Wednesday, 26 June 2013


I outline below my written questions for next week's States Sitting. As I posted earlier, I unfortunately have had to postpone the intended report on the Justice Select Committee meeting with States Members due to picking up a flat tyre; and then needing to rush out again for the Parish Assembly. But this post will go up on Friday latest.

Those readers who follow the blog regularly will also notice that the questions below make reference to issues that we have still had no clear answers to despite well-focused efforts. No apologies for this whatsoever - questions that are passed by the system - however flawed it might be - should in turn then be given the courtesy of full and accurate answers.

When this does not happen, as is all too often the case, then the only thing to do is keep asking again, and again, and again.Brief comments on the background to each question is also provided underneath.

Written questions to Minister for Home Affairs

 'Has the Minister now handed over all details to officers undertaking ‘Operation Elvedon’ relating to the information he advised the Assembly had been leaked to a UK journalist during a live child abuse investigation by Mr. Gradwell?' 


Remember all the fuss made by people like Ben Shenton, Jim Perchard, Sean Power and co when they were trying (unsuccessfully) to link Lenny Harper's name to stories about Police Officers leaking information to national newspaper? 

Well, in stark contrast none of these individuals had anything to say at all about the expose by Citizens' Media that Mr. Gradwell - sickeningly portrayed by the Jersey Evening Pravda as a 'whistle-blower' - was named as leaking information to such newspapers; and done so whilst the Haut de la Garenne investigation was still live.

The Home Affairs Minister promised he would answer this question. But he hasn't. So I am back. Finally, just remember, this is not really about money but professional standards and trust. Indeed, in the UK a high ranking Met Officer was actually jailed earlier this year for this very thing...

Written question to Minister for Home Affairs

'Given that two independent businessmen have alleged that documents, including police witness statements, relating to the Dean’s suspension and the HG abuse case were read in view of passengers on a flight from Gatwick on 21st March 2013 by the Assistant Chief Minister Senator P.M. Bailhache, can the Minister confirm whether such confidential police documents were supplied to a politician acting, as we are told, simply as a lay member of the Church of England and not within his capacity as a States member and why?'


Is this question going to go away? No it won't no matter how much Senator Bailhache might bluster. He has threatened a personal statement. I say: bring it on. He has been caught bang-to-rights and trying to smear both me and, more importantly, members of the public as liars should result in the man who lectures people about the fundamental importance of 'truthfullness' and 'respecting' others biting the dust from the Council of Minister.

An important aspect to also keep in mind here. This also isn't really about how he came to have/be given the documents any more. It is about the fact he wasn't big enough to hold his hands up and tell the Assembly the true facts. 'Chief Minister' Gorst (who knows the men are both genuine and truthful) may have conveniently fled to China to avoid next week's States Sitting but nevertheless - I might just have a little surprise for both of the Senators come  the final sitting 16th July...

Written question for Attorney General

'Given that the court transcripts of a 2009 case, which resulted in James Donnelly being sentenced to 15 years in prison, revealed that a number of other individuals were also identified as abusers by both the individual eventually convicted and the victim, why was no prosecution pursued in this case?'

How ironic that, in a week that saw the Chief Minister and his favourite Assistant/Boss meeting with the Justice Select Committee at the Atlantic Hotel; this to assure them over a slap-up meal that all within Jersey 'justice' was absolutely perfect I am again contacted by members of the public with hard evidence that shows nothing could be further from the truth.

Believe me, this case - or the 'swept under the carpet' evidence that was never acted upon - has the potential to blow through the halls of Establishment 'justice' like a hurricane. This case also almost certainly has a link to why former Chief of Police Power had to be disappeared. For the record all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim; and no mention of her will be made.

It is simply about how under the Jersey 'justice' system it is not what you do that will see you either a scapegoat rotting in jail for 15 years, or walking free - it is who you are. There are no excuses for abusers - yet this kind of 'justice' cannot be allowed to go on. At this point nothing more really needs to be said. I have the evidence. I will just wait and see what the Attorney General has to say...

Written question to Attorney General 

'Now that the 'Secret' Court process against former Senator Syvret has concluded; will H.M. Attorney General clarify what has been the total cost thus far, whether public funding was made available equally to all four individuals involved, were they also required to utilise their own funds and was Mr. Syvret given “equality of financial arms”?'


Ah! The case no-one was allowed to speak about on pain of death. or at least on pain of having your door kicked in and your laptop and underwear rifled. The discerning reader will note the word 'secret' highlighted in red within the question. this case was as secret as you could get outside of a US rendition flight. But the Bailiff made me take it away. Not that he told me he was doing so until it was lodged! There will be an oral question coming fairly soon on this subject.

Secret court hearings shouldn't be happening in a place like Jersey anyway. Period. I mean, its bad enough that the JEP and Broadlands are being allowed to try and gain financially from a court case that saw the former allowed a jurat on the case who was conflicted and as suspect in commitment to 'justice' and assessing 'evidence' as one could ever hope to be. Burying bothersome, outspoken politicians behind closed doors is positively 1930's Germany in both tone and sinisterness.

Look out for a 'but the case is not fully concluded so no comment can be made' excuse in response. To which I will simply re-submit the question again, and again. We simply cannot have despicable thugs being given our money to oppress people of whom they are actually the abusers. I repeat: its our money; thousands and thousands of pounds of it. We have a right to know how it was spent; to whom it was given and just why?

Keep the Faith.

Justice Select Committee in Jersey Part 2 will be posted on Friday.


  1. Trevor, perhaps you ought to add together all the time that the CM or other takes to actually answer the question they know you want the answer for, then when you finally get it, give the total time and estimated cost.

    Although, I have noted that at times and in particular ILM, will go into broad answers, give background (not asked for or required), before finally answering a question. Again, another waste of time.

  2. Having some justifying problems with text for some reason. apologies. if my esteemed Admin is reading this - please take a look!

  3. On the twitter feed of Simon Crowcoft, it is confirmed that "the Senator" will be making a personal statement on Tues 2nd July. Have you got yours ready and have you given adequate notice?

    1. If Bailhache wants to deliver a personal statement, then as I say in the post - good. View it as nothing more than a shovel to help keep making the hole bigger.

      Will I make one? Yes, but I am in no rush. Let him make his. I can wait until 16th July if necessary.

      As for adequate notice. This I'm afraid is no guarantee of getting one past the Bailiff.

      Shona and I gave adequate notice recently but because the statement criticised the Bailiff with his Chief Judge hat on he simply took that off and barred it by wearing his Head of the Legislature hat!

      But on a slightly different tack... I may be making a personal statement on something else.

    2. To be fair, your personal statement was 95% political.

    3. Political, Gael but also entirely factual and PERSONAL. All within the margins of Standing Orders too.

      Tell me, why do you so often seek to make excuses for abuses of power?

      Is it just that you think abuses against those of the Left or who you don't like are fine - but the same abuses against the Establishment and their supporters must not be tolerated?

      Can you explain please?

    4. It is quite simple. When I see a comment that I think might not be quite right I like to seek clarification regardless of who is making that comment.

      If it appears I favour one political persuasion over another it may simply be because one of those persuasions is active in the twitter/blog space and the other is not.

      I don't seek to make excuses for abuses of power, I simply seek balance in the debate.

    5. You say "within the margins of Standing Orders" but that depends on the definition of "personal" in the context of SO 16.2 "The content of the statement must be personal in nature."

      I am sure you class your statement as personal but others might not. It's not black and white. It could be perfectly reasonable for this statement to be rejected as being more political than personal.

      You say it was rejected because it "criticised the Bailiff". Can you clarify if that was actually the reason given? It's not clear from your comment above.

      I was under the impression that personal statements were for personal matters like announcing resignation from the States through ill health etc.

      As personal statements do not allow for debate or questions I would expect many people would see it as reasonable to allow a very narrow definition encompassing resignations etc but drawing the line well before long political statements criticising other members etc. If it were a free for all then one statement could result in criticised members feeling the need to reply in the following sitting and before you know it there would be hours and hours of time lapsed debates. I don't think that is the intended purpose of personal statements and I don't think that's what the public wants from its States members. But that's just my opinion.

    6. Gael, I did - as did every other person and Member I showed it to. Sadly it all comes down to a judge who has both failed in his obligations to me and my wife as members of the public in letting Le Breton sit where he is conflicted beyond argument; and who has absolutely no business sitting in a government with power to tell an elected representative what he or she can or cannot say.

    7. I also may have a beauty for you next week, Gael and one that should fit perfectly into even your interpretation of Standing Orders. Meanwhile, let's keep an eye out to see if Philip Bailhache's materialises and if it fits within what the Bailiff - or his little brother - says is the criteria?

  4. Can you explain how JEP/Broadlands are trying to gain financially? Surely they are just trying to recover their costs?

    1. Not putting one's hands up when you know a court ruling was achieved where a jurat was an impossibly conflicted mate of a defendant's director? Ad one proven as quite happy to look the other way on evidence? Come on, you sound almost as desperate as my friend Danny. Fortunately things are about to change...

    2. How did I sound desperate? I was simply asking a straight question?

    3. Sorry anonymous. Your post happened to come in within a bunch of the usual abuse from Jersey's least favourite troll and perhaps wrongly I took it in the same light. My answer of course stands. Both parties in this case know the court process is not ECHR compliant yet attempt to carry on.

    4. Why dont you appeal?

    5. Why don't you ask the question: how was this allowed to happen? From there move forward to: why should ordinary members of the public have to fork out ever more money because you have a jurat who chooses not to abide by rules he is well aware of - because a Bailiff cannot be bothered to ensure ECHR compliance is met under his juridiction?

      When you have answered those you will be in a position to begin to understand the inherent failures in our so-called 'justice' system. You might even be in a position to face asking: how could an individual demonstrated as quite happy to support a predatory paedophile having refused to look at evidence condemning him ever get to be in a position to judge on 'fact' and 'evidence'.

      Of course, by this time you may be quite depressed. But never mind - I might just be able to cheer you up fairly soon.


      Approached by another lady as I was parking my car today - another case of abuse within our unfit for purpose 'justice' system. As she said: forget those who attack you we just thank God that you at least are brave enought to stand up for what is right while most of the sheep in the States Assembly keep their heads down.

  5. Good and important questions Trev. Please keep fighting for justice for all of those denied it. I am a Jerseyman and ashamed to tell people this at times. You are dead right justice and law should apply to all. It should not be something that can be side-stepped if you are rich or well connected.

    1. Thank you. The only people who could disagree would be those who think 'justice' should be used as a tool of oppression and be reserved for 'better' people. The fact is the few who attack me over my fighting this would be howling like 5 year olds if it happened to them.

  6. "Secret court hearings shouldn't be happening in a place like Jersey anyway. Period"

    What about Family Division cases? Should they all be in public?

    1. Of course not. I was making the point that a secret court process of this type - i.e. used to achieve what the Establishment want removed from public scrutiny - should not be allowed to happen. If I didn't make that clear enough apologies.

  7. So wheres our statement "Sir" Flip

  8. Keep up the good work Trevor.

  9. I can't wait to hear PB's personal statement, oh its going to be so interesting listening to the sound of that shovel digging him deeper and deeper into his hole, I guess Gorst has fled to China because he is scared of falling in!

    Hopefully in his personal statement he will be able to explain why a 'lay member of the church' had access to such confidential information??!! as if there is any explanation! or will he simply deny once again that my eyes must have been deceiving me on what I witnessed him reading on that flight??

    The Concerned Businessman.

  10. Concerned Businessman

    Why are you remaining anonymous?

    1. You don't know how The Jersey Way works do you, Gael?

    2. Tis the problem with so many. They only start crying when the Jersey Way/Lawless Office assassins come for them when they should have stood up for justice and what is right all along.

    3. Anonymous, I do know how it works, but maybe I see it differently to you?

      The South African way was pretty bad but it didn't stop Nelson Mandela.

      If these concerned businessman are determined to bring down an elected official then I think the public have a right to know who they are.

    4. Gael. Where do you get the idea from that the two businessmen are 'determined to bring down an elected official'?

      They simply raised very genuine and serious concerns. They were then treated with utter ccontempt for their trouble - as was I - by a very arrogant man who lectures people on what they must or must not do then does the exact opposite himself undr the dillusion that he is superior and more important.

      With due respect I think these type of arguments are why people appear to see you as a Bailhache supporter no matter what - rather than the leftist and fair to both sides observer I seem to recall you told me you are.

      I would also point out that I haven't published your comment in reply to Ian Evans on the subject of Jersey's most cowardly internet troll.

      This is because given the appalling hate, lies and threats that this cowardly, spiteful little thug has, and continues to spread around the internet whilst the Jersey 'Law' Office does nothing I find such an attempt to excuse his behaviour highly offensive.

      Perhaps if you were one of his terriffied female or elderly victims you would see things in a different light.

    5. I am disappointed that you don't see mental health issues and addiction deserving of compassion.

      As someone who is currently having to cope with the devastating effects of a loved ones mental health issues and the lack of effective care in Jersey I would like to think I could seek the support of my local deputy.

    6. It was never any intention of mine 'to bring down an elected official' don't forget I voted for this very 'elected official'!!

      I raised a very valid concern of the behaviour of one of our 'Elected Officials' on the flight that day, he could have been any 'Elected Official' and I would have still raised the same concerns.

      It's all very well having the opinion that I have some kind of determination to bring down an elected official for no apparant reason, maybe you need to think how the people involved in this case feel knowing their personal information was in full view of the general public on that flight?

      How would you feel Gael if it were your personal information that you didn't really want anyone else to be reading and you kinda would have expected to be highly confidential?

      The information I gave to Trevor was as a mere concern and to raise the point that maybe it needed to be pointed out so in future this kind of behaviour doesn't occur!

      PB's response to my information and to the questioning of it is what is 'bringing down the electected official' he has managed to do that all on his own!

      We are remaining anonymous as that is our personal choice, we have however as you know, met with Trevor and Ian Gorst in person to show and prove we are genuine, we feel that is enough. I am not quite sure why you think everyone has any right to know who we are.

      The Concerned Business Man.

    7. There you go, Gael.

      Proving my point once again I think. You seek to put words and views into my mouth that any analysis of my political record shows I do not hold. A true Establishment party tactic if ever I saw one.

      I am working with people with mental health issues constantly and guess what - they come to me and Shona because they see us as amongst the small number who will take this seriously.

      The person who so many refer to as the cowardly troll does indeed need psychiatric help in my view. But to try and show him the error of his ways i.e. that he is a bully because he enjoys it and it fills his time and cowardly nature being able to do these sickening things whilst hiding behind an anonylous computor screen

      Not because the cause of his behaviour is his drinking or so forth.

      Allowing him to hide his actions behind excuses like his drinking, the fact that he has made himself unemployable etc would only be detrimental in the long term.

      We all have to take responsibilty for our actions to a certain degree and he needs to do just this.

      The fact is I could retort that I find it disappointing that your words suggest you don't have any compassion for the people whose lives this thug has blighted. Perhaps, I would suggest, you might feel differently if it was your child, wife, mother etc?

    8. Have you considered simply deleting the posts and not posting replies like you did earlier? Are you not just provoking him and making things worse for yourself?

      Whether you are religious or not (and I am not) maybe you should ask yourself in this situation "what would Jesus do?".

      btw, at least 3 times now you have responded to my polite but anonymous posts (i.e. the jep/broadlands one above) as if I were that troll. I wonder how many other people's post have met with the same response?

    9. Hello Gael.

      Firstly, both the police and a lawyer have copies of a countless number of the troll's posts. They are, indeed, generally delted though a computer file is in existence for 'future reference'.

      Should have any misguided sympathy with this cowardly thug I suggest you log on to a most excellent post on the Jersey Evening Proaganda blog which has a sort of '100 Greatest Twits' collection.

      With reference to your 'polite' posts I don't think everyone would share that description in a number of cases. mocking and/or antagonistic spring to mind. However, I can tell you that there are only three types of posts I don't use.

      Ones that are clearly libelous and give no evidence to back claims up - or where I do not myself have evidence that the claim is true.

      What one might call utterly 'bonkers' posts that have nothing to do with anything relevant. An example of this that is a useful was a person who once I had initially replied took this as an invitation to send me - sometimes up to 20 times a day - religious rants that might even be tagged 'what Jesus would have done'.

      I also do not publish - and this makes up a good 90% of possts rejected - the obsessive abuse and attacks on me, my wife, mother etc from the troll you seem to want to defend.

      How do I judge this last category? well, I am sure that now and aagain I will mistake an abusive post from some other bully for this thug. However, as a numver of other serious bloggers can attest his bad spelling English, writing structure and repetition of the same swear words/insults mark him as surely as a set of fingerprints.

      Though the troll is also very devious in other ways and thinks himself very clever for people more technical than me his careless use of trackable IPs etc also mark him for the day when eventually - to use one of his favourites - his 'time will come!'

    10. Apologies for my own typos - quick typing and spell-checking are not my forte!

    11. I don't believe I have been "mocking and/or antagonistic". I have simply asked straight questions. I am sorry that you have taken these the wrong way. Needless to say I won't attempt to engage with you again.

    12. Come on, Gael - 'man up' a bit!

      Ask yourself what Jesus would have done had someone said they disagree with his views? I think he would have said fair enough and continued to argue his point of view.

      I don't have to accept your views as right or correct anymore than you do mine. That's life.

      Being quite honest I think the key reasons why some may doubt you is because, regardless of your claims ar being impartial, you appear unable to bring yourself to criticise the lies of PB - even when he has been exposed as both a bully, a liar and we must not forget an anti-democrat.

      Standing up for cowardly thugs who write abuse about others for fun - not because they actually have any real medical/mental problems is probably another. What would Jesus have done? Who knows - but we can be sure his first thoughts would be with the children, women, vulnerable and elderly people and, indeed, all others this scumbag seeks to intimidate.

  11. Apologies to serious readers but...a necessary brief message to Jonnie No-Mates my cyber-stalker.

    Now look, Jonnie. I know you are thicker than a large print copy of War & Peace (that's a famous book by the way) but even you should know a little about the law.

    I mean you have a rather sickening and cowardly conviction don't you. You seem to have more complaints awaiting you at the police station for when the sea change comes than Al Capone if word on the street is true.

    But instead of all this drunken fantasy such as making up non-existent 'deadlines' to send me te times a day (how Stella'd out were you today?); making up bogus people sending comments to Pravda, Channel and the BBC; inventing political 'friends'(other than ones who have lost their seats or run away because they knew they would lose them)...

    Instead of sending a dozen posts a day full of inane and childishly revolting swear words and insults (were these all the things the other nasty boys called you at school?)Instead of slagging off those handful of good, decent people you hate so much because they are working for the community AND have made something of their lives - whilst you wasted yours in a sea of flat beer, discarded take-aways and abusive phone calls...

    Why not get yourself down to a psychiatrist. It may not be too late to get help and begin to live a life that a 'man' wouldn't have to be ashamed of once a child grews up and starts to ask questions.

    Go on. be brave. Help yourself. All the best to you, Little Wrecker


  12. Intriguing questions as per usual. But will we get answers at last? or will we be fobbed off yet again? Keep asking them Trevor.

    With regards to the troll his time is surely running out. If the case against Stuart has run its course then this clowns usefullness to the powers that be must be all but finished.

    He is a known drunk and basket-case and more importantly so many of his alias avatars have been outted by people like Sam Mezec, Ian Evans,Stuart and you that he is now just a liability to those who have been happy to use the sad little idiot.

  13. Just got back from a very interesting presentation from Island Analysis. This featured a whole raft of comparision material covering 21 islands.

    Would have thought all of the right-wingers who, along with their supporters, are always claiming it is only them who have an interest in business and the economy. How this presentation showed that for a lie.

    Only Shona, me, Alan breckon, Richard Rondel, Sarah Fergusson, Andrew Green and Paul Routier there that I saw. A pathetic turnout but one that spoke volumes about the true face of Jersey politics.

  14. So...."The Wet Mattress" has been rummaging around in bins for discarded takeaway trays has he?

    p.s I like the War & Peace number :)

    1. Probably lost on the man who looks so much like BBC Jersey contributor 'Sue Young' that they could be the same person. He is, after all, likely still on an old, dog-eared copy of 'My pet goat'?

    2. He is still ranting now drunk as a skunk and now aiming abuse at my mother! Forget the psychiatrist - he's beyond hope for sure. Even ranted that I should 'go to the police, go to anyone' where have we heard that before?

    3. Deport him. HG

  15. It is surely time to do that vote of no confidence vote in Ian Gorst Trevor? if not that - and I accept it would not be won but would still publicise what is going on - then perhaps a vote of censure on Bailhache for his appalling behaviour? Think on it. You will have loads of support n the street whichever you do.

  16. Well well well wad d ya know?

  17. Appears from CTV website that Gorst will be accompanied by his master to China, hence no 'personal statement' (again)!

    I doubt the man who would be king would have issued an apology or tendered his resignation in any event. Perhaps he was going to declare UDI!

    I guess the longer this drags out, the more they hope it will go away. Sadly people have very long memories at the moment.

  18. I find it strange how neither you or Syvret can tolerate other peoples freedom of speech.

    1. It is lucky that I can tell who you are just by your writing never mind your IP address.

      I actually do more than most to ensure people have freedom of speech. However, I suspect that your idea of such freedom is to attack people on sad and pathetic fake 'blogs' etc.

      Maybe you even think taxpayers' money should be given to cowardly bullies so they can run off to court behind closed doors moaning that the person they are bullying is having a go back?

      You might notice I write in my own name. Why don't you try it if have a wish to attack me? Are you brave enough to risk true 'freedom of speech' by one of your targets being able to answer back personally?

      I doubt it. Prove me wrong.

  19. I see the Chief Minister and Senator Ian Gorst are off to China, hope they have plenty to read on the plane, any chance the Chinese might hang on to them do you think and give us all here a break?

    1. Yes, Senator Gorst and Chief Minister bailhache are flying away to china. Just as I suspected the much vaunted personal statement from PB will not happen.

      But there is still the 16th July left! I hope he does make one because the businessmen deserve an apology. And this very arrogant man's removal from the Council of Ministers.

      Meanwhile, what a fine pair to be representing jersey in China. A man with all of the backbone of a jellyfish and a man allows paedophiles to join the Honourary Police - blaming the Constable of St. Helier who ended up in a police cell as a consequence; allows a teacher who was happy to look the other way on evidence against another paedophile to become a Jurat and sit in judgement on others for 14 years; and, of course, a man who wants to make a third of the Island's population second class voters by pushing Option B.

      Frankly in my view the Chinese government should deny Bailhache entry to the country as an undesirable.

  20. Distinguishing between immigration and....CONTROL

  21. To the poster who inquired: Gael is very much a real person and NOT the troll.

  22. Just watch PB say to his Chinese hosts, 'Can I go to Tibet and see the Dali Lama now please as I am involved in Religion?'

  23. Just to point out the following.

    Though failed Health/Social Services Minister Jim Perchard has been displaying his ignorance on Twitter again...

    The reason I am asking an oral question similar to a written one of Shona's is quite simple.

    She already had two orals lodged and I wanted to make sure we got to the bottom of the expenses involved.

    This cannot be guaranteed with a written questin so i did what many people do - lodge an oral on similar lines to a written question.

    If only jimmy Perchard had actually ever tried holding people to account with questions and propositions instead of wasting taxpayers money to the tune of millions because he was too arrogant to listen to experts on Family X he might understand.

    After all - he was very interested and very vocal on a meal involving Lenny Harper which actually cost less!

  24. Come on Trevor, goading Jimmy (I inherit everything almost) Perchard is a cheap trick , trading on his obvious inadequacy.
    The near Spoonerism ' List his trysts' is more appropriate.