the way our government has handled the child abuse scandal that has hit Jersey, but the way child abuse is handled by some governments across the world.

We would like the Jersey White March to be non political or critical of our government or police investigation. We believe it will be an opportunity to show abuse survivors and the rest of the world that the good people of Jersey do not condone abuse of any human being - child or otherwise.

Abuse survivors, across the globe, have had theirs and their family’s lives torn apart, wrecked, and destroyed, not only by the heinous abuse they have suffered at the hands of their abusers but the wall of silence that inevitably surrounds the taboo subject of paedophilia.

This March has the support of the Care Leavers Association (CLA) and the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) Please give this march and all abuse survivors your support and show the world the good people of Jersey DO care.

We would ask that if you are able to attend the march that you wear something white, a symbol of hope.

If you are a blogger and support abuse victims around the world, please copy and paste this into your blog for this Saturday, the 25th April.

Thank you.

STRAIGHT POLICING IN JERSEY:

2009-04-22T10:00:00.003+01:00

The Obstacles Good Men Face.

Read the Full Mail on Sunday Article.

Today the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, resumes his court action against his unlawful suspension from his post.

And, as some people have, apparently, had some difficulty finding the full text of last week’s Mail on Sunday article, I thought it would be an appropriate occasion to post the full text here.

It is an important read for anyone concerned with honest, professional and objective law enforcement in Jersey.

Stuart

Mail on Sunday Article

A grandchild's plea halts the former detective's jaw-dropping tale of depravity and corruption midflow. 'I've left my daughter's boy hosing moss off the patio,' Lenny Harper explains after he puts down his mobile phone. 'The lad's having such a good time, he wants me to go home and join in.'

Harper, 57, who initiated the controversial Jersey child abuse inquiry, could be forgiven for putting the investigation behind him and, after 35 years of police work, embracing retirement.

He and his wife Christina help look after two grandchildren, aged five and eight. The couple's youngest daughter was widowed six years ago when her husband, the commanding officer of the Royal Military Police in Iraq, was killed in Basra.

But despite family demands - or perhaps because of them - Harper is now speaking for the first time about his experiences on Jersey. He is determined, as he sees it, to set the record straight and show that the 'establishment' attacking him is not only wrong, but rotten to the core.

Harper, a no-nonsense Ulsterman, spent his last year of service at the centre of world media attention, as journalists descended on the tiny tax haven to report on the police excavation of the former children's home at Haut de la Garenne. Inmates had described horrific abuse taking place there and of children disappearing, never to be seen again. It was thought that bodies might be found.

After Harper retired last August, a new team of detectives denounced their predecessors' concerns, skills and findings. Even the 65 children's teeth unearthed from the home's cellars were, the new men suggested, left for the tooth fairy.

Controversy still rages over the provenance and date of materials discovered at the site and police now say there were no murders. None of the three men - two of them former care workers - charged with abuse has yet been tried, and the Jersey authorities have portrayed the alleged victims as compensation-hungry criminals.

Graham Power, the head of States of Jersey Police, has been suspended, accused of illegal spending on the inquiry. Harper, his former deputy, has been ordered to return to the island for questioning about the alleged theft of documents. Two weeks ago, Stuart Syvret, Jersey's former health minister who raised the issue of abuse, was arrested under data protection laws, accused of leaking material to the media.

Harper, dressed in a crinkled cream suit, seems genuinely unfazed. 'I've served in Brixton, Peckham, Glasgow - I'm used to flak,' he says. 'I don't care what a few establishment cover-up merchants and their pet poodles say about me. But I do care about the victims on Jersey. I'll keep speaking up for their sake.'

Last month, he supported an application at London's High Court by Syvret to ensure that the trials of any alleged Jersey abusers are heard in Britain by British judges. However, the court rejected the bid.

Harper says the investigation of Haut de la Garenne has ground to a halt.

But Harper insists the alleged victims cannot expect justice from what he says is the nepotistic Jersey establishment, where police, lawyers and politicians often socialise together or are related. He has now shared the contents of his shocking High Court statement exclusively with The Mail on Sunday. It details the corruption he claims to have uncovered on the island long before he began investigating child abuse.

'The vast majority of cops on Jersey are honest and we owed it to them to bring to book the guys bringing them into disrepute,' Harper says. 'But the response of the authorities was to suppress everything.'

Harper was recruited to Jersey by Graham Power in May 2002 and learned quickly that the island had its own unique way of dealing with things.

'I joined the States of Jersey Police as the Head of Operations in the rank of chief superintendent,' he says. 'Within weeks I realised that local politicians expected a degree of control over day-to-day operations that no UK police force would tolerate.'

The island operates an ancient, parallel system of Honorary Police - elected lay-people such as farmers or businessmen who can countermand the States of Jersey force. Extraordinary as it seems, only Honorary Police have the right to charge suspects.

The Connetable - the head Honorary Constable in each of the island's 12 parishes --automatically has a seat in the States Assembly. The Honorary Police therefore appear, claims Harper, 'hopelessly politicised'.

Custody sergeants have to consult these volunteers and advise them of all their evidence against suspects. Harper says: 'Several times early in my posting I had to protest to the Attorney General's legal advisers about a refusal to charge in cases where the evidence was overwhelming.'

The first serious challenge to Harper's authority came when he tried to tackle arsenals of firearms on the island. The population of about 90,000 people held 10,000 licensed guns - and numerous unlicensed weapons including semi-automatic rifles. Yet Harper's attempts to take action were repeatedly blocked by politicians.

'Strenuous attempts were made to intimidate us into not taking action with allegations that we were Brits who did not understand the Jersey way of life,' he says. 'I was accused of trying to turn Jersey into Basingstoke.'

Some arms licenses had been granted in the knowledge that the applicant had criminal convictions, and Harper launched covert surveillance of some colleagues. Following a tip-off, he raided the home of a police civilian employee.

'I recovered a huge number of firearms lying unsecured in a bedroom, including an RPG7 rocket launcher,' recalls Harper. 'Among the weapons were some that had been handed into the police previously for destruction. On the floor were 7.62mm rifles, machine guns, Magnum revolvers and a large quantity of ammunition.' A Sea Cat missile launcher - usually carried on warships - was kept outside the home.

'The employee was eventually convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition,' says Harper. The man was also convicted at a police disciplinary hearing of other offences, including falsifying records. But to Harper's astonishment, he was not dismissed and the force had to take him back. Harper eventually forced him to resign.

During his investigation, Harper discovered that hundreds of people had not bothered to renew their firearms certificates and so launched a licensing campaign. 'We started arresting those people who did not renew their licenses. They included police officers, politicians, lawyers and other prominent people. Most pleaded guilty and were given tiny fines by a sympathetic magistrate.

'Politicians met and assisted corrupt police officers and their dishonest associates to mount high-profile media campaigns locally, alleging that they had been wrongly treated.' Undaunted, Harper pressed on.

'One guy asked for a gun to shoot pests and got one powerful enough to kill an elk, with a range of over two miles. Another had built up a horrifying arsenal of weapons and had been granted a firearms certificate by a Connetable despite being convicted in 1992 of possessing a prohibited weapon and supplying controlled drugs.' When police raided his house, they recovered 18 weapons and 183,000 rounds of ammunition - enough to shoot Jersey's population. Twice.

Harper has no idea why islanders amassed such arsenals and is reluctant to speculate on the reasons.

On another occasion, Harper says he discovered three employees were using police money to buy computers for private use. Some stored pornography. The Attorney General's department refused to take legal action and politicians defended the employees. Harper ensured two were dismissed and the third eventually resigned.
In a separate case, three detectives were discovered selling intelligence to women linked to drug dealers in return for sex, says Harper. Despite film and audio evidence, no prosecution was authorised.

Secret filming of one detective's office showed him kissing and being massaged by a lover. She then examined confidential police files relating to international terrorism. This same detective also sent texts to another lover, a convicted criminal and drugs gang associate, when three terrorist suspects were held in custody. He was also recorded divulging almost the whole of a Confidential Criminal Intelligence Report on a local criminal to his wife so it could be passed to the offender.

The same officer also kept at home personal details of someone offering intelligence on Northern Ireland. 'The IRA have long been connected to Jersey,' says Harper.

'The island is a gateway to the UK and politicians' indifference to security was astonishing.'

A criminal file was submitted to the Attorney General. The officer later pleaded guilty to 11 disciplinary charges and was ordered to resign.

The powers that be also seemed set on protecting the many officers accepting favours, such as foreign holidays, from a local businessman.

'Some 16 to 20 officers admitted to me that they were being paid, in kind or otherwise,' says Harper. Given that Jersey has only 240 paid police, this amounted to almost ten per cent of the force.

'A file was submitted to the Attorney General seeking the prosecution of the businessman and a key officer for bribery and corruption. No case was brought. I then decided to prosecute the officer for a number of less serious offences for which the Attorney General's authority was not needed. He was charged with offences of misuse of computers and was convicted of five such charges in the magistrates’ court.

'The Attorney General also agreed to charge the businessman, but he was granted a number of adjournments at court. A few days after I left the island, all charges were dropped and he was awarded costs.'

During the Haut de la Garenne inquiry, Harper received dozens of abusive letters. He still has them, signed and written on headed notepaper. One says: 'You are CRAP at your job. Would you PLEASE PLEASE give the JEP [Jersey Evening Post] a different photo. I had 7 of those and have used them all on the dartboard. I can understand why you don't want to go back home, at least here you are quite safe. You never hear of people's houses being Fire Bombed or Having Cars Torched. I'm sure you know what I mean.'

Harper says: 'The author and four corrupt ex-officers made formal complaints against me. Four out of five so far have been found to be vexatious or unsubstantiated. But it was astonishing to find politicians supporting them.'

The former police chief also discussed the island's culture of 'perks'. 'We prosecuted abusers at one school. A senior teacher told us, in all seriousness, that the children were abused only as some sort of reward for all the hard work he had put into them, like it was a teacher's perk.'

The Haut de la Garenne inquiry developed when, as part of the worldwide Operation Ore, the commanding officer of the Jersey sea cadets was arrested in 2006 for downloading pornographic images of children. Paul Every was subsequently convicted of child pornography offences.

Harper discovered that allegations against sea cadet volunteers went back years. 'Some of the victims were children from Haut de la Garenne, taken sailing for a treat. The victims described being taken into international waters, where guests were invited to abuse them.

'The allegations hadn't been investigated properly. Two senior police officers had put pressure on junior detectives not to interview the perpetrators, and were implicated in the disappearance of evidence and putting pressure on victims to retract. These officers were also members of the yachting fraternity.'

So why did police make the dramatic decision to excavate Haut de la Garenne? According to Harper's High Court statement, the £7.5 million operation began only after extensive consultation with UK experts and police.

After Harper's departure last summer, the course of the investigation was radically altered. The inquiry has now, Harper claims, effectively ground to a halt. Before leaving the island he succeeded in charging three suspects with serious sexual offences. But nearly a year later, none has been tried.

Soon after taking over, Harper's successors called a Press conference to attack his inquiry. He was depicted as an over-excitable and inexperienced officer.

Yet during his career Harper had run 'several dozen' murder inquiries, 'more rape and abuse cases than I can count' and won two of his five commendations for tackling terrorism in Northern Ireland. He also has a Masters degree in criminal justice.

Harper shows me professional assessments made on him only when I ask for them. In one, Sir William Rae, the former Strathclyde Chief Constable, praised him as 'intelligent, articulate and dedicated'.

'We worked very hard to win the victims' confidence,' Harper says of the Haut de la Garenne inquiry. 'I think now they will feel that there is nothing that they can do.

'Jersey is claiming that I left with loads of documents, unused material that could be needed in court. I think they're saying that so that cases can be thrown out. I have offered to go to any court in the UK and answer questions about alleged unused material.'

Harper ended his affidavit to the High Court by saying: 'With such an absence of controls, such an absence of accountability, the ordinary, decent citizens of Jersey are helpless. Intentionally or not, the system has allowed corruption to flourish to such an extent that those seeking to combat it are the ones open to scorn.'

While he is grateful for the ' tremendous support' he received from many fellow officers and islanders during the Haut de la Garenne inquiry, Harper concedes there were times when personal attacks left him depressed. Some of those police officers he had prosecuted or forced to resign became active in a smear campaign, alleging that Harper himself was corrupt.

'How come all these bent cops were able to complain about us, and their complaints were investigated at huge cost, but our investigations were closed down?' Harper asks. 'I've often wondered what it was that we were really threatening.'

JERSEY: AWAITING ITS DUNBLANE.

2009-04-19T15:19:00.002+01:00

“18 weapons and 183,000 rounds of ammunition - enough to shoot Jersey's population. Twice.”

“On the floor were 7.62mm rifles, machine guns, Magnum revolvers and a large quantity of ammunition. A Sea Cat missile launcher - usually carried on warships - was kept outside the home.”

You Couldn’t Make it Up.

The Madness Lenny Harper Fought Against.

The Madness Protected by the Jersey Oligarchy.

Given the relapse of the Jersey Evening Post into propaganda-rag syndrome – just when it looked like it was taking its first, faltering steps towards being a proper newspaper – I had planned to write an analysis of the factually wrong and calculatedly dishonest editorial leader comment The Rag published on the 16th April.

And reflect upon the startlingly obvious contempt The Rag has for its readers.

However, other events being more topical – I’ve decided to leave such grim entertainments for later in the week.

Instead, I thought we’d take a look at the following issues.

The lawless, corrupt and dangerous state of Jersey as describe by Lenny Harper in his affidavit, and the reporting of some of its content in today’s Mail on Sunday newspaper.

The Damien Green Affair – and the likely response of the Jersey oligarchy to the qualitatively identical police action against me.

And – what the cops were looking for when they turned over my home – without a search warrant – at the behest of Jersey Attorney General William Bailhache.

The Mail on Sunday carries an excellent article in today’s edition about the corruption rife in Jersey – and the near-impossible task decent men face in trying to challenge it. It features Lenny Harper – and various observations of his on the wretched state of the rule of law in this island.

The interview with Lenny is drawn from certain parts of the affidavit he prepared at my request to use as evidence in court in London. So when reading it – bear in mind the fact he remains willing and able to stand in a court of law, be cross-examined and testify under oath as to the accuracy of his account.

In truth, Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache should have resigned – or been sacked by London – a long time ago in consideration of the various well-documented perversions of the course of justice he has engaged in.

As more evidence emerges, such as the information in The Mail on Sunday, Bill Bailhache’s position grows – and will continue to grow – more untenable by the day. If the man possessed an atom of integrity or humility – he would simply resign.

Following my unlawful arrest, detention and the searching of my home without a search warrant, a number of us will be signing a letter of complaint to Jack Straw – demanding the sacking of Barking Bill. Straw won’t act, of course – but his inaction will be added to our next attempt to make the UK Justice Secretary answerable to a UK court – for failures to carry out his UK legal duties – resulting in the UK being in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Who knows – next time we may even get two judges who aren’t, (a) a flasher – and (b) a friend of Phil Bailhache.

The material revealed in the Mail on Sunday today shows to ordinary, decent ‘middle Jersey’ – just how stagnant, corrupt, unethical, lawless, unchallengeable and, frankly, dangerous – our present power structure is.

Dozens of gun-obsessed individuals, in possession – illegally - of a horrifying arsenal of powerful weapons and many, many thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Just consider this passage from the Mail on Sunday interview:

“Some arms licenses had been granted in the knowledge that the applicant had criminal convictions, and Harper launched covert surveillance of some colleagues. Following a tip-off, he raided the home of a police civilian employee.
“I recovered a huge number of firearms lying unsecured in a bedroom, including an RPG7 rocket launcher,' recalls Harper.’Among the weapons were some that had been handed into the police previously for destruction. On the floor were 7.62mm rifles, machine guns, Magnum revolvers and a large quantity of ammunition.' A Sea Cat missile launcher - usually carried on warships - was kept outside the home.”

Yet notwithstanding Mr. Harper’s efforts – it was virtually impossible to get serious action – if any – taken against many of the individuals in unlawful possession of such weapons.

The obstructions to the proper rule of law were engaged in by figures at all levels of Jersey’s traditional ruling grouping – from the political honorary police forces of each parish – all the way up to the Attorney General, William Bailhache, who controls them.

When Jersey has a Columbine or Dunblane-type massacre carried out by one or more of these nutters – you or your family could be the victims.

Other people cannot be responsible for the actions of psychopaths – and no system of regulation could ever guarantee complete protection from them.

But respectable, law-abiding societies do all they can to militate against such risks.

However, William Bailhache preferred not to upset the traditional establishment power-base upon which people like him depend – instead, effectively placing political considerations - over and above the safety of you and your family.

One can only wonder at the murderous bloody carnage the maniacs who have carried out these atrocities in the past would have wrought – had they had possession of RPG 7 rocket propelled grenades – and a Sea Cat missile launcher?

You know, it’s quite remarkable – or not, if you believe in common decency – that I, an underclass centre-left, Green politician – should have found common cause with Mr. Harper – a conservative, highly experienced, former RUC police officer.

Perhaps he too is a “closet anarchist” – out to destroy civilised society – as the increasingly insane Jersey establishment would have the world believe of those who criticise them?

Turning to the emergency meeting of the Jersey parliament called for Tuesday.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the democratic, civil-liberty and political implications of my unlawful arrest and detention, the searching of my home – without a search warrant – and the stealing of privileged information concerning my constituents.

Now - you’re a reasonably intelligent person – so you will have readily grasped the fact that the meeting and the debate is not really about me as an individual.

Instead – it is about the very serious implications for representative democracy in Jersey.

You will have seen TV news and read newspaper articles concerning the arrest and detention of Damien Green MP, and the consequent taking by the police of privileged communications between him and his constituents and campaigners.

You understand what an immense controversy this episode has caused – and you understand why.

As Mr. Green himself has said:

“This was the first time since we became a democracy that an opposition MP had been arrested for political work. Of course MPs are not above the law, but by any standards what I was doing was political work of the kind that has been done by politicians for years, notably and very successfully by Gordon Brown. Arresting opposition politicians is something you associate with police states.”

Mr. Green is a Conservative MP – and much like Lenny Harper – not a person you would readily associate with supposed anarcho-commie plots to overthrow the state.

The issues are, I might suggest, readily grasped by any thinking democrat.

However, Jersey Senator Ben Shenton would not appear be in that category.

In yesterday’s edition of The Rag – we learn from the Senator that he will boycott the States meeting on Tuesday – the topic of the privileged relationship between elected representatives and the public – not to mention the more general civil rights issues – being, apparently, nothing more than a “waste of time” and a “circus”.

He says:

“I won’t be attending the States on Tuesday. I was elected to represent the people of Jersey, not errant politicians who believe themselves to be above the law.”

And to think – this intellectual colossus intends to be Jersey’s next Chief Minister.

Just imagine – a modern, democratic state led by a person who believes that tyranny by the majority (ask someone to explain it to you, Ben) and the unlawful oppression of minority politicians and the theft of privileged communications between them and their constituents – is perfectly OK?

The politically motivated police action against me – and the action taken against Mr. Green are qualitatively identical.

And as we see in the Damian Green affair – all shades of the respectable political spectrum are united in their recognition of the dangers to representative democracy which arise out of the action against the MP – and all are united in condemnation of it.

Look, Ben – I’ll try and illustrate the problem for you, OK?

Now, this is nice and simple.

The debate is not about me.

The debate is about the fundamental freedoms and democracy won for us by our grandfathers on the beaches of Normandy.

Let us assume, for arguments sake, that I am 100% wrong in my political battles.

Let us assume that The Rag and the oligarchy it serves are correct.

Let us agree, as the Jersey Evening Post would have us believe, and for the purposes of this debate, that I am, in fact, some conflation of the anti-Christ, Stalin, Bakunin – and, just for good measure, a really serious threat to civilized society, such as an investment banker.

If all were true – it would not make one atom of difference to the principles involved.

Quite regardless of the fact that the oppressed politician happens to be me – it would still be a threat to representative democracy to have politicians hounded by the police and the prosecution system, be arrested and detained for 7 hours, have their home ransacked – without a search warrant - and their privileged communications stolen.

It would be unacceptable against any politician.

Even you, Ben.

But for all his pseudo Man-of-the-People shtick – when the chips are down, Senator Shenton is an establishment man – through and through. Remarkably like Terry – ‘man-of-the-people’ – Le Main.

Who knows – he may even have been asked to make a fool of himself on the pages of The Rag by other oligarchy representatives – who are looking for excuses to boycott Tuesday’s States meeting in the hope it won’t be quorate.

Yes, there’s a Jersey Establishment Party ‘three-line-whip’ doing the rounds, in the hope that the meeting will be inquorate.

You see, at the moment, they’re wrestling with the decision as to which path of action would be the less embarrassing – obstruct the debate simply by not turning up? Or obstruct the debate by turning up – and voting not to debate the proposition that day?

Sadly – they are that stupid.

It plainly not occurring to these clowns that the most embarrassing outcome – the action which would inflict the most damage on the reputation of the Jersey oligarchy – such as it is – would be to not debate the proposition.

Such an event would simply prove that the Jersey parliament was alone – amongst the legislatures of all respectable, western democracies – in being quite happy for its members to be politically oppressed through unlawful police action.

Hey! It would be so damaging to the oligarchy I’m tempted not to attend myself!

But no – I will be there to do my duty – though quite why I should be participating in a debate that furnishes the establishment with a damage-limitation opportunity – I’m not really sure.

Now – I’m sure there was something else I meant to mention?

Ah yes – I remember now.

The information the police and Bill Bailhache were looking for.

They didn’t find it.

And, you know, you really wouldn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to have deduced that it wouldn’t be here.

The really – really – important material I have accumulated in the context of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster during the last couple of years – has been dealt with - in exactly the same way as all of the most fascinating documentation I have carefully accumulated during the last 20 years.

Which is to say – never held in any electronic format – hard copies only; multiple duplicated – and carefully safeguarded in at least three different jurisdictions – Jersey not amongst them.

So, Bill – your storm-troopers had a wasted trip - in their efforts to find such things as my full copies of the McGuire files.

Those particular files shall wait – like a time-bomb – for you and your oligarchy allies to finally confirm to the victims of those two maniacs that no action will be taken.

We shall wait for you – or whoever succeeds you – to assert that the McGuires will not be extradited from France – “because it isn’t possible” – in Bailhache world – for two criminals to be extradited from France to the UK.

Just as soon as your cruel and abusive prevarications end – then the world will be able to see the supposed “insufficient evidence” by which Michael Birt – and now you – adjudged yourselves able to bury the truth.

The rule of law is broken in Jersey.

In the hands of our oligarchy – the criminals are let off.

And the victims of crime are betrayed.

Again and again.

But the fight against this stagnation and rottenness will continue.

Perhaps next time Bill Bailhache sends his cops around to raid me, they’ll be using RPG 7s and their Sea Cat missile launcher - mounted on the back of a pick-up?

Frankly – I wouldn’t be surprised.

Stuart

EMERGENCY STATES ASSEMBLY MEETING

2009-04-16T12:10:00.004+01:00

TUESDAY, 21ST APRIL, 9.30 A.M

Responding to the Assault

On Representative Democracy.

I reproduce below this posting, the proposition and report which has been tabled for the emergency meeting of the States this coming Tuesday.

Fortunately – for the good of Jersey – a number of States members have immediately recognised the very serious implications arising from my unlawful arrest and detention; the searching of my home without a search warrant – and the subsequent theft by the police of a variety of privileged information, including private communications between my constituents and I, and communications with other States members.

Deputy Geoff Southern has taken the lead in this matter, but he has had no shortage of support for his proposition, and the necessary requisition of an extraordinary meeting of the island’s parliament.

Thinking States members can see plainly the threat to their work as politicians and their constituents’ private information now established by the unprecedented action taken against me.

It is also recognised that such conduct by the ruling power claque against minority, or opposition, members of the Assembly can do nothing other than profoundly damage Jersey’s standing as a functioning democracy.

The report & proposition – quite rightly – does not focus on my specific case; rather it is concerned with the principles involved and the future functioning of effective democracy in Jersey.

Readers will see that the wording of the proposition itself , found in paragraphs (a) to (e) below, is entirely reasonable under the circumstances, and nothing more than would be expressed by other self-respecting legislatures should similar action be taken against their members.

What’s the betting the States Assembly rejects it? Or, extraordinarily, even refuse to debate it this coming Tuesday?

Sadly, I think we all understand those odds only too well.

I reproduce below the proposition & report. I’ve taken the liberty of placing the Articles of law quoted at the end – as the report will be of more interest to general readers.

See you on Tuesday.

Stuart.

STATES OF JERSEY

ARREST AND DETENTION OF SENATOR STUART SYVRET AND ASSOCIATED MATTERS

Lodged au Greffe on 16th April 2009 by Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier.

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion −

(a) to express their concern in respect of the apparent interference in the communications between elected representatives and their constituents which arises from the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret on 6th April 2009;

(b) to further express their concern in respect of the suppressing effect of such actions upon other elected representatives, and members of the public;

(c) to further express their concern in respect of the searching of premises, without a search warrant, and the consequent taking of communications between members of the public and their elected representatives;

(d) to request the Minister for Home Affairs to make an urgent statement concerning the decisions, whether operational or political, taken by the States of Jersey Police and the Minister in relation to the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret;

(e) to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to make an urgent statement explaining the extent of the protection offered to States members, and their constituents, by parliamentary privilege.

DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

Emergency States Sitting.

This is an urgent proposition, dealing as it does with matters of immense gravity that go to the very heart of free, functioning democracy in Jersey.

This proposition most certainly amounts to, as standing order 26 (7) says, “a matter of such urgency and importance that it would be prejudicial to Jersey to delay its debate.”

The States Assembly will, therefore, be asked at the beginning of the requisitioned meeting, to agree – as described in standing order 26(7) – to set aside the minimum lodging period in respect of this proposition.

The facts

At approximately 9.00 a.m., on Monday 6th April 2009, Senator Stuart Syvret, the senior Senator of the States Assembly, was arrested by the States of Jersey Police as he stepped from the door of his home. The arrest took place in the presence of approximately 8 police officers who were on the scene in 4 police vehicles.

Senator Syvret was told he was under arrest for alleged breaches of the Data Protection Law, and was, more specifically, later told that the alleged offences related to material published on his Internet blog.

The Senator’s home was then searched, although no search warrant was issued for the alleged offence under Schedule 9, Article 50, Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005.

The implications

The manner of Senator Syvret’s arrest, the search of his home without a warrant, and the taking away of some of his possessions and the possessions of others residing in the premises raises serious concerns for democracy in Jersey, Jersey’s external reputation, Parliamentary Privilege, the Rule of Law, and the accountability, control, and judgement of the police and judicial authorities.

For the avoidance of doubt, this proposition is not about –

1. Senator Syvret as an individual;

2. the merits or otherwise of any allegations or charges being made or brought against him by the police; or

3. the content of his blog.

The proposition, however, is about –

1. The reputation of Jersey as a democracy

It is difficult to describe the damage to Jersey’s reputation – even its very appearance as a functioning democracy – if Laws are used against members of the legislature and their constituents, in ways that appear to be disproportionate and of dubious validity.

The arrest and detention of a member of the legislature, and the searching of his home – without a search warrant – can only make Jersey appear as some kind of democratically bankrupt republic like Zimbabwe.

2. Parliamentary Privilege

The rights and privileges of parliamentarians have been the subject of a long and protracted battle over the last 400 years and should not be discarded lightly.

What is of profound concern is that any members of the Jersey parliament can be arrested in a patently excessive manner – and their home be searched by a large number of police officers – merely for publishing information which they believe to be in the public interest.

Of grave concern is that some of the material seized at Senator Syvret’s home not only concerned privileged communications between him and his constituents, but also similar privileged communications between another States Member and their constituents.

The information and equipment seized by the police included documents and computers owned by the Senator, as well as his Security ID fob for access to the States network, thereby giving the police access to communications between other States Members on a wide variety of issues, including the suspension of the Chief of Police and other allegations of police misconduct. In addition, computer equipment belonging to other family members not connected with the police enquiries was also removed for examination.

The police action can only be viewed as a direct threat to the people of Jersey and the democratic right of the public to communicate with their political representatives and for those representatives to fearlessly fight for their constituents.

A number of other States members now feel threatened and constrained in their work as elected representatives of the people of Jersey, as a direct consequence of the actions against the Senator.

If States members can have their communications interfered with and can be arrested and detained in a police cell for 7 hours, whilst their home is searched – without a search warrant – then Jersey is not a functioning democracy; instead members will always feel threatened by the prospect of such excessive and abusive actions against them.

The anger from all sides of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom at the arrest of Damien Green M.P., and the searching of his office, illustrates just how diligently members of a legislature guard their right to be free from persecutions and trivial harassments so they may speak and act for their constituents without fear.

If members of the States of Jersey fail to express similar concerns, the damage to our reputation will be colossal.

3. The misuse of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003

Senator Syvret was told he was under arrest for alleged breaches of the Data Protection Law, and was, more specifically, later told that the alleged offences related to material published on his Internet blog. Information which the Senator believes is in the public interest.

If the Senator was allegedly in breach of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, which has specific provision in Article 50, Schedule 9, for the search of premises and the seizure of material, why were these provisions not used instead of Article 29 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003? Especially as the raid was obviously a pre-planned operation on Senator Syvret’s home. Why was Senator Syvret not merely invited to attend the Police Station?

4. Double standards

Why have the police gone to such extraordinary measures in this case when there have been other well-documented breaches of the Data Protection Law by other States Members – breaches of no public interest merit – which have not merited such action?

5. Role of elected and unelected Members of the States and Honorary System

A further consideration arises which directly affects the credibility of the Assembly as presently constituted. What was the role of the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General or Solicitor General or Minister for Home Affairs in this affair?

Did the Connétable of the relevant parish know anything of the action against Senator Syvret? Did the States police undertake such a dramatic action without any prior consultation or notice to the honorary police in the parish?

Were any of the Connétable’s honorary officers actually involved in the action?

What role, if any, did the Connétable himself play in the planning or execution of this policing action in his parish?

Those supporting this proposition believe it to be absolutely vital to Jersey’s standing as a respectable democracy that the legislature meet as a matter of great urgency in order to debate the implications of the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret.

The Assembly must debate these issues in order to restore the public’s confidence in their ability to communicate freely and in confidence with their elected representatives.

The Minister for Home Affairs must be asked for an urgent statement concerning the decisions, whether operational or political, taken by the States of Jersey Police and the Minister in relation to the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret.

The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee must also be asked for an urgent statement outlining the extent of the protection offered to States members and their constituents by their parliamentary privilege.

Both democracy and the rule of law have been shaken by recent events.

The Assembly must exhibit the appropriate leadership.

Deputy Geoff Southern.

The Relevant Laws

Schedule 9 of the Data Protection Law states –

“1 Interpretation

In this Part –

“occupier” of premises includes a person in charge of a vessel, vehicle, aircraft or hovercraft;

“premises” includes a vessel, vehicle, aircraft or hovercraft;

“warrant” means warrant issued under this Schedule.

2 Entry and search

(1) If the Bailiff or a Jurat is satisfied by information on oath supplied by the Commissioner that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting –

(a) that a data controller has contravened or is contravening any of the data protection principles; or

(b) that an offence under this Law has been or is being committed, and that evidence of the contravention or of the commission of the offence is to be found on any premises specified in the information, the Bailiff or Jurat may issue a warrant to the Commissioner.

(2) The Bailiff or a Jurat shall not issue a warrant in respect of any personal data processed for the special purposes unless a determination by the Commissioner under Article 45 with respect to those data has taken effect.

(3) A warrant may authorize the Commissioner or any of the Commissioner’s staff at any time within 7 days of the date of the warrant to enter the premises, to search them, to inspect, examine, operate and test any equipment found there which is used or intended to be used for the processing of personal data and to inspect and seize any documents or other material found there which may be such evidence as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).

3 Additional conditions for issue of warrant

(1) The Bailiff or a Jurat shall not issue a warrant unless satisfied –

(a) that the Commissioner has given 7 days’ notice in writing to the occupier of the premises in question demanding access to the premises;

(b) that either access was demanded at a reasonable hour and was unreasonably refused or although entry to the premises was granted, the occupier unreasonably refused to comply with a request by the Commissioner or any of the Commissioner’s staff to permit the Commissioner or the member of staff to do any of the things referred to in paragraph 2(3); and

(c) that the occupier, has, after the refusal, been notified by the Commissioner of the application for the warrant and has had an opportunity of being heard by the Bailiff or Jurat on the question whether or not it should be issued.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply if the Bailiff or Jurat is satisfied that the case is one of urgency or that compliance with that sub-paragraph would defeat the object of the entry.”

The police instead used powers under Article 29 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003.

Article 29 of the PPCE Law states –

“29 Search upon arrest

(1) A police officer may search an arrested person, in any case where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or herself or others.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) to (5), a police officer shall also have power in that case –

(a) to search the arrested person for anything which the person might use to assist him or her to escape from lawful custody or which might be evidence relating to an offence; and

(b) to enter and search any premises in which the person was when arrested or immediately before the person was arrested for evidence relating to the offence for which he or she has been arrested.

(3) The power to search conferred by paragraph (2) is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering any such thing or any such evidence.

(4) The powers conferred by this Article to search a person shall not be construed as authorizing a police officer to require a person to remove any of his or her clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket, gloves or headgear, but shall authorize a search of a person’s mouth.

(5) A police officer may not search a person in the exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph (2) (a) unless the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be searched may have concealed on him or her anything for which a search is permitted under that sub-paragraph.

(6) A police officer may not search premises in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph (2) (b) unless the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that there is evidence on the premises for which a search is permitted under that sub-paragraph.

(7) In so far as the power of search conferred by paragraph (2) (b) relates to premises consisting of 2 or more separate dwellings, it shall be limited to a power to search –

(a) any dwelling in which the arrest took place or in which the person arrested was immediately before his or her arrest; and

(b) any parts of the premises which the occupier of that dwelling uses in common with the occupiers of any other dwellings comprised in the premises.

(8) A police officer searching a person in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph (1) may seize and retain anything the officer finds, if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person searched might use it to cause physical injury to himself or herself or to any other person.

(9) A police officer searching a person in the exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph (2)(a) may seize and retain anything the officer finds, other than items subject to legal privilege, if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing –

(a) that that person might use it to assist him or her to escape from lawful custody; or

(b) that it is evidence of an offence or has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence.

(10) Nothing in this Article shall be taken to affect the power conferred by Article 39 of the Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002.”

JERSEY FINANCE

2009-04-11T20:34:00.002+01:00

Are You an Off-Shore Client of Jersey?

Do Your Private Financial Affairs

Go Through Institutions Here?

Would you prefer that law-enforcement agencies didn’t take too close a look at the minutia of your taxation and financial arrangements?

Then it’s time to change jurisdictions.

As readers will have gathered, recent days have been spent in a very close analysis of various laws, such as the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003.

It is that law which Bill Bailhache and his Police Force relied upon in arresting me, circumventing the established requirements to obtain search warrants, so they could ransack our home and steal a great deal of private information concerning my constituents.

Bailhache has, so far, made two assertions in relation to this case, namely that he “didn’t know about the Police action and wasn’t involved” – and in response to an e-mail from me – that in any event, “the action was lawful”.

Both of these assertions are manifestly complete rubbish and, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of the average person.

We’re supposed to believe that a massed Police raid on a senior member of the island’s parliament, the tenuous and desperate gamble of relying on the PPCE law, the total failure to obtain a search warrant, the arrest, and detention for 7 hours, of an opposition MP, the ransacking of the home he shares with another member of the Jersey parliament – and the theft of copious amounts of private, constituents’ material – was conducted on some random whim of the Police?

You’re reasonably intelligent, right?

Contemplate yourself – considering the magnitude, consequences and fall-out of such actions before they were undertaken.

What conclusion do you come to?

That such actions will have to be undertaken - can only be undertaken - with full knowledge, authorisation and co-operation from the very highest levels of Jersey’s corrupt and ethically bankrupt prosecution and judicial system.

Of itself, the very fact that they took the extreme risk of not obtaining a search warrant, shows that it was a political action, undertaken at the whim of the Bailhache Brothers. Obviously, if our police force felt the need to raid me, and pausing their more usual activities, such as beating up intoxicated children, taking bribes, and ensuring that child abusers don’t get charged – they’d have followed procedure and sought a warrant.

There is plainly a reason why no warrant was used – namely that the Bailhache Brothers and the rest of the crooks considered that it might add yet further evidence to the contention that the administration of justice in Jersey is broken and non-functional, if they or a Jurat granted a warrant – given they are all conflicted from any case involving me.

The oligarchs followed a chain of “reasoning” spectacularly disastrous in its ineptitude.

And explaining just why the criminal action against me is so potentially catastrophic will be my chief subject for today.

But before moving onto that subject, let us – in related considerations – just finish our contemplation of Bill Bailhache.

Certain facts are obvious and immutable.

The illegal raid had been contemplated and planned for a long time.

The particular moment of last Monday was very carefully chosen for several reasons.

The Police have obviously been wire-tapping the phones, and hacking the e-mails of my partner and I. These actions will have to have been authorised by Phil, Birt, Bill or his factotum, or other members of our totally conflicted judiciary.

They knew my partner would be away with her children, thus reducing the controversy from that which it would have been, had they raided and turned over the home with her and the children present.

They also knew the outraged reaction to this police-state stunt would be somewhat reduced because the Easter holidays having just begun, a lot of islanders would be away on holiday.

And – quite plainly – they had to choose a time which coincided with a period when the House of Commons wasn’t sitting – thus hoping to avoid the fall-out of the inevitable Early Day Motions. But those will still happen, of course.

The careful, political plotting which went into the criminal, banana republic type raid and search is glaringly obvious to anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence.

Although at least two thirds of the island’s lawyers are terrified of the prospect of Barking Bill becoming a judge, some people used to regard him as possessing an elevated degree of intelligence – at least in comparison to his brother, Phil, who possesses the IQ of an artichoke. So we aren’t speaking of a particularly high benchmark here.

But even though most of Jersey’s lawyers, accountants, bankers and so-forth hate me – many of the more intelligent ones can see the risks and jeopardies which their businesses are confronted with as a result of having faintly deranged, politically motivated clowns in charge of Jersey’s prosecution and judicial apparatus.

As I’ve remarked previously, I speak with some lawyers, bankers and accountants, who don’t share my political views. But many cannot help themselves expressing to me what a total, bloody nightmare it is for them and Jersey’s finance industry in having such deeply eccentric and politicised individuals in charge of the island’s judicial systems.

Reputation is everything. And Jersey’s attempt to fend-off external attacks, pressure and competition have been largely based upon the notion that “we are a respectable society – unlike some of our banana republic off-shore competitors. You can come and do business with us, secure in the knowledge that your affairs will be properly protected by the effective rule of law.”

Bearing that ‘sales-pitch’ in mind, a banker who cheerfully tells me he would never vote for me, told me a couple of days ago, ‘not two weeks pass without the Bailhache Brothers, or some other senior establishment figures, making me cringe.’

And recent events have trained him sufficiently to be a serious competitor in a gurning competition.

Because he – and a silent, but terrified, majority of his money-men colleagues – contemplate the misapplication and abuse of the PPCE law, as used against me, and envisage the smoking ruins of their industry and livelihoods.

For what was so disastrous in the unlawful action taken against me on Monday – is the effective destruction of all the traditional safeguards and checks and balances involved in requiring the Police to obtain a search warrant from higher authorities.

Let us speak plainly; Jersey’s economy is, to all practical purposes, utterly dependent upon the off-shore finance industry.

And, yes, yes, we’re a legitimate and respectable finance centre.

But let us be honest – rare indeed will be the Jersey finance industry business that could declare, with absolute certainty, that they had no clients at all who the taxation and law-enforcement agencies of many other jurisdictions and – in this age of international regulatory agreements - the local Police, would not have a certain interest in.

Of course, I’m sure all our clients are perfectly legitimate and law-abiding and are, in no way, rampantly breaking the taxation laws of their respective countries.

But – we know, don’t we, just how mischievous and excessive the Police Force can be – especially when driven by increasingly empowered and over-zealous officials in places like the USA, Germany, France – etc, etc.

We know just how much they would love to be able to embark upon raids, searches and data seizures by way of ‘fishing-expeditions’.

But of course – Jersey, and its off-shore clients – are protected from such invasive and embarrassing actions through the traditional and strict requirement for the Police to obtain search warrants before undertaking any such raid.

No longer.

If the events of last Monday were in any way faintly legitimate – suddenly the Jersey law enforcement apparatus has divested itself of all that terribly tiresome business of having to seek and justify obtaining a search warrant.

Imagine – you have some zealous cops in the leadership of the local force; their mates in UK Special Branch, or the FBI from over the Pond, decide that clients X, Y, Z might have been breaking their tax-laws by using Jersey’s finance industry. They have reason to believe that criminal activities may have been committed in the offices of Big World Bank Ltd, or Grifters International Charted Accountants LLP, or Legislature For Hire Advocates of Grenville Street.

These unreasonable law enforcement officers want to go on a ‘fishing-expedition’ – to dig out every little personal detail of the clients’ financial affairs. Before last Monday, in Jersey any such raid and seizure of computers and other records would have had to satisfy the high, procedural hurdle of going before the relevant authorities to obtain a search warrant.

But after the events of last Monday, consider: – the cops wish to raid your offices – and seize all the records of your USA clients; they don’t think they’d get a search warrant – so they wait for you to step out of the building – problem solved.

You have now been arrested just outside your offices, on suspicion of helping your clients to break the law. The cops have “reasonable grounds” for believing that evidence of that alleged crime is in the building you have just left.

They are now at perfect liberty to ransack the entire building, remove all computers and files – and then trawl through the minutiae of each of your clients’ affairs.

Puts a rather different perspective on the security and confidentiality of Jersey’s off-shore finance sector – doesn’t it?

If I were an overseas client whose financial affairs were transacted in Jersey – I would be on the phone – this very instant – ordering the immediate transfer of all my business affairs and any associated records out of Jersey – and into a jurisdiction with effective checks and balances.

So now, bankers, accountants and lawyers are frightened; their clients are frightened.

No safeguards against random abuses of police power to search premises and remove “evidence”? No absolute requirement to obtain a search warrant?!?

So, you rush, in a cold sweat and wide-eyed, to grab a copy of the PPCE law – and feverishly thumb through it until you alight upon, say, Part 3, Powers of Entry, Search and Seizure.

Phew! – Panic over. Lots of good, solid, safeguards there, in Articles 15 to 18.

But hold on. You read and re-read Articles 19 and 20 – and suddenly it all gets very nebulous again. You can’t help but run through your mind various circumstances in which the police could contrive to use these Articles to carry out a search and seize of your premises.

Quickly flick back to Part 1, Interpretation, and Articles 3, 4, 5 & 6. Surely these paragraphs must protect your data base of tax-efficiency seeking clients? And on the face of it, the definitions of ‘serious offence’, ‘prohibited article’, ‘items subject to legal privilege’, ‘excluded material’, ‘special procedure material’ and journalistic material, do appear to place some pretty robust protection around certain types of sensitive information.

So what’s all the fuss about, then, you say, turning to Article 29 – the provision relied upon by Barking Bill and his storm-troopers to arrest me and search my home. At first glance, Article 29 does appear to grant those powers to the police.

But read Article 29 very closely – and try and find where it incorporates the safeguards to protect certain information as described in the Interpretation of Articles 3 – 6? There is no reference to these safeguards.

So if the police wished to raid and search your business premises – using the device of Article 29 – all of that private, client data, excluded material, legally privileged information, journalistic information etc, can be seized and taken by them – in utter disregard of any protections available to you and your clients.

You might think, ‘that can’t be so, surely? The raid on Syvret didn’t involve the taking of that type of protected data?’

Oh yes it did.

Lots of it. Vast quantities of information supplied to me in confidence by my constituents. Information gathered in connection with my work as a Senator.

At a stroke, the police utterly circumvented all the well-established legal requirements to obtain a search warrant - and circumvented the additional protections afforded to certain kinds of sensitive data.

In the comically implausible statement issued by Bill Bailhache this week – in which he denied any knowledge of the raid – he made this fascinating comment:

“Everyone is equal before the law, and Senator Syvret is no different from the rest of us.”

Indeed. And that being the case, the law as applied and used against me last Monday must also apply to any person or business, as long as the cops can contrive similar circumstances. Not a remotely difficult thing to do.

But that does assume, of course, that the action taken against me and my constituents was lawful.

I, and those advising me, do not think it was a lawful action. But of course, the oligarchy do.

So – what’s it to be then?

You see – no matter which way you cut it – the Jersey oligarchy now has an epic nightmare on its hands.

Either - the actions taken against me last Monday were unlawful – in which case Jersey has a prosecution system, judiciary and police force, entirely out of control and conducting itself with reckless lawlessness – even to the extent of interfering with politicians and their constituents’ private information.

A breakdown in the rule of law and good governance.

Or – as Barking Bill would have us believe – the action taken against me was lawful.

In which case Article 29 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence Law can now be used to raid and ransack any offices, homes or other premises in which the police “have reasonable grounds for believing that there is evidence on the premises” – entirely without a search warrant – through the simple expedient of waiting outside the door of, say, that accountancy firm you run, and arresting you.

The Jersey oligarchy cannot have it both ways.

Either the action taken against me and my constituents under Article 29 was criminal, of itself.

Or it was lawful – and Article 29 can therefore be used to arrest and search the premises of anyone - any place - anytime.

Personally, I can see we’ve taken a large stride down the path towards a lawless state following the events of last Monday.

But such considerations would not usually matter to the money-men, many of whom will think that if a law is abused and applied against uppity plebs, well, what’s the problem with that?

But I would strongly advise them to think about the implications of what has happened – and be afraid.

Be very afraid.

To reduce that famous slogan of the International Brigades down to a level which might just chime with those of influence in Jersey: -

“If you tolerate this – your banking clients will be next.”

Ciao

Stuart.