Pages

Sunday, 14 October 2012

BALIFF BEAMS DOWN BENEVOLENTLY AS CHIEF MINISTER GORST TELLS HIM HE IS ‘PROUD’ OF OUR ‘SEPARATION OF POWERS’!


Yes, it’s just another day in the mad cap world of Jersey ‘democracy’…

Look – I love my island.

But the Bald Truth is that if you had stumbled into the Public Gallery for the States Sitting beginning October 9th 2012 you surely would have wondered if you had not been magically transported into the Theatre of the Absurd – or at the very least into an old episode of Sci-Fi classic ‘The Twilight Zone’.

Why? Just watch the video. We haven’t got a ‘separation of powers’ between Judiciary and Legislature anymore than we have a bona-fide working judicial system. I mean, where else in the world would a Jurat who is an evidenced, long-standing personal friend of a company director of a defendant in a court case still be allowed by the Bailiff’s Office to sit in judgement on this? That’s right – nowhere.

Throw in the further truth that this same Jurat is revealed in the government suppressed Sharp Report to be anything but a fit and proper person to hold such a role in the first place and the whole thing stinks: stinks more than a week old dead kipper! Unless you are a part of the Establishment Party, of course, in which case this is likely seen as perfectly normal and all in order? 

And they wonder why this stuff is going to London!

Shh! Don’t tell anyone but we also have another exclusive ‘leak!’ A whinging, whining letter from the editor of the Jersey Evening Post trying desperately to defend the fact that his ‘newspaper’ regularly publishes fake letters. Mmmm? Just a bit odd don’t you think how these are always about the same ‘Progressive’ politicians, eh Mr. Bright?  Oh, and don’t tell Senator Philip Ozouf anyone but apparently he is making ‘thinly-veiled threats to the freedom of the press’!

The editor also whines that he thinks I have a ‘grudge’ against his organ because I have highlighted the above letter issue – not to mention, no doubt, my Scrutiny Panel review into the ‘Finances of Operation Rectangle’ blowing the ‘factual reporting’ of the JEP and other mainstream media completely out of the water to reveal another stinking, cesspit of Establishment Party propaganda. 

According to Mr. Bright I’m even ‘abusing’ Parliamentary Privilege because like others I have called for an independent media Ombudsman?  No Mr. Bright all I ask for his fairness and accuracy in reporting. I’ll be publishing the letter in full very soon.

But what else do we have for you?

Top secret ‘super-injunctions’ perverting the island’s Data Protection Law that we taxpayers are helping to pay for - but are not allowed to know anything about. A Chief Minister who wants us to believe that he is fully committed to investigate the ‘Historic’ Abuse scandal – but still hasn’t bothered to read the horrifying Sharp Report. And finally, after 243 years a proposition seeking to officially recognise the true birth of the democracy our Establishment Party are still trying to strangle to this day. That’s right September 28th 1769…

Yes, it can only be ‘The Bald Truth Review’ Episode Three. But don’t have nightmares: the truth is out there somewhere and some of us are slowly bringing it in from the dark!

Keep the Faith

Trevor

96 comments:

  1. Trevor.

    Look forward to reading the "whinging, whining letter from the editor of the Jersey Evening Post trying desperately to defend the fact that his ‘newspaper’ regularly publishes fake letters."

    As mentioned in this posting here is an example of the JEP's, and others, "journalism" as exposed by the Scrutiny Sub Panel's REPORT

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent review as always Trevor. If ok, I have 3 topical questions that hopefully you or your readers could answer, as I have tried but can't figure out.

    Firstly, how can anyone in Jersey with any credability, who takes any sort of interest in this topic, claim not to have read the Sharp Report? Maybe CM Gorst doesn't know the link online to it (hmmm).

    Secondly, and this I really have no idea, and this is nothing personal, but a question I have tried to fathom out. With the redress scheme, suppose someone put a claim forward against someone who had abuseed them who hadn't been prosecuted (lack of evidence or similar) - how does this work? Are they eligible for this, as surely if they were compensated, wouldn't this mean the States admitting liability and the crime having occured?

    Thirdly, listening to Mike Higgings excellent interview of VFC Blog, I am somewhat confused and a bit incredulous, that the rules are that you cannot state someone has lied, (you have to say "misled the house" - also that you have to put "unintentionally" as well..?) When, for example, our Chief of Police was first suspended based solely on a report that was so critical & damning, (even though we now know that it wasn't), and A.Lewis stated in both Napier & Wiltshire (if I recall correctly) that neither he or Bill Ogley had never even seen the report - that is blatently lying. Not "misleading" and certainly not "unintentionally" misleading. Is this really true, this rule?

    Apologies for the questions, I am just a small simple pleb trying to fathom out the unfathomable (to me)
    Richard

    ReplyDelete
  3. I said it last time and I'll say it again - brilliant! A really great little programme. Maybe Channel or the BBC should hire you to liven up their dire political reporting? Likewise anyone who helps you put this all together or is it all your own work? Nice one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous #1

    The fact that you can't say 'lie' in the States is indeed a complete joke.

    In my view the only excuse for this absurdity is possibly this. If it was permisable then the term would probably have to be used in nearly every response to an answer 'backbenchers' receive.

    Well, certainly when we ask about matters such the 'historic' abuse scandal and the intent to have a 'no stone unturned' investigation. Similarly, fairness in the courts or whether the latest revelation of celebrities using Jersey for tax evasion finally shows that we are, of course, the tax haven the world regularly tags us.

    I am happy to later give my thoughts on your other questions but maybe I should give Deputy Higgins (an avid watcher of the 'Bald Truth Review') to put forward his thoughts first? If you want to please get in touch Mike.

    Anonymous #2

    Thank you for your praise. Work for Channel or the BBC? I'm just glad you didn't suggest I sell my soul by working for the JEP!

    As to your question - not it isn't all my own work. I obviously take responsibility for what I want to talk about and what I say - no cowardly faked letters here or faceless 'editorials - but I get help with putting it all together interestingly from my excellent director gnome!

    I would tell you his name and the others in the 'crew' but they are very shy and rarely leave the secret bunker in Grands Vaux woods...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Forgot to add that in the next Bald Truth Review - or maybe even later today - I will be telling you what the Electoral Commission will be putting forward to try and ensure democracy in Jersey is finally buried once and for all.

    So don't say that I didn't warn you all about it! If you don't get up and vote against it this time then you really need to either stop moaning or give up and go and live Guernsey. Or maybe Russia. It really is that bad...

    Unless you are a Constable?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would be looking at this from a different perspective. Within the Gov assembly is three estates incorporated. Representing the Dean, Constables and Jurat From here you will find 12 trusted men

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the Attorney General represents the Jurats. The Dean represents the clergy and Solicitor gen represents the constables. They may not have a vot but they will each have four men they trust. The original 12 trusted jurats. With the Bailiff exec trust that runs the company.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Think you ought to enlarge a bit anonymous. I have sat in the Chamber for four years now and I sadly have to admit that I struggle - in this current Assembly - to find 12 names springing to mind who I fully trust.

    At least if by 'trust' we mean hving the backbone and commitment to justice to stand up to challenge whatever might be wrong at the risk of being laid into by the Establishment Party bully boys and thattendant media and courts.

    But I'm always willing to listen so fire away...

    ReplyDelete
  9. You'll be the next to have a super injunction slapped on you payed for by the tax payer.

    Daniel Tired.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous

    I'm afraid that until we rectify the following:

    Firstly, how a person shamed in the Sharp Report over child abuse failings can have been allowed to sit a Jurat for 14 years.

    Secondly, how the Bailiff's Office has failed to do anything about a Jurat keeping quiet and sitting on a case (ours as it happened - though who is to say there isn't more?) even though he is an evidenced and actually now admitted friend of a director of a company that was a defendant in the case...

    I will find it impossible to trust the role of Jurat again. With every perosn I speak to who has now come to be aware of this that view is growing. Do we really have to wait for London to put our house in order?

    ReplyDelete
  11. If people are all going to have 'super-injunctions' slapped on them just because we are revealing the truth then God help this island - because nobody else will be able to.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trevor.

    Word on the grapevine is that Jersey Immigration is up to no good ("again" some might say.)
    involving the visa (or not) of U.S. Author and Journalist Leah McGrath Goodman.

    A timely reminder to ask your readers to please sign and share your PETITION

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with Daniel Tired.

    David Polo.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The hard truth of the situation I mention with the Jurat sitting on the case is already out there - John Hemming brought it up in the commons.

    But don't worry - I haven't even starting highlighting what has gone down just yet. But that day is drawing nearer. We may have been stabbed in the back in a 'battle' but we will ultimately win the 'war'...

    ReplyDelete
  15. J - Every time you rant I really feel the need to publish those emails growing ever stronger. Have a word with yourself, son...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If people are all going to have 'super-injunctions' slapped on them just because we are revealing the truth then God help this island - because nobody else will be able to."


    Certain elements within Jersey's government would consider that a desirable state of affairs.

    Quite embarrasing for the island really, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. You could say "lie" in the House, as long as you can prove your case with watertight evidence, to hand, that there was a deliberate lie, and not what could be an unintentional once. What you can't do is to say lie without that evidence that proves the intentionality was deliberate and not unintended. That is rare.

    When Profumo lied, he deliberately set out to mislead the UK Parliament, and there could be no other explanation for his actions.

    Eventually Mr Profumo did admit to the affair on 5th June 1963 when the House was in recess. The motion against him on 20th June was the only other motion that specifically made an allegation of lying, although in this case the subject had already admitted misleading the House.

    Proposition: "That Mr. John Profumo, in making a personal statement to this House on 22nd March, 1963, which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, was guilty of a grave contempt of this House."

    Of course, Trevor could always use the Disraeli tactic. Disraeli, on being instructed to withdraw his allegation that half the cabinet were knaves, asserted that half the cabinet were not knaves.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well done, getting more and more slickly produced, glad to see the musical interludes are now more varied. And I loved the laughter track when Mr B appeared :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Out of interest I thought I would check how quickly visa normally takes the UK border agency, there are a range of different ones, but Tier 1 is max 15 days. The web site provides all the information required.

    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/countries/usa/processing-times/?langname=UK%20English#resultTableAnchor

    Does anyone know where I can I find the application form and help guide for Jersey?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Trevor Is there only a code of conduct for elected members?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Trevor.

    An exclusive from former Police Chief Graham Power QPM on BBC, Jersey and SAVILE

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi

    Just in case any reader is still under any illusion that our Jurat system is fit for purpose, or our Judiciary concerned about the likes of you and me (ordinary peasants) having a fair trial I copy below a question that has just been ruled 'out of order' by the Bailiff's Office.

    It is, apparently, a matter for 'the Superior Number' i.e. the Bailiff and the Jurat's other chums! Makes you proud, doesn't it?

    What was it the Great Jimmy Perchard said 'Jersey is a shining beacon of democracy!'

    Written question from Deputy Trevor Pitman

    'Given that reading of the Sharp Report makes quite clear that the failings in judgment (i.e. putting the 'good name' of the school ahead of the protection of pupils) on the part of an individual who had been a Vice-Principle at Victoria College during the Jervis-Dykes child abuse scandal should have made it clearly apparent that the individual was entirely lacking in the sound judgement to sit as a Jurat why was no action subsequently taken to remove him from this role; or is the reality that no powers exist to do so unless a Jurat has actually been prosecuted and found guilty of a criminal offence?'


    ReplyDelete
  23. Trevor.

    Every time you post something like this you scare me. Just how corrupt can Jersey get? What you are basically telling us is that an un-fit for the job Jurat either being removed or staying in the role is down to his drinking buddies. This island is out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  24. any person who can be seen to be quite happy to put the lousy "good name" of a school a head of protecting kids from being molested should not be dishing out "justice" and sentences on people in a court of law. he should be facing sentencing and justice himself.

    ReplyDelete
  25. A straightforward question there Trevor - what grounds was this ruled "out of order"?? With the eyes of the world no doubt looking even harder at Jersey with the savile scandal (plus the ever increasing overseas readerships of the blogs I would guess), we are looking like a big sick joke. Up to the Superior Number? Democracy the Jersey Way!

    TonytheProf - personally the original suspension of G Power & the related "in camera" farce proves deliberate lies, wouldn't you say? Suspending solely on the basis of a report you have read, then stating (under oath?) at a later date that you have never seen the report constitutes a lie imho, unless I am missing something?
    Richard

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Richard

    Basically ruled 'out of order' on the grounds that no one in the States is responsible directly - so no one can be asked about!

    Of course, the slight problem there is that as you cannot ask the Chief Judge about it you basically cannot ask let alone challenge any of this. Nice eh? Who can challenge the 'Superior Number'? No one over here in reality.

    And they complain that we say we will go to London and beyond!

    Where else but Jersey can defendants very conveniently have a Jurat sitting on their case who both goes to one of their owners' director's homes for din-dins/drinkies and said director has also been to the Jurats?

    There can be no excuse and no place for Jurats sitting on cases when they have any form of personal relationship with employees/owners let alone directors of defendants - working, social - or both as in this case.

    Yes, Mr. Le Breton and Jersey Evening Pravda I am talking to you.

    But never mind - nothing untoward says the Deputy Bailiff. Jurats are well versed in putting such relationships aside -they have all 'sworn an Oath'!

    I could almost feel re-assured - until you reflect that Mr. Christmas had also sworn one of these Oaths. yet didn't he get found guilty of defrauding elderly residents of their life savings?

    Our Jurat system is not fit for purpose. FACT!

    We need jury trials where you get a random cross section of the community. Not a collection of chums from the cock-tail circuit or OV fundraising fraternity.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I am sorry to disappoint you Trevor but they rig juries also! We have some proof of this....

    ReplyDelete
  28. Totally agree with what you say. Proof that you have been well and truly shafted. They got Syvret now they are stitching you and your good wife up.

    If you decide to do some kind of campaign to raise awareness to all of this put a call for help on here and I will certainly be willing to help. Our island is being run like a mafia town in the 1920s.

    Can I also ask about the Jimmy Saville photo on your previous video? Do you know when and where the picture was taken? I had heard talk of a photo that had an injunction on it while Saville was alive? Could this be it?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I might also add Trevor, that it is an inalienable right of ours to DEMAND a trial by a jury of our peers in Queen's bench....Oh, I forgot, we don't have Queen's bench in little old Jersey. Nevertheless, it is still our inherent right to be tried by a jury, (even in the magistrates court) and every one should put that request on the public record when attending these strict liability courts, or administrative tribunals as we call them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why can't you and all of supporters simply accept things the way they are and have been for generations? A lot of people seem to have done very well under all of this rule of law and don't seem to be complaining.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is a get out clause for accepting responsibility for the Jurat being given the position to judge others.

    In allowing the question to be asked the only answer that could be given Is the Schools reputation was put above any of the children then and now, mistakes were made and we will learn from them.

    Disgusting and undemocratic to disallow you from asking the question. The Jersey Way

    ReplyDelete
  32. the oaf of office is the Bailiffs office and he has the last word

    ReplyDelete
  33. Just ask the question anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Have the national media been sent the Sharp report are they aware of the situation with the Jurat? And the restrictions put on you asking about this.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 'Just ask the question anyway'?

    You are obviously a man - or woman? - of my own heart!

    One thing is for sure. With my father dying, deeply upset over the bullying smears that saw us starting all of this, these questions and issues won't be going away until things are put right.

    Both Shona and I stood and have been elected now over five elections on a social justice platform. I don't think either of us thought that it might be us who needed support in the fight, but there you go.

    The Jersey Way in all of its glory...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Just ask the question anyway."

      YES....I AM :)

      Delete
  36. Anonymous

    I can tell you that not surprisingly, with the Savile saga, the treatment of Leah McGrath Goodman and her writing, the super-injunction stuff and our Jurat shafting being mentioned in the Commons external media are getting interested in Jersey again. This time there will be more of us to speak up.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Reference 'meeting'.

    Was that a private post? Anyway, pretty busy right through but what about an hour on Wednesday either side of a 2pm meeting when I will be in Town anyway? 1pm or 3pm?

    ReplyDelete
  38. even more shocking than the Sharp report is the Dylan Southern report into Blanche Pierre care homr.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Just catching up Trevor and another great 'news spot' and I love the background.

    I rather think Mr Bright has his facts a wee bit back to front, as I know as you well know I think the JEP had a 'problem' you before you were even elected for the first time.

    I think they were well aware that you were not going to be pro-Establishment!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lookout Troll J. we are heading your way

    'Internet's biggest troll' unmasked.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9611289/Internets-biggest-troll-unmasked.html

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi

    Just to let people know the 28th September proposition has had to have a couple of minor tweaks but these have now been agreed. All being well once an Appendix has been formatted and attached this final version will be approved tomorrow and certainly up on the States website by Thursday morning.

    Trevor

    ReplyDelete
  42. Our justice system is about as water-logged and unfit for purpose as the pitch was tonight in Poland.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Three quick things...

    1)Jon: -

    Thanks, I haven't laughed so much in ages!

    2)Well done ex-Senator Le Main: -

    Seems Terry wants some bloggers charged with telling 'lies'. I say good - its high time somebody got those sick, pro-paedophile bullies behind the Farce hate site taken to court! Not least the 'politicians' who were involved.

    3)The Bald Truth Review Episode 4: -

    I know this is now more eagerly awaited than the results part of the X Factor, but just to let you know this will be up on Sunday. A couple of most excellent stories to air...

    Trevor

    ReplyDelete
  44. Any chance of a "teaser" for the show Big Trev?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Love you or well not love you to be polite, where are all the other politicians that want our vote at election time.

    You lot are accused of living in Ivory towers, and not communicating with the punters or being half asleep, thats if your not snoring or even bother attending at all.

    That is except for you Deputy Pitman after putting up your bald truth videos.

    One word.

    Respect.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hi Trevor - saw this video about Condor on you tube.
    Staff must have put it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSl6CeAwoRE

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks for the kind comments - though I'm not the only one trying to deliver what I said at election time.

    And thanks for the links to the Condor stories.

    I'm pleased that Shona and then me highlighting this locally may have worken a few people up to the exploitation of what has been happening.

    Please let Condor know this just isn't on in 2012!

    ReplyDelete
  48. P.115/2007 - Minister for Health and Social Services: dismissal - lodged by the Chief Minister. The Greffier of the States:

    The States are asked to decide whether they are of the opinion in accordance with Article 21(4) of the States of Jersey Law 2005 to dismiss Senator Stuart Syvret as Minister for Health and Social Services.





    The quote below I took from a report on Hansard, Of which a then Deputy Ian Gorst was present He voted for the proposal of the dismissal of Stuart Syvret. If he did not read the sharp report when he voted to suspend how could he justify his vote given he had a copy provided by Mr Syvret.

    See link above for the quote below from Stuart syvret.
    Members have, in my comments before them, the Sharp Report. Read it at your leisure. I am sure many members will be as angry as I was when I read it and the shocking farrago and disgraceful dereliction of responsibility and duties revealed in it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Love the videos and look forward to the next installment. Any interesting questions for the Cm next week Deputy P?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Surely if Gorst did not read the Sharp Report, and voted to dismiss the then Minister for Health and Social Services, he did so without taking full account of the facts, furthermore he would surely be embarrassed if a full COI then supported what Stuart said at the time. Conflict of interest!!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hi anonymous

    Interesting post which says a great deal given the three times I have asked the Chief Minister to read the Sharp Report. Link doesn't seem to have appeared. Do you want to re-post?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ian Gorst was probably advised against reading it, by the AG of the time, although the AG would probably not recall giving such advice!!!

    (as in Napier, Warcup took advice from AG, who when questioned never recalled giving such advice)

    ReplyDelete
  53. http://bit.ly/Tym4eM

    Hi Trevor the above link takes you to Hansard where you can see quote from Stuart Syvret Use CTRL and F on the keyboard enter the word leisure in the find box. It will take you direct to quote.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I heard on the grapevine that Jersey's saddest and most bitter internet troll was feeling lonely.

    Probably explains why he appears to have dug his old Rick Wakeman silver cloak out of the closet and cranked up his multi-computer keyboards for a bit of concerted, anonymous trolling abuse.

    Hopefully the neighbours won't be too alarmed by the smoke billowing out of the bed-sitting room - I hear he builds up quite a head of steam once he gets excited talking to himself. Anyway, just to cheer the little fella up I can share with him that yes, the case is in London right now.

    Meanwhile don't forget another very hush-hush Top Secret case is taking place here in the Royal Court - allegedly - on Noveember 5th...

    Anyway, just to let him know that I love him and thank him for his interest - I mean obsession

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yes, you are not imagining things - I was stopped in mid-sentence - hit by something that looked like a 'Super-Injunction' though experts tell me it is actually an abuse of the law...

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lets not talk about trolls as they are sad people and continue to focus on the politics like you are doing so well. The 'Truth review' is brilliant work IMHO. Having said that is there anyone out there who could point me to that hiliarious video clip from a year or two agaon where that dope got caught threatening a member of the public over the phone and telling the poor chap that there were details of him being put all over the intranet?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Who was in charge of protecting the personal data the Toll used to contact and threaten the family with, as heard on the YouTube recording.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Trevor.

    Looks like a very interesting Written & Oral, & questions to HAs Minister on Tuesday....

    Could even be History making!?

    ReplyDelete
  59. You raise a very good point about the data used to contact the family that was threatened. Has this been investigated - I will look into that.

    Given references made to Data Protection you have to wonder if something very serious has been missed? maybe even something wworthy of a super-injunction???

    ReplyDelete
  60. Also meant to add that the 28th September proposition has now been agreed and is with the Greffier's office. Hopefully be officially lodged Friday.

    ReplyDelete
  61. P.115/2007 I am unable to access the proposition on statesassembly.gov.je website. The link I provided was working as I tested it on a new tab before submitting to your blog.

    The Hansard link provided by someone else is also not working? When I search propositions for 2007 and enter the exact info Nothing is available? Surely a propositions cannot just be taken off the government website. Could someone post if they tested the links.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Re: Leah, thanks for the update. So this is crazy, there is no such visa, so what on earth is happening, is she allowed to continue or not?

    I thought you said you participated in a three way meeting, surely they must have known then?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Leah Goodman latest-

    Regarding my plight, Jersey Immigration has stated I am quite welcome to return to the island, provided I get a non-existent "Writer's visa." Yes, this visa does not exist. This week, they finally admitted there is no form for such a visa. We are still awaiting a coherent answer as to what they now advise me to do.

    Trevor

    What are you doing about this? If what she is saying is correct it's an absolute scandal and a complete abuse of power by someone in Jersey. It cannot be allowed to continue!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Today's JEP is astonishing. Here's a brief summary three important pieces -

    1. Bailhache: the Island's reputation within and outside Jersey is paramount. Deputies and other people outside the States must toe the line and keep quiet lest they say something that will damage our reputation. Ergo, anything that might have been wrong in the past or is wrong today must be covered up for the greater good.

    2. Crowcroft: leaking the transcript of the in camera debate about the Police Chief's debate is a very serious matter and every effort must be made to prevent such a leak occurring in the future. In other words, every effort must be made to ensure that the public (i.e. voters and potential voters) are not told the full truth about matters. They must be exposed only to the "official" version as given out by the COM and the accredited media. Keeping the contents of a debate secret is far more important than, for example, informing Islanders that the former Home Affairs Minister lied to the States and thereafter continued to lie to various investigators in order to ensure that Graham Power was suspended and remained suspended. Putting the lid on the pesky child abuse "nuisance" was/is of paramount importance in protecting the Island's reputation. [See Bailhache's stance above) - they intertwine neatly don't they?

    3. Le Main: bloggers have made his life unbearable. It's just so unfair that these people can launch personal attacks on paragons of virtue such as himself. After all, he's always worked for the people of the Island and has never been involved in any dodgy dealings - he has an impeccable personal and political record .......

    As usual, Jersey thinks it can behave in the way that other governments have done in the past with impunity. They really still believe that somehow the culture of secrets and cover-up which prevailed for so long in the UK has finally been blown to pieces in the last year or two and that the government, BBC, Health Service, Prison Service and Hospitals/Schools are now exposed in that they actively or passively covered up decades of child abuse.

    Of course, here in Jersey, the child abuse allegations have been blown up out of all proportion - yes, of course they have. We've said sorry to the victims so that's OK. Even if this turned out to be the tip of the iceberg, we must make every effort to keep the true extent under wraps for the sake of our reputation ....

    For goodness sake - when are these people going to realise that we, the ordinary public, deserve to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth??

    ReplyDelete
  65. The clown prince of Jersey has done it again, lessons have not been learnt, yet!

    "STATES Deputies who suggest that Island institutions are corrupt or grossly incompetent risk damaging Jersey’s reputation way beyond our shores, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache has warned.

    In a speech to business leaders, the Assistant Chief Minister with responsibility for foreign affairs rounded on detractors – both in and outside of Jersey – as part of a drive to combat what he called the destructive ignorance fuelling negative views of the Island."

    Shafting Jersey the Bailhache way.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I think Leah ought to continue her work by interviewing via Skype.

    Although I guess someone will come up with a new law that forbids people who do not physically live in Jersey from interviewing anyone via Skype.

    It might be worth making an appeal for anyone with a story to tell, to be vetted by you on Leah's behalf before making contact. The headline could be, Leah Goodman Interviews Abuse Victims and Witnesses by Skype whilst waiting for the imaginary special work visa form.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Pete Drummond's mate Alan19 October 2012 at 19:31:00 BST

    Let's hope the troll has more luck with his super injunction nonsense than with trying to close down internet access to that excellent expose of his threatening phone calls. Not!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Excuse me but who is #39? Is this one of the troll's imaginary friends? Sorry to ask but I'm intrigued which is why I let it through...

    ReplyDelete
  69. <A HREF="http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/10/jimmy-savile-he-was-tip-of-iceberg.html<http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/10/jimmy-savile-he-was-tip-of-iceberg.html</A>

    Saturdays Telegraph

    Rs

    ReplyDelete
  70. The 4th stooge appears, courtesy of Rico's blog and The Telegraph article:

    When we started the dig this man turned up and demanded access to the site. He allegedly wanted to get some stuff he’d left there years before. Yet this man’s name aroused more fear in the victims than any other in the inquiry.”

    DW - the man who is involved in the Super -Injunction against Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hello Trevor

    This is in the public domain so I hope you don't mind me asking it. But looking back at news reports from a couple of weeks ago Uk MP John Hemming named four individuals one of which he said was a Jonathan Haworth in regard to a secret court case happening over there in Jersey.

    My question if you are able to answer is whether or not this would be the same individual found guilty in the Jersey courts back in 2011. This being to do with making a vile threatening phone call to some people your former Senator Syvret was staying with?

    As I say this information is in the public domain over here in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Graham

    Whether it could be the same individual I really couldn't guess for the life of me...

    But purely by coincidence going through some old papers the other day I found some relating to a complaint (thrown out as groundless) that a Mr. J. Haworth made to Data Protection about my most excellent webssite.

    I am going to publish this shortly because it is fascinating that a person can write such easily demonstrable lies - such as this 'geentleman' apparently didn't know me and had 'no interest' in my politics etc.

    Of course, should this be the same 'Jonathan Haworth' as the one you refer to, his name already being in the public domain as you rightly say since being named by MP John Hemming, then I will obviously be happy to make such material available to the courts - should it be needed.

    It would be no less than my duty as an elected representative of the people, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  73. This is all very strange but my name is Haworth too by chance. But all I wanted to say was have you seen the excellent piece in the Telegraph today by Lenny Harper about Jersey covering up child abuse? I always was a great fan of Mister Harper and just wish we had him and Mister Power back in charge of policing the island now. They were true professionals. Does anyone else agree?

    ReplyDelete
  74. I concur with Mr Howarth and go further to say Warcup and Gradwell should be prosecuted for their part in the cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Message to an 'Anonymous'

    Understand where you are coming from. But as I do not believe it is fair to bring in references to family members - anyone's family members - I have not published the post. Please feel free to re-submit without this aspect; or even simply sending through the already in the public domain link.

    Message to a 'troll'

    1 - No, I don't think so.

    2 - Please slow down a bit - I've already used up nearly a whole memory stick with filing your abusive, deranged threats and rants for eventual handing to the police. I was hoping to have some space to slot in evidence from two of your other victims, so be fair - slow down!

    Better still, take up a hobby: yoga, basket-weaving, sword-swallowing, building smoke machines ANYTHING that takes you away from this sad, bitter and lonely life of internet stalking.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hopefully have the Bald Truth Review episode 4 up later this evening.

    Having to get my Adim to look at a few 'problems'...

    ReplyDelete
  77. 'Adim' is my Admin's name... He is from the East...

    ReplyDelete
  78. Can you give us a taster of what's to come in part 4?

    ReplyDelete
  79. No. You just have to be patient like everyone else!

    Soon.

    By the way, having to get an IT expert in again due to a bit of suspicious 'activity'. All interesting stuff for the file.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Trevor,

    I've just seen the tiny piece in the JEP about the Data Protection Law forcing Jersey bloggers to remove material with a 21 warning prior to legal action.

    Unless my understanding of Blogspot is out of date, I'm a bit confused about how this can be enforced.

    The last time I checked, Blogspot was owned by Google and adhered to Google's Terms of Service. Google's servers are based in the USA and operate under US jurisdiction, specifically California's state laws.

    According to their Terms of Service;

    "The laws of California, U.S.A., excluding California’s conflict of laws rules, will apply to any disputes arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services. All claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts."

    Surely this means that anyone wishing to force a blog owner to remove material from a Blogspot blog would need to have the case brought in an American court for it to be legally binding? Exactly the same as if an American newspaper or magazine had published material which someone resident outside the US claimed was defamatory or had caused personal distress?

    In which case the States of Jersey would have to prosecute a Jersey blog owner in the court of Santa Clara to force the removal of blog entries or comments?

    Maybe you have a legally educated friend who could clarify this?

    ReplyDelete
  81. "and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts."


    Consent is the big word here, as this is all statutory garbage and no man or woman is obliged to consent to anything, there is nothing they can do. Statutes have no force or effect on a man or woman absent their consent :)

    ReplyDelete