Monday, 16 July 2012


While the announcement in the Jersey Establishment Post that the Privileges & Procedures Committee is to mount an ‘official investigation’ into who ‘leaked’ an extract from the original 2008 debate around the suspension of former Police Chief Graham Power (to the excellent Rico Sorda Citizens’ Media website) comes as little surprise, it really does at least highlight what an utterly irrelevant and petty waste of time this committee has now become. Politically imbalanced, sycophantic and completely hijacked by those who would see Jersey as little more than some quasi-neo-feudal State.

Who ‘leaked’ this extract to this investigative journalist who, with a few others, is doing so much to show just how scared of their own shadows all too many professional, ‘accredited’ media journalists are? Frankly, who cares a jot? Not me certainly – nor for that matter a single member of the public that I have spoken to and it has surprised me just how many people really are interested..

Like me what all of these people really want to know is: why aren’t PPC Chairman, Constable Crowcroft and his colleagues doing something truly worthwhile? Such as going through the Code of Conduct with a fine toothcomb to see what can be done about the collection of morally bankrupt and utterly gutless political sheep who voted to keep from the public – nearly a full four years on – that our former Home Affairs Minister deliberately misled the States Assembly in order to justify the suspension of Graham Power.

Misled the Assembly not only by stating that he had seen a ‘report’ that he clearly could not have – but a report that did NOT say what he claimed it did even if he HAD seen it! Of course, outside of the rarefied atmosphere of alternative reality that is the States Chamber in the real world most people would likely call such behaviour lying. Now if that isn’t worth PPC investigating in its self then I really don’t know what is.

As some of us have maintained all along in the face of the desperate Establishment Party misinformation campaign, former Police Chief Power was suspended on a ‘fit him up now – try and find the matching evidence later’ construct. It was surely bad enough that it happened and was presented to the States in the first place. Yet to now, in 2012, still hear new Deputies who aren’t fit to lace Bob Hill’s boots stand up and make pathetic excuses not to support Deputy Mike Higgins’ proposition on the grounds of ‘being new Members they really don’t know enough to vote in support’ is not only sickening pathetic it also well and truly stinks.

Indeed, as another long-time Member said to me afterward: with such craven, lickspittle behaviour such as this some people will surely be promoted to bag carriers to the ‘Great and the Good’ in no time at all.  Isn’t keeping the truth from the public what dictatorships and banana republics do? Our Assembly really ought to be ashamed.

Meanwhile, few in number within this Chamber of Secrets we Progressives may be, but the fight for both truth and justice goes on regardless. There really isn’t any other honourable option.  Still, always enjoying the old Monty Python ‘Spanish Inquisition’ sketches I almost wish that I hadn’t publicly given my copy of the leaked document back – the prospect of Constable Crowcroft and Sir Philip descending on me at the chime of midnight in scarlet cloaks and silly hats is surely almost worth the pain of the thumbscrews. Maybe even the terrors of the PPC ‘comfy chair’…

Keep the Faith.



  1. You are quite correct in your analysis of the present position. Our government (and apparently most other elected members of the States), as well as the media, are clearly interested only in discovering the identity of the individual/s who leaked information rather than tackling the fundamentally more serious issue of a former Minister deliberately misleading the States by telling what were undeniably lies about the suspension of the then Police Chief for the sole purpose of obtaining the backing of the States for the action he had taken.

    Quite by chance, over the weekend I watched an episode of an old TV series in which a police officer had to break the rules in order to save the lives of some children who had been abducted. Everyone knew who the abductor was but there was insufficient direct evidence to prosecute him and the location of the abducted children was unknown to the police. In this fictional episode, the children would have died if the police officer had not taken it upon himself to step outside procedure. The lives of the children were, to him, more important than playing strictly by the rules. In this piece of fiction, of course, the police officer found himself in deep trouble for breaking the rules. The only people who thanked him were the parents of the children. It would have been so much more “proper” to have allowed the children to die.

    I am not seeking to make a direct comparison here. I merely wish to make these points –
    1. The whole issue of in camera debates needs to be re-examined. Jersey is apparently one of very few jurisdictions in the world where such debates are held in a parliament except in the most dire emergencies.
    2. Given the amount of apparently well-evidenced information that has appeared on several blogs over the last few years about the Power suspension (despite the best efforts of the majority of States Members, the media and others to prevent such information from reaching the public) it was inevitable that the record of the Minister’s misleading of the States would at some stage be leaked.
    3. Whoever leaked the information has performed a great public service by doing so. I now know that a former Minister lied to the States (supported by others in these lies of course) and that, as a result, the career of a Police Chief with an impeccable record was brought to an unsavoury end. Worse still, this was done in order to present Jersey as a “whiter -than-white” place to live and do business at the expense of many, many unfortunate people who suffered physical and sexual abuse over many decades whilst in the care of the States.
    4. I want my elected representatives to be honest and transparent. Of course there will always be issues that merit being kept under wraps for a variety of genuine reasons. But I cannot stomach a situation where my representatives will actually support the conduct of the previous Home Affairs Minister and, instead, divert their energy into identifying the whistleblower. What a crazy state of affairs!

    1. Are many people aware that sustained sexual and psychological abuse took place in De La Salle College by the Catholic Brothers,whilst lay teachers turned a blind eye ?

      Complaints were made at the time but the police did nothing about them. Statements were given to investigating officers during the HDLG enquiry but the investigation came to an abrupt halt when Lenny Harper left the island.

  2. You could ask what is the point of having any meeting in-camera when untrustworthy States Members are going to leak the minutes anyhow?

  3. Rico Sorda should at the very least be charged under data protection law because its a clear breach, but this post of yours is unhelpful to him anyway. I mean, come on TP, are PPC going to listen to your opinions after your track record with them already???? I don't think so!

  4. Trevor.

    As I have commented elsewhere, a leaked document (in the real world) is not news, documents get leaked every day of the week. Jersey's propaganda machine (all island "accredited" media) are trying to make the leak into news so nobody becomes any the wiser as to the (in my opinion) despicable and disgraceful actions of the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.

    The fact that this information was not leaked to the "accredited" (State) media also tells the story that they are not trusted. BBC Jersey has been in possession of Graham Power's 62,000 word defence case to Wiltshire and after TEN MONTHS still haven't reported a single word of it. It was you who said this document could be redacted in two hours with a bottle of typex so they really have no excuse to be ignoring their charter other than complicity with the Jersey Establishment.

    Being banned from the BBC airwaves, I am prevented from adding some truth's, facts and evidence to the propaganda they have been churning out, on their radio show.

    PPC are a complete and utter waste of time and should be looking as to what actions can be taken against those who apparently tell lies to the parliament, not against those who expose those apparent lies.

  5. Trevor.

    This is the information that the BBC along with the rest of the island's State Media, don't want the public to know.

    The Former Home Affairs Minister told the island's Parliament (in a secret session that was never meant to see the light of day) regarding his suspension of the Former Police Chief.

    "As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.”

    But running alongside that statement we have, in the subsequent Napier Review in paragraph 101;

    "As previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim Report. Neither did they seek to see it.”

    Thanks to the Former DCO and SIO of the Child Abuse Investigation, Mr. Lenny Harper, we have now also learnt from "Operation Tuma" that the MET Review;

    "does not criticise the investigation. The Review does not criticise any individual involved in Operation Rectangle."

    Whoever leaked the transcript of this secret debate should be congratulated as so should Rico Sorda for publishing it.

  6. Trevor

    Brill post but from the photo it looks like the Inquisitors have lopped your ears off! Watch out it will be your tongue next to shut you up!Who do you reckon leaked the debate? Actually don't answer that one even if you know.

  7. You make a good arguement and I hope PPC act on it.

  8. Trevor.

    The discredited and disgraced BBC

    PPC a complete and utter waste of TIME

  9. No! No! Simon - Not the Comfy Chair!16 July 2012 at 17:14:00 BST

    Rico Sorda can't be charged with anything of the sort. How silly can a person be? I remember when this same sort of "leak" was given to the JEP a few years ago. Don't see them mentioning that fact now though.

    Voice is right though PPC is a joke. I hear they even take complaints from sickos who make death threats to innocent people so maybe we really shouldn't be that surprised. Monty needs to oust Simon Crowcroft from the Chair so that they can do some real work.

  10. Anonymous:

    You can ask me who 'leaked' the extract from the debate because the simple answer is that I honestly don't know. I know it wasn't me. I know it wasn't the proposer, Mike Higgins. That leaves 49 for the comfy chair and thumbscrews.

    Another Anonymous:

    'track record'? What - being a part of the only PPC that was ever balanced and brought workable ideas forward? Or do you mean waking the current committee up with a few home truths?

    As for Mr. Sorda - no, he can't be 'charged' with anything according to my advice. Unless caring about honesty and justice is now illegal?

  11. If Rico Sorda gets charged under the Data Protection Act I want him to call me as a defence witness to the necessity of having to publish on his blog things which they are wanting to hide. I am sure I won't be the only Pindown child abuse survivor that will want to give evidence in Rico's defence. I have a strong feeling that these threats which the man who makes death threats is being allowed to utter by proxy are just that, idle threats, because what a can of worms will be opened if ever they did take this good man to their corrupt court!

  12. Apparently PPC boss Constable Crowcroft and his boss Senator Bailhache are issuing an important press release in the morning. Word is that something really, really important has gone down.

    The framing of good honest cops? No. The bullying of civil servants? No. Stealing our independeent electoral commission? No. No, no, no far more serious. An attack on the natural order of society and all that is apparently good.

    Someone at PPC took the last choccy biccy at teabreak time and it had Sir Philip's name on it!

  13. PPC and the Jersey Evening Post are seeking to attack the messenger rather than the serious issue surrounding the reason Deputy Andrew Lewis's claims to Mr. Napier differ to his claims in the secret debate.

    Why was Mr. Power suspended?

    1. Ask Ian Le Marquand, but make sure you have plenty of time on hand when you do, because his reply is sure to be as long winded, tedious and informative as reading a telephone directory backwards.

      The real reason Mr Power was suspended was because he and Lenny Harper were doing too good a job of investigating institutional child abuse.

  14. Attacking the messenger? Its a Jersey tradition, isn't it?

  15. Trevor.

    While Mick Gradwell was the supposed Senior Investigating Officer of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation he was, it has been reported, leaking confidential information to a "journalist" with a history of supporting convicted paedophiles....While the Child Abuse Investigation was still live!

    There are those such as sir Hugh Orde and others who believe this sort of behaviour should have the cop sent to prison with the key throw away. Jersey's only "news"paper called Mick Gradwell A WHISTLEBLOWER!!!

    So will Rico Sorda, and whoever leaked him the document, be heralded as "WhistleBlowers" by the same "news"paper???????????

  16. I can't think of any reason why Rico would need to face any data protection problems. If anyone it would be one of the people who didnt hand their transcript back in. There have been many breaches of data protection laws regardless of what side of the establsishment you are on and to pursue this and indeed to prosecute would open up a massive can of worms, unless of course ppc just pick and choose.

    It is just an in camera debate, it means nothing unless there is something to hide in my opinion. That it was held in camera in the first place is ridiculous unless there were more to the transcripts than noted, such as names of abuse witnesses/victims or people outright accusing states members of crimes etc.

    Our states seems to have too many In Camera debates and I wonder just how many of them are a waste of time being In Camera in the first place, unless someone or somepeople dont want the public to get the wrong (or right) impression of them.

  17. Sorda has done nothing wrong and how could they prosecute him anyway when Power got away scot free over the email malarky?

  18. As an outsider, I can assure you this entire debate about who leaked the evidence is somewhat unique to Jersey and a handful of countries Jersey would not wish to be confused with.

    What is entirely unique to Jersey are two things: The fact that in camera sessions take place at all, outside of war-time or terrorism emergency considerations, and the more appalling uniqueness of the BBC Jersey reporters discussing the leak as if professional journalists worth their credentials would ever consider such leaks anything but a noble gift. So stunned was I by the words of the two self-rightous BBC reporters, who treated the leak as a scandal while blithely dismissing the enormous story of the States cover-up directly involved in the matter, I burned a copy to play for other journalists.

  19. There seems to be a lot of people who think they can decide for Data Protection. This is an issue between PPC and Data Protection who I presume would be liaising about this already.

  20. Frankly, having had nothing to do with this 'leak' I find the mountain that some people are trying to build out of a mole hill quite amusing.

    As a poster says, just think back to when the JEP were 'leaked' what had apparently happened in an 'in camera' debate. Precisely nothing - because the journalist simply refused to reveal his sources which the media are able to use as a defence.

    Being a matter of genuine public interest in that it shows poor and, you have to add, dishonest government I would imagine Rico Sorda would adopt the same response - and fair play to him. As for comments trying to suggest 'stolen' data - they are surely having a laugh?

  21. Rico is doing a real service to the people and can hold his head high. I agree with you on this stolen document tosh. How could he steal something that must have been given to him by another concerned member of the public; albeit a concerned States member? What puts such garbage into perspective is looking at what happened to Sean Power and that horrible hate site that used to run. If ever a document would likely be said by most people to be stolen being taken from its rightful owner then here was an example. Yet not a thing was done about it. End of story. Carry on Rico and thanks Trevor for being one of the few decent politicians within our cesspit of a government. Truth will out in the end. As you say, Keep the faith we are winning however slowly.

  22. Look, on both recent occasions - as requests have followed on from questions of mine - I have asked - and voted - not to go into secret 'in camera' session. Unless it really is a matter of security or similar that could have serious negative impacts otherwise I maintain that we should be open and transpareant at all times possible.

    There was no genuine justification for the original 'in camera' debate in 2008 from what I have read. It was done in my view just to make the hatchet job all the easier. That four years on people can still vote to keep the truth from the public really is, as somebody commented to me the other day, sickening.

    The Gradwell 'leak' issue that Team Voice raise is also hugely telling. What is the more serious issue here? I don't think there is even a contest. What will the outcome be? probably not a lot given that PPC would then have to chastise the JEP too.

    Then again... No one expects the Spanish Inquisition...

  23. Excuse me but I think that it is very mean to compare (even though it is clearly in fun) Sir Philip and Sir Simon with the Spanish Inquizition. Please tell me when you have ever seen either of these two gentlemen dressed up in silly red cloaks or funny headgear?

  24. I believe the initial in Camera debate was correct, as the outcome could have been not to dismiss Graham Power, but as the outcome was negative and the fallout publicised by ILM I see no logical reason for not having a normal public debate on the original debate, as it stands, new evidence has came into play and it shows that Andrew Lewis lied and mislead the members.

    However, as normal the clowns who think they know better, now highlight the issue further by asking who leaked the document, this in turn informs a wider audience of a leak and many will want to know what the leak was all about, hence they go to Rico's blog because the "controlled media" are afraid to step out of line!!

    1) Who leaked the document? Don't know
    2) Don't know, but I want to know what was leaked
    3) I see, so why did Lewis lie?
    4) So Graham Power was illegally suspended!
    5) Did ILM know this?
    6) If ILM did know this, how could he maintain a suspension?

    1. Ah, human nature and curiosity may win the day for truth. If the blogs included gossip and candid photos of social events, the State Media consumers and other truth avoiders couldn't resist taking a look.

  25. Will everyone please stop using the title before Phillip Bailhache's name. He does not deserve such title and no one who really understands whats going on should ever give him the credit of that title!

    As far as I am concerned I will only ever use a title for someone who deserves it and thus commands such respect. Clearly not the case in this situation.


  26. Surely Rico has done what Stuart did - publish something that the States believes shouldn't be in the public domain.
    So does that mean Rico will get the dawn raid, illegal house search, etc?

    1. Surely if anyone should be getting the police dawn raid treatment it should be Sean Power?

  27. The matter of how a minister or any States Member can tell the Assembly that they have seen something which is "damning" but is subsequently proven to be nothing of the sort as the police authority even confirm has to be taken seriously. Otherwise law and order is worthless.

  28. Hello Trev

    Heard questions today. You are a very, very brave man Trevor. The fact that nobody has raised this issue about the jurat in the States before shows how unfit for purpose our system is. Cover up merchants. How could such a person be argued to have sound judgement or the necessary commitment to justice to sit and judge other people? Incredible. How I ask could such a thing happen if proper checks and balances are in place?

  29. Agree with anonymous. 12 years? How can this happen.

  30. Would someone share the question Mr. Pitman asked today, as I did not listen to the States live feed.

    I'm aware of concerns re Jurat, yet nothing specific has been mentioned on blogs.

  31. If this helps all of today's questions, the oral and written ones can be found on the States website in the order paper section I think. Don't think the answers will be up on the Hansard section yet though. Trevor even has a link to the States site on his main website attached to this blog if you can't find it. As it happens the States website is really quite good now as you can even look up old questions and debates fairly easily just by typing in the subject and politician. As for today though, the main point of what was being asked from what I heard was about how can it be right that a person who fails to report child abuse can become a jurat yet a poor person who has just needed some welfare help can't. The law in question Trevor was refering to is from 1948 which to be fair you have to say is a bit of a bad joke. Bit like the jurat system generally. How many black people are jurats? or Portuguese? None.

  32. A message to the person sending the long post about the Jervis-Dykes/Victoria College affair.

    As you might expect I'm not going to publish this simply due to the language. But rest assured - along with a lot of material I will be posting extensively later this summer on the whole sickening episode I brought up in the States yesterday.

    It is that important. It should not have been allowed. Yet it was...

    In the meantime rather than try to make excuses for a person who deserves no sympathy at all I suggest you wise up and try to get hold of a copy of the Sharp Report. Read this and then you don't have to take my word - you can see the facts outlaid by Mr Sharp himself.

    However, that you appear to think that a person - any person - who has failed to report child abuse - over a period of years - and even made sickening appeals for an abuser to be allowed to stay on and teach at a school where his victims still are; and also even be allowed to work out notice and 'resign with some dignity' perhaps what you say is not just out of simple ignorance of the facts.

    Which begs the question: what exactly is your motivation?

  33. One point that I forgot to add to the above reply. With regard to 'speaking to people who were there at the time'. Rest assured - I have and continue to do so.

  34. I wonder if Prince Charles knows what kind of sleazy justice systme is in place in the island he has come to visit?

    1. I'm sure Prince Charles is fully aware of everything that is happening in Jersey, including the history of the people who run the island.

  35. There used to be a copy of the Sharp report on the JusticeforSurvivors web site. It has gone. I hear a former Vic pupil, member of the JCLA and computer whiz has a copy.

  36. How much is the Royal visit costing the taxpayer?

  37. Given this happened some time ago, it is still obviously completely ridiculous to have a man with such abysmal judgement sitting in court advising on handing down justice. The fact that children were involved adds extra weight to a question regarding the appointment of Jurats and their history.

    Why does Jersey's judicial system allow people like this be invited in to their special club ? Is there something you would like to tell us Senator Bailhache.

    In the public domain for years.The Sharp Report.


  38. The whole jurat system needs to be overhauled. This isn't to cast aspersians on every person who is a jurat.

    But simply because the system is not Human Rights compliant and what you have revealed clearly shows that unsuitable people can and do become jurats.

    How can anyone have trust that they will get a fair trial if people who deliberately did not report child abuse can become 'lay judges'? They can't.

  39. I obviously do have copies of the Sharp Report as I have said in the States a number of times. I even held one up for Members on Tuesday at the point the Chief Minister started to waffle about 'allegations' and the need to be careful.

    Readers who actually listened to the debate will have noticed that nothing that I said was challenged either by another Member or through the Chair. This is because all that I said was cold, hard fact.

    Well, apart from the one thing that I have to hold up my hands to and say that I got wrong with a slip of the tongue. I made reference to '12 years'. I should have said '14'.

    Having been blocked from getting a copy through official ESC channels I eventually got Sharp through a UK child protection site. This surely shows how ridiculous and frankly worrying it is that attempts should continue to block access to the report for Members.

    Whilst Deputy Ryan may be genuine in his feelings that the report would need to be 'redacted' I can say that this simply is not the case. The report could be released as it is. Besides, we all know what happens when reports get 'redacted'...

  40. The trouble with the Sharp Report is that it's already been present on the NET for 4 years at least and anybody with an interest has read it. During 2008 hard copies were handed out to national newspapers and a few made basic reference to it. It seems strange that a report that has been around for so many years can be used to prove anything new?

  41. Amonymous

    Not 'strange' at all.

    The problem is that the issue that I am now raising has never been dealt with by those who should be ensuring every aspect of our justice system is fit for purpose. That this flaw - call it what you will - has not been tackled by those who quite clearly already knew about it raises some serious questions in itself.

    People dismissing the Sharp Report just because they have problems with some of the things that former Senator Syvret has said and done is simply not good enough. It is a much bigger issue and has to be confronted.

  42. Deputy Pitman.

    Le Breton is the problem.

    The rest are OK.

    Arn't they?

  43. Piers Baker denies any involvement in the Sharp report,resigns from the school and walks into a top job at Jersey harbours,the jersey way maybe?

  44. The very fact that the way in which Jersey has allowed these 'lay' judges who sit and lord it over mere mortals, even though they are wholly unqualified and get no training or assessment of competence, to go unchanged since 1948 as you pointed out in the States speaks volumes. Just how precisely can this system be human rights compliant in 2012? Perhaps some of those involved can come on here and enlighten us?

  45. Hi Trevor.

    Just put up Audio of the biast Interviewing on our BBC Local Radio. I know I can here you say Biast & BBC don't go together ? But have a Listen, see what you think.

    You & your reader's can Listen HERE

  46. If any readers are concerned about where our money as taxpayers goes; and whether we are getting good value or not then a press release sent to Members and media should really warm the cockles of your heart...

    Having hijacked the independant electoral commission Senator Bailhache and his Vice-Chair are flying off to Barbados to check out small jurisdictions - and all for the bargain price of just under £7,000!

    Funny, but sitting on two of the PPC sub-committees as I do I can't help but recall that for the committee looking at electoral law the Chairman, Deputy Judy Martin and one other went to...Guernsey!

    Slightly more relevant than the Caribbean? Though admittedly not nearly as sunny...

  47. Trevor.

    It makes you wonder if the majority of the public of Jersey are happy with Sir Philips trip to The Caribbean?

    Or are they starting to realise that he is just taking the p**s?

    A lot of us are just saying let him take enough rope!?

  48. Senator Bailhache's jolly to Babados gives a whole new meaning to the term Pirates of the Carribean. Nearly £7000 quid to find out what exactly? If Factor 15 is better for burnt Tory flesh than Factor 12? What a waste of our money.

  49. will their wives be going too??

  50. Pass the suncream and fetch me another Tequila23 July 2012 at 21:59:00 BST

    Isn't it odd how - and I know you pointed this out on CTV - that when Philip Bailhache was making his big play to take over the electoral commission money was such a big issue.

    Now that he has got his way to try and skew it to keep the useless Constables in off he trots to b*****y Barbados? Has this man got any idea at all about public opinion?

    I wonder how many votes he would get now - nothing like the 17,000 mugs who voted for him last year, that's for sure.

  51. So Bailhache wants independence so Jersey can do things their way but suddenly Barbados has all the answers. What a joke!

    Reading Wikipedia I note the government has 18 ministers including a PRIME minister (alarm bells), but also I noted:-


    Transparency International ranked Barbados as 17th place (of 179) in the world on its corruption perceptions index in 2010, with only 1 nation surpassing it in the Americas. ([1])

    Take a read of

    and you will find this:-

    “Currently, many Barbadians are beginning to accept that corruption is a way of life. This being the case, Barbados is now on the brink of following the path of other countries where corruption begins to eat away at the fabric of the society. The Bill has gone to a select committee of the lower and the upper houses. We do know that select committees are often seen as the graveyard for many an unpalatable Bill. Barbados can only hope that, for its sake and that of its democracy, the Bill does not lie there forever in suspended animation.”

    … from the Barbados Advocate editorial Addressing Corruption


    Of all the places for Bailhache to go, and its one that appears to be even worse than Jersey. I certainly would not be looking to base anything on their style of Government.

    Time for Gorst to put his foot down and say no.

  52. £7000,spent on trip to Barbados,they have been allocoted £220,000 so lots of jollies to be had yet,unless someone can put a halt to this outrageous waste of public money.also we do need to investigate just what the constables do or don,t do for their £44,000.