Pages

Monday, 15 July 2013

PRESS RELEASE; CHALLENGE TO A JUDICIAL SYSTEM NOT-FIT-FOR-PURPOSE

Below I reproduce a press release issued to all local media, both 'accredited' and professional, regarding the latest battle to finally secure the justice of a fully European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 compliant judicial system in Jersey. attached is also an interview we recorded for the excellent Voiceforchildren blog.
 
As the press release makes quite clear - it might be Deputy Shona Pitman and I who are standing up doing the fighting in this case; but our battle is on the behalf of everyone who has, or is being betrayed by a 'justice' system currently wholly unfit for purpose.
 
Justice should be for all - not dependent on who you are or how deep your pockets might be. In Jersey this is sadly not yet the case. Yet together we can ensure that ultimately it WILL be!

 
  
PRESS RELEASE:
DEPUTIES SHONA & TREVOR PITMAN

SUBJECT: 
APPLICATION TO APPEAL OUT OF TIME DUE  TO JURAT'S CONFLICT   OF INTEREST

DATE:      
15TH JULY 2013 (Embargoed until 11am)

CHALLENGE TO A JUDICIAL SYSTEM NOT-FIT-FOR-PURPOSE

Deputies Shona & Trevor Pitman have today announced that they have lodged an application to Appeal out of Time as Litigants in Person against the decision by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court (a judge and just two local jurats) to dismiss their defamation case against the Jersey Evening Post and 1st Jersey Limited: the estate agent, Broadlands; this resulting from the infamous ‘4 x the salary, darling!’ advert published in the newspaper.

The Deputies told the media: ‘We have taken this decision in the light of evidence coming to light that the senior Jurat on the case, John Le Breton, had a very serious Conflict of Interest; rendering the Inferior Number incompliant with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights  This being that he has an evidenced, longstanding relationship, both social and working, over many years with a director of the Jersey Evening Post’s owners – yet chose not to reveal this nor recuse himself as required.

The grave seriousness of this failing is further highlighted, stated Deputy Shona Pitman, by the fact that, in contrast, both the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff did recuse themselves from sitting on the case simply because of the public perception of potential bias due to their ‘political relationship’ with the two Deputies as States Members. ‘Under the Conflict of Interest rules both Crown Officers were right to recuse themselves; even though neither one of us has ever socialised with either judge in private; let alone visited either Crown Officer’s home to do so. Jurat Le Breton, however, did both with a director of a defendant company in the case. It is simply unacceptable.’

Yet the above conflict of interest is not the only concern regarding Jurat Le Breton that the Deputies have had brought to their attention by members of the public since the conclusion of their court case. In managing to obtain a copy of the government suppressed 1999 Stephen Sharp Report into horrific child abuse at Victoria College; the Deputies say that it became apparent that Le Breton actually had an evidenced history of refusing to consider evidence in making judgements. This relates to the case against a former friend and teaching colleague, the predatory paedophile Andrew Jervis-Dykes who plied young boys with alcohol on boat trips before sexually abusing them – even videoing abuse..

Deputy Trevor Pitman said: ‘That a man is allowed to be put forward to become a Jurat by a former President of the Education Committee – a States Member and Constable who was actually on the Victoria College Board of Governors at the time of Jervis-Dykes’ appalling abuse – and subsequently allowed to sit by two successive Bailiffs for a period of 14 years is quite horrifying. Let us not forget here, weighing up evidence is the cornerstone of a jurat’s role. Yet John Le Breton not only refused to look at evidence against this paedophile he then made it his business to actually write to authorities in Jervis-Dykes’ defence. This support included arguing that the paedophile had in fact ‘served the College in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way’; and even claiming that if the police did not prosecute there may be ‘no case (for Jervis-Dykes) to answer’!

The Pitmans state that having no money left to further engage a lawyer following a three year long legal battle they have, with the support of a dozen concerned political figures and justice campaigners, instead brought the revelations to every relevant justice authority in an attempt to get what they state is a clear and serious miscarriage of justice rectified.

‘We have written outlining what has come to light since the court case concluded to the Bailiff, the Island’s  Chief Minister, the UK Justice Minister (Lord McNally), and even last month, the Lieutenant-Governor who is the Queen’s representative on the Island. With the exception of Lord McNally – who we were blocked from meeting by the Chief Minister’s Office – we have even met with all of these individuals. All have in effect made excuses as to why they can do nothing no matter what the evidence. Indeed, in the case of UK Justice Minister, Lord McNally he incredibly simply offered to refer us back to the Bailiff – the very individual who allowed this to happen by his failure to ensure that Jurat Le Breton complied with the rules on Conflict of Interest and recused himself.’

‘It is because of all of this,’ concluded Deputy Trevor Pitman, ‘that we are now left with no option but to attempt to challenge this as Litigants in Person. Neither of us are legally trained and the strain of having to now do this – coming as it does after years of fighting for justice and on top of our political work – will be huge. Yet we have no option. To not do so means financial ruin – which is possibly what some involved would like. It is not lost on either of us that as public figures we actually have some degree of a platform to try and challenge this huge injustice – something most ordinary people do not.

Justice simply should not be down to whether one has deep pockets or be dependent upon who an individual is; whether they have ‘rocked the political boat’ or not. Of course, since making public what has gone on behind the scenes in our case we now know that we are far from being alone in suffering such abuse of the justice system.

It is quite clear that a Mistrial should be called in our case as it has not been compliant with Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am learning of more people suffering serious legal abuses on an almost weekly basis. In fighting for justice ourselves we hope we are also giving hope to all others utterly betrayed by a justice system that is meant to protect everyone but which does not. We will endeavour to help anyone else we can. Indeed, we will fight all the way to Strasbourg if necessary until Jersey gets its judicial system in order’.
Deputies Trevor & Shona Pitman   For information/interviews contact: 07797 824243 or (011534) 863436

52 comments:

  1. I thought I wouldn't say this because your behaviour towards some people on the Net has been aweful especially Jonny Boy, but good luck with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you - but 'Jonny Boy' is a cowardly deranged thug and is reaping what he sowed I guess?

      Delete
  2. David won against Goliath, and you will win. Go for it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for fighting for justice. You really are not alone in suffering such abuse from our so called judiciary. I have been there too. This a great island but it has been stolen away from us by corrupt bullies. Please take heart you will win in the end. You are two good and brave people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Trevor/Shona.

    From former Senior Investigating Officer, and DCO LENNY HARPER

    ReplyDelete
  5. David X (no relation to Malcolm)15 July 2013 at 13:20:00 BST

    You are legends and what is being done to you is both a disgrace and criminal. Stand tall you will win in the end and you will help the rest of us by doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No chance.
    You should have done this a year ago and besides if Jurat Le Breton is an unfit Jurat then what happens to all the 14 years worth of cases he was involved in, are they all void?
    This will go nowhere and the ECHM takes years to deal with cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regrettably there are a number of Jurat Le Breton's cases that will need to be reviewed in the fullness of time.

      Not least given that Jurat Le Breton was selected to sit on the judicial review of the illegal suspension of Police Chief G.Power QPM.

      The system itself requires review.
      Given the connections realistically required for a person to be appointed a Jurat it is likely that most (if not all) are establishment stooges. This has led the island into cover up and corruption.

      Delete
  7. Thanks Jon. Published this to show the mentality. So in your view having a Jurat who looked the other way on evidence against a child abuser must be ignored because it could raise questions on other cases he sat on? Says it all. And we could not have done this a year ago due to not having all the information we have now. Do try and keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stella Haworth-Le Gallias15 July 2013 at 14:45:00 BST

    Brilliant video interview. I support you both 100% we have to expose cover up merchants like this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wish you both the very best of luck in your fight against establishment corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am so pleased you are doing this. Look out for excuses and people like the Rag trying to mislead people. This never should have happened to you both and the men to blame are Le Breton and Birt. I wonder what sanctions are in place to hold them to account. Don't tell me. None at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Everyone needs to come together to stop this utter corrupy Judiciary.

    The Judiciary is corrupt in all areas, and Trevor and Shona are not just talking for themselves.

    LISTEN JERSEY PUBLIC, this is happening to many people, people who are either being maliciously prosecuted by the judiciary because of ulterior and corrupt agendas, or, when a case comes to court to get justice the corrupt jurats , Deputy Bailiff, or corrupt magistrates are doing just doing what the law offices tell them.


    Trevor and Shona are talking on behalf of many people , all islanders, that if we do not sort this is out now , it will happen to you if you ever attempt to get justice !

    Its not a case of , well im ok Jack ! get off your bums and do something about it !

    ReplyDelete
  12. How predictable that the JE Pravda or their editor - a man who sat in the court throughout the case, and also admiited that he assumed the '4 x the salary, darling!' slur was about our alleged pay increase - does not print one line of the reasons why we are challenging this!

    Come on, Chris, be a big boy for once. Your 'newspaper' was allowed a jurat who is an evidenced friend/former colleague who socialises with one of your directors.

    The said jurat is also evidenced as being happy to look the other way when confronted with evidence against another former friend/colleague - a predatory paedophile and the 'newspaper' is happy to try and pretend that this is all hunky dory.

    Priceless...

    ReplyDelete
  13. As sickening as the Jersey situation:

    Eileen Fairweather
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10177681/The-truth-behind-the-child-abuse-cover-ups.html
    How do they get away with it?
    In Jersey we see how, in microcosm, and in a clarity which enables the more nebulous mainland situation to be better understood.

    At least the posh boys at Vic college got taken sailing and drugged with alcohol with probably only minor use of threats - better than being beaten shitless, tied up, or half drowned which have been the preferred methods by some at places like HDLG and some mainland homes that have been infiltrated by paedophiles.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wish they would hurry up and have you 2 declared en desastre, loads of people want a bi-election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now I know you are pretty thick (if admittedly persisistent - is that 14 bogus posts today or 15 and all from the same IP?) but much as the Pravda or even the Bailiff perhaps may share your great desire (well, jurats sitting on mate's court cases can't come about THAT easily, can they?) the fact is you might have to wait a bit longer.

      You see if you were not so addled with drink and hate you would know that the law you mention only relates to prevention of 'standing' for election. Dear o dear it must be hard being so desperate and dense. Not to mention to loathed and ugly to go out in public.

      But as to your employment - good luck with the job hunting. I'm sure your conviction for making cowardly death threats won't be too much of an off put to potential employers...

      Delete
  15. Democratic Deficit Dan15 July 2013 at 20:47:00 BST

    If ever another expose of the redundant dual role of the Bailiff was really needed then your revelation of how this awful man swapped one hat for another to bloc your statement has put that need to bed. Are we in the 17th century or the 21st here?

    ReplyDelete
  16. You will excuse me if I don't leave my name. When I tell you that I am a lawyer you may understand why. I could possibly email you directly later in the week.

    My only purpose is to highlight that you are quite right in your assessing of this conflict. It would not be allowed to go unchallenged here in the United Kingdom.

    I must confess I knew very little about your strange island until I began to read a number of blogs at the suggestion of a colleague here. I clearly cannot know everything.

    Yet the fact is this conflict you describe in your video and perhaps even more worrying the matter of a man becoming a lay judge in these circumstances paint a picture of a jurisdiction like something out of the wild west.

    You are very right to fight this and I wish you good luck. They say that an unjust law is no law at all. I would say an unjust justice system is even worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Be happy to hear from you and nice to have someone else confirm that this island is run like a bygone age.

      I particularly like your end sentence about unjust laws and unjust 'justice' systems being even worse. You have probably summed Jersey up perfectly.

      Delete
  17. I admire your testicular fortitude Trev. Keep on fighting the good fight, you are opening the eyes of more and more people every day.

    Did PB makes his personal statement today? If so, was it a load of bull?

    ReplyDelete
  18. No matter how well intentioned someone may come across, I would always be wary of someone offering legal help, as they may be a wolf in sheep's clothing (a faithful messenger to those you challenge you!). Of course, the person could be genuinely well intentioned, but how can you tell).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry, anonymous. If being in this job does nothing else it makes you wary.

      It will be me in the court not any lawyer - whether that is through an Appeal this side of the water or if it means standing in Strasbourg.

      Perhaps the good thing to hold on to for those who want justice but have been denied by the Jersey Way is this.

      If it takes going to Strasbourg for us to get justice then at least the Establishment can look forward to however many years of increased publicity outside the island saying:

      before you consider coming to Jersey to do business remember that our 'justice' system is utterly broken.Its dependent on who you are.

      Not just this but that Jersey also let's jurats sit on cases where they are friends of defendant companies or individuals.

      We allow people who look the other way on evidence against the 21st century plague - paedophiles - sit as Jurats passing 'judgement' on EVIDENCE for 14 years!

      As a certain ex-Senator used to say 'you really couldn't make it up!'

      Delete
  19. In relation the the statement Senator Bailhache gave today:-

    So on the 14th May 2013 States meeting, Senator Bailhache responded;-

    “– I cannot envisage any circumstances whereby any member of the public could have obtained from me the confidential information that is contained in the document that Deputy Southern and perhaps others may have.”

    Whereas now 'on reflection', I guess he should say he was wrong to give that answer, as in doing he mislead the members. If only he had reflected more heavily on the fact that he did indeed have such documents in his possession on both the flight to and from Gatwick and therefore there was a possibility, which he now acknowledges.

    I note Senator Bailhache has twice (maybe three) times emphasised that Deputy Pitman had not asked him directly as he could have cleared up the misunderstanding!

    Although, the only misunderstanding appears to be of Senator Bailhache's own making, by forgetting that he had certain documents in his possession and forgetting he also flew home back to Jersey.

    In my opinion, his ‘performance’ in this matter has if anything shown he may not be best suited to represent Jersey as Foreign Affairs Minister, as he would probably forget important stuff and in so doing jump straight to accusing others of fabricating stuff.

    All we now need is an iPhone video showing the Police Statements!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All we need now is an iPhone video showing the Police Statements!"

      I thought the same after listening to the statement on thejerseyway.blogspot.com, given that iPhone video evidence has been mentioned on this blog before.

      Delete
    2. Probably the best way to have avoided the 'misunderstanding' would be to for Bailhache to have NOT lied in the first place.

      'on reflection' I have been caught out and revealed (again) as an unprincipled and cowardly shyster.

      LOL

      Delete
  20. I'd love to hear "The Two Businessmen's" response to the PB statement where he basically calls them liars between the lines. I suspect they're spitting feathers! I really hope they don't give in.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Quite frankly, I do not believe Senator Bailhache, first he calls the email 'fictitious and malicious' then says he could not envisage any circumstances where a member of the public could have read/obtained some confidential names from him. He was never given a specific flight date, so how did he only consider his outbound flight without thinking of the in-bound one before effectively saying the whole thing was a made up story!

    However, since the two businessmen met the CM, Bailhache has now effectively apologised for calling the email 'fictitious and malicious', he has acknowledged someone could have read the confidential names, but has dug in on the one thing that could really damage him, the Police Statements (witness statements I guess). So although he is not effectively calling the businessmen liars any more, he is saying they got it wrong about the Police Statements.

    Well, I don't believe Bailhache, he got caught out, found a barely plausible way out to save face, but I bet the businessmen got it right about the Police statements and that Bailhache hasn't reflected long enough on that fact, other than his future if it was proved to be true, he obviously thinks that cannot happen.

    Is there anymore mileage to this saga, or has Bailhache killed it off?

    ReplyDelete
  22. From todays 'Rabid Apologist'

    SENATOR REFUTES ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY OVER FLIGHT CLAIM
    By Lucy Stephenson.

    Now call me stupid and hit me with a wet haddock, but I (and the OED) though REFUTE meant 'disprove'.

    Having heard the (Acting as) Chief Minister speak yesterday I got the distinct impression ,despite the 'to the best of my memory ' as I appear to recall' etc. etc
    He actually said when you extract the circumlocution and obfuscations.
    1. I was talking about a different flight hence my misleading statement.
    2. I had some papers that contained the information referred to that I had said I did not have..
    3.The terms fictitious and malicious were not correct.

    Beautiful piece Lucy ! but this still takes the biscuit I'm afraid
    http://www.gsyfutu.com/?p=3617

    ReplyDelete
  23. Trevor, somewhat off topic, but relevant. The JEP's website "ThisisJersey" is running a banner advert entitled "Here's an increase that's good news for your business", with a graphic showing two piles of JEP newpapers, one about 4 times higher than the others, within a graph showing the alleged increase. Link: http://www.thisisjersey.com/heres-an-increase-thats-good-news-for-your-business/

    The graphic is clearly intended to imply that the JEP circulation is increasing, and quotes a figure of 54,774 adult readers in 2002 with 66,591 in 2012.

    Now it's hardly an original notion that there are lies, damn lies and statistics, but in the JEP's case it's just straightforward bollocks. Just for a laugh, here is how the JEP gets its numbers:

    ABC circulation average Jan-Dec 2012 + unduplicated electronic editions x readers per copy via JICREG (55,645) + unique daily users of thisisjersey.com via Google Analytics (10,946) = 66,591 adults. ABC circulation average Jan-Dec 2002 x readers per copy (52,941) + unique daily users of thisisjersey.com (1,833) = 54,774 adults.

    I didn't make that up, it's in the small print. So they are adding the daily sales of the Rag, multiplied by the number of adults reading it (something mathematicians refers to as being a not a 'real' number) to website hits.

    The underlying truth is that the JEP's newspaper sales are FALLING every quarter, and have been for several years. They can't fudge this number because it is audited, and the latest average circulation figure is 17,619 copies. This is despite the significant increase in Jersey's population in the 10 year period they have selected.

    Now I don't know if Jersey has something as sophisticated as an advertising standards watchdog, but if it does, I would suggest you refer the JEP to any such body. They are trying to flog advertising space in the printed edition by implying that the circulation is increasing, when the opposite is true. After all, the graphic shows a pile of newspapers, not a pile of mouse clicks.

    ReplyDelete
  24. When is somebody going to sue stella boy?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Having listened to PB's personal statement, is it just me or his doing a 'Brian' the robot speech?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't know if Bailhache has killed it off, I am more than sure that Trevor will not be letting go that easily!!

    As far the the personal statement goes... well it was all quite predictible that he would come up with some fluff as to why he originally lied!

    I am however happy that he has withdrawn the 'ficticious and malicious' phrase and that he does not impute dishonesty or mailice to myself or Trevor, but then he didn't really have much choice in saying this did he?!

    He comments that he was handed the email to read to which he had supposedly read enough of to accuse me of being ficticious and malicious, however and I quote the very second line in my email that he read

    'I am writing to you just to welcome your thoughts on a specific matter that arose yesterday afternoon on a flight BACK from Gatwick'

    Strangley when answering to the email which he accused as being ficticius and malicious he now states that with something as important as this he failed to take note of the very second line?? that we were talking about his flight BACK from Gatwick?


    So now in his personal statement he is claiming he thought we were talking about his flight TO gatwick where he was only reading the Korris report (which of course we don't know because noone had seen this)!

    I must admit when listening to the personal statement where he claims my recollection is in part mistaken with referring to the police witness statements this has put doubt in my own mind as to whether they were infact police witness statements as it was now quite a while ago and unforunately I do not have a photographic memory, I am more than sure they were such witness statements, what else could he have had that were printed on States Of Jersey Police letterhead with all the other papers in relation to this case?

    So this leaves the letter from the accused, also the A4 sheets of printed text messages from the victim and the summary's of emails sent between the accused and the victim, this is how I got to see the victims name from the printed email header!

    He has not in his statement denied having this information has he?? so the question still stands then, why did a 'lay member of the church' have such confidential information in his possesion, surely only the states of jersey police or a Chief Minister at most would have access to such information?

    Answers on a postcard :)

    The Concerned Businessman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Concerned Businessman

      I copied your comment onto several other sites as it was a rather important reminder of certain facts.

      Please see
      http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2013/07/jerseys-dean-another-meaningless-apology.html

      Bob Hill (Ex Met Police Officer and local human rights campaigner) replied: "Thank you for your Comment. If you are one of the businessmen I would welcome the opportunity of meeting you and your colleague. Please contact me on bobps91@yahoo.co.uk ........"

      Bob also says that a link to the Korris Review/Report can be found on his blog of 3rd April 2013
      http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-dean-and-voice-in-wilderness.html

      Direct link:
      http://www.cofewinchester.org.uk/assets/downloads/Independent_Review_of_a_Safeguarding_Complaint_for_the_Diocese_of_Winchester_(March_2013)Redacted.pdf

      Bob's blogs on these matters are well worth reading

      [Hopefully Mr.Pitman will make sure you are directed to Bob Hill's message]

      Delete
  27. Not a true victory given that we are stuck with the status quo for now. But at least Bailhache didn't get his way in ruining Jersey's democracy beyond repair and for all time.

    ReplyDelete
  28. But it needs carefully explaining why those who voted against did so to the general ill informed Public, It seems on the face of it politicians voting to keep their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So that's it, the Electoral Reform is over? A monumental waste of time? Or did Ballache get his way after all - managed to hijack the commission, and finally end up with keeping the status quo while making it look like he -didn't- get his own way? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  30. Bailhache-Gate is sounding more like an old sketch from the two old men of the Muppets!

    Its not real
    Its ficticious
    Its malicious
    I don't read such papers on air flights
    No one could have obtained confidential names from me
    I will not be drawn on this any further

    ermm.....................

    Its not ficticious
    Its not malicious
    I might have read documents relating to this matter
    A third party may have been able to read confidential names
    I read the email quickly and missed the flight date

    However, I am absolutely certain without any doubt whatsoever, (fingers crossed), that I did not have any Police Statements as I only had documents that I was entitled too.

    --------------

    I guess Bailhache would have to say that, because surely that would be a very serious matter, if he had gained access, I mean it could almost drive someone to initially want to deny anything close to that ever taking place!

    Bailhache effectively tried to undermine another deputy, by his own admission from misreading facts, is vague on whether he might have read other documents, but we are asked to believe him on other things.

    ******************************
    The above is a comment off
    http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2013/07/jerseys-dean-another-meaningless-apology.html

    It had me rolling on the floor :-)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dear Trevor;
    I listened to the account of your apology to Sir Philip that BBC Radio Jersey 'shared' with the public.I also enjoyed the scathing comments from people like James (twice) and Sue (who agreed with James despite it not having been broadcast previously (bit strange that I do admit)).
    Will you now not do the honourable thing and side with the rightminded or at least say nothing and let them carry on their 'good works'.

    Better still stand for Environment Minister !

    Best Wishes
    The Spirit of Lord Reith (not)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Trevor, did you apologise to Philip Bailhache? what for?

    I'm guessing, maybe because he was so forgetful it cannot be said he lied. If so I also guess that although one can appologise, one can also not believe him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologise to Bailhache? What for? No - of course not.

      Seems like BBC Jersey have been misleading people - again.

      I am also told that Mathhew Price was allowing the pumping out of 'comments' attacking me from Jon the troll's fake avatars 'Sue Young' 'james Le Gallais' and 'Julie Hanning'.

      Looks like a complaint will have to be made to the UK BBC. Have they learnt nothing since Gripton was re-tweeting links to another hate site run by this thug?

      Meanwhile must get my complaint about PB to PPC written.

      Delete
    2. Dear Trevor;
      Your reader had missed the irony of 'your apology to Sir Philip' .For the less sharp knives 'BBC Jersey were using a clear story of 'facts evasion' by PB to generate as much negative comment from troll city as they could muster in 45 minutes' Plus "Sir Philip declined to comment" saying 'I have nothing further to add to my statement in the States on monday'.
      For clarity (also his term) this was;
      I was talking about a different flight when I told the Chief Minister to say that all I had was the Korris report.
      On what is now known to be the flight in question ,I did have reports that would have allowed 'the concerned businessman' to identify the parties involved etc. (not full clarified), but they could not have realistically read them , as I was not reading them , having read them before in London, anyway Deputy Southern has the same information as I do ( new info. diversion technique).

      Yours a spinning (in grave only)
      Lord Reith

      Delete
    3. A 'personal statement' from George Orwell to 'Sir' Philip.

      The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.

      Delete
  33. And HERE is another Jersey whitewash on the cards!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Can you give us any update since your Press Release?

    ReplyDelete
  35. The JEP is referred to by those in the know as "The Filthy Rag". Perhaps because it has been used to wipe gleaming clean all the unspeakable filth that important people have soiled themselves with for decades.

    What should BBC Jersey be renamed as ?
    To help with this it is wort listening to the last good programme they put out:

    http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/11/bbc-radio-jersey-interviews-blogers.html

    For Jersey this was "cutting edge" stuff but one commenter on this TJW story was
    "I listened to the whole show and thought it was desperate in places. The BBC have given this view point an airing but that's the last we will hear of it from them."
    BBC Jersey has indeed reverted to non reporting.

    The bloggers, the men off the street, did really well as live radio must have been way out of their normal experience and comfort zone.
    For me the highlight of the show was the (third) Interview of BBC Radio Jersey's Boss Jon Gripton. The "men off the street" made him look like a frightened Youth Training Scheme student.

    Gripton's pained assertion that they had used Ex Police Chief Power's affidavit "in their journalism" was beyond laughable.
    Along with his ridiculous and platitudinous claim that he "would not reveal his sources" when his "sources" openly and repeatedly say that he has the affidavit because they GAVE IT TO HIM ! Journalism on a plate - The man is not fit for purpose and must resign.

    Rico Sorda had previously said: "Even the media shouldn't be afraid of scrutiny though, you know, you know you know get all defensive and that's because you know you've had Graham Powers 62,000 word statement for a year and a half or whatever, a year and we haven't seen anything of that maybe John Mr Gripton will explain that later. ..."

    Mr Gripton did everything but explain. He stuttered and he stammered. He can't even cover up in professionally plausible manner. No wonder he has never risked a repeat, but what I don't understand is how he is still in post.

    Jon Gripton is clearly not a journalist or fit to manage journalists. IMO he should be sacked so he can find his natural vocation as a mushroom farmer. He has been keeping us in the dark and feeding us with bullsh*t for years.
    The fact that he has not been sacked suggests that is really what he is paid for. Shame on the BBC!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Does anyone know if Philip Bailhache will be facing church disciplinary action for his outrageous behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Trevor.

    A snapshot of Jersey Administration and JUSTICE

    ReplyDelete