Pages

Saturday, 31 August 2013

POSTCARDS FOR PRINCE EDWARD PART ONE

The veneer that would have Establishment Jersey a 'just & democratic' jurisdiction is as thin as the plate on the island's Mace

For all of my first-hand experience of the black comedy that is the Jersey Establishment in its embittered dotage, being contacted by several members of the public whilst being off-island for a couple of weeks reminded me just why the outside world increasingly view the behaviour of the political and legal 'elite' of my home island as some kind of neo-feudal reality TV freak show.

Millions and millions of pounds wasted unnecessarily by our 'justice' overlords; further proof that the same 'justice' system is accountable to no one; newly proposed work laws akin to something out of Dickens and even a proven political liar and thief passing himself off as some kind  champion of Planning department morality;  - its obviously been a boring old time whilst I have been away.

So here is Part One of a handful of 'postcards' of Bald Truth for HRH Prince Edward to ponder before he arrives in the Island. No doubt to be assured by manically smiling men in cloaks, tights and very expensive pinstripes just how we in Jersey are (to borrow a Perchardism) a veritable beacon of democracy...

£8 million of our taxpayers' money squandered
 
A former CIA agent once observed American policy on Cuba over more than 50 years - the deliberately cruel sanctions against ordinary people; the economic sabotage, never mind the multiple assassination attempts sponsored on the island's President - as being 'like a wolf howling at the moon' i.e bereft of all logical thought. What has any of this got to do with Jersey? Well, the fact is this analogy would also aptly describe the Establishment/Law Office obsession with trying to bury ex-Senator Stuart Syvret.

Money well spent during a recession?

Just consider this. Though not reported by the likes of Establishment Party mouthpiece the Jersey Evening Pravda, the fact is that one of the cases brought against Stuart Syvret has now finally concluded. Amazing enough in itself. Yet what is really so disturbing here is that while the whole case has ended as a shambles - probably a deliberately contrived one - our wonderful Law Office has still spent around £8 million of your and my money to achieve...eh, NOTHING!

The Jersey legal industry - its surely better than working...

Who has benefited? Mmmmm? Not the member of the public who the case revolved around. Not the wider taxpaying community. Not any of the Island's record number of unemployed. No. The only people who have all done very nicely thank you (outside of keeping the 'justice department' boys and girls in overtime) are those fine people: the Closed Shop of Jersey Lawyers.

Indeed, one of these admirable justice stalwarts, so my legal infiltrator assures me, got around £400,000 for achieving what my late old gran used to call Sweet FA! (She meant Fanny Adams I'm sure). Will an itemised breakdown now be offered by Chief Minister Gorst voluntarily? What do you think readers? Senator Ferguson definitely should be sharpening up her fine tooth comb and magnifying glass for the accounts...

Don't mention the Top Secret court case (again!)

Meanwhile here's a nice little prediction just for you from me to end this Syvret 'postcard' on. The much talked about (but almost zero MSM reported on) 'Secret court process' against the former Senator will soon also have to report that this too will have run up bills at the taxpayers' expense in the region of a staggering 20 x the annual budget of the Data Protection Commissioner's Office! And yet what will have been achieved in this case?

You guessed it - precisely NOTHING

 Zilch. Not a sausage. Not a single beneficial thing for anyone. Other than once again making a few more of the millionaire members of the 'Closed Shop of Jersey Lawyers' even richer. So given that hard-working Public Sector workers are being spun the standard Gorst/Ozouf tripe about there being no money for even a modestly realistic pay rise; and essential health and education services are continuing to be scrapped just who will have actually authorised all of the above squandering of our money? Better still just who will be held accountable?

As he tells States Members that he is the man responsible for Data Protection perhaps Senator Paul Routier would like to come on here next week and tell us. I don't know why but somehow I just don't think he will.

Its not just the Law Officers who are totally unaccountable to anyone

Remember the shock to a lot of people a couple of months back when it emerged that the Law Officer who gave the go ahead for the bugging of Curtis Warren's hire car could not be disciplined as even the Law Society wanted?

Could not be disciplined even though the police officers acting upon the advice were being hung out to dry by the Establishment in another secret 'show trial' constructed to give the impression of a responsible jurisdiction? Well if you thought this farce was just a one off let me give you another brilliant example of how the Jersey Law Officer are not only totally out of control but are indeed demonstrably accountable to no one.

Shhhh! I'm going to have to mention our court case again

As regular readers will be well aware, in blatant contempt for Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to which Jersey is required to conform the Bailiff's Office allowed one Jurat John Le Breton to sit in judgement of evidence and fact on Shona's and my defamation case even though he was impossibly conflicted.

This was a 'man' who was a demonstrable longtime friend of a director of the JEP's owners - even entertaining her to dinner at his home! A 'man' who is also proven within the suppressed Sharp Report to have happily looked the other way on evidence against another of his then friends, the sickening predatory Victoria College paedophile, Andrew Jervis-Dykes.

To all who believe in justice, fairness and accountability it goes without saying that Le Breton clearly should NEVER have been allowed to become a Jurat in the first place given his malleable commitment to both evidence and justice. Yet given that the Bailiff - indeed two Bailiffs - had failed so miserably to act to remove him you would at least think that when such appalling failings are publicly identified someone, somewhere has to have higher authority to be responsible for holding all to account?

Except this is Jersey...

The deeply disturbing truth, however, is that NO ONE anywhere is apparently charged with such a crucial oversight over Jersey 'justice' failings. Not possible you say? Well just consider these facts.

As I have previously reported, UK Justice Minister, Lord Tom McNally tells us that he 'cannot intervene' because Jersey as a Crown Dependency is a self-governing, and thus independent jurisdiction with its own 'justice' system. (Oh but we certainly know all about that, don't we!) Indeed, as I have also highlighted previously Lord McNally quite incredibly even went on to propose that he might offer to 'refer our concerns back to Sir Michael Birt' - the very man who let this abuse of ECHR Article 6 happen!

So could the Jersey Appeal Court process be the way to go?

Unfortunately it seems not. You see the solitary Appeal Court Judge who knocked back our first application to be able to appeal against this Kangaroo Court style process has also now stated that whether an individual is demonstrably unfit to sit as a Jurat or not - as John Le Breton clearly was - is NOT for the Appeal Court to rule on either!

Just for good measure the Judge in question, Mr Beloff, even goes on to make the rather remarkable statement within his judgement that, regardless of the damning evidence of the Sharp Report the Electoral College must have had full confidence in Le Breton's ability. yet how this judgement was reached you really have to wonder. You see it completely overlooks the rather important little fact that Jurat Le Breton was appointed by the 'Electoral College' in 1998.

The Sharp Report didn't come out until a whole year later in 1999! 

The Electoral College generally will just not have known about Le Breton's wholly inappropriate attitude and commitment to evidence, fact and justice. Indeed, the only people who will have known for sure will have been the likes of then Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache - who sat on the Victoria College Board of Governors whilst all of this happened - and his successor, one Sir Michael Birt

It is the Bailiffs of course who preside over the 'Superior Number' - the only body who according to the Attorney General has responsibility for acting on any Jurat being revealed to be unsuitable for the role. And it is has been two successive Bailiffs of course who failed to do a damn thing about Le Breton. Well, they wouldn't really would they. They both will of known about his malleable commitment to truth and justice and yet did not stop his name going forward to the Electoral College back in 1998!

All too incredible and disturbing for words I think you would agree. Yet to top it all off, within his judgement in refusing us the right to Appeal, the Judge even went on to actually criticise Shona and I for having first gone down the 'political route' of writing to the UK Justice Minister - rather than the same Appeal process of which he states has no mandate to rule on Le Breton's appalling failings! I'm honestly not making any of this up - you just couldn't.

Which brings us back to the 6 million dollar question

Just who is accountable for the failings of both the Bailiff and Jurat Le Breton in all of this? The answer is apparently: NO ONE!

Yet you still have to go through the 'legal' process (helpfully making the Closed Shop of Jersey Lawyers I mentioned in the Stuart Syvret 'postcard' shed loads more cash on the way of course) before you can hope to progress to the UK Privy Council and ultimately - let's be quite up front here - almost certainly the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Of course, like us by then you will likely be absolutely skint but quite likely that is all part of the plan. Yet understand all of this and you begin to see just why - in contrast to every other jurisdiction in the world - there has apparently never been a miscarriage of justice in the Island according to an answer I recieved from the Jersey Attorney General.

As to just who can claim the 'fame' of developing the Jersey 'justice' system so perfectly imperfectly down the years I do not know. But the fact must surely be acknowledged: the late and unlamented Roland Friesler of Nazi Party infamy really couldn't have set up a 'legal' system where the wronged just can't win unless they are willing to slog through hell any better.

Keep the Faith - someone has to!

 
 

96 comments:

  1. Brilliant post. Nice to have you back. This amount of money spent in silencing Syvret is staggering.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good to have you back blogging and what a great comeback it is. One more you have described the toxic - and criminal - nature of Jersey's so-called justice system better than most could and perfectly accurately. This Island has gone to the dogs and the name "Bailhache" pops up everywhere this corruption exists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this post. How can such vast sums of our money be spent so casually and for so little sound reason.

    Secondly how in Heaven's name can it be that the United Kingdom's own Justice Minister says he cannot intervene in a blatant case like that of John Le Breton and nor can the Appeal court?

    What you are basically telling us is that if you happen to rock the boat or even just fall foul of the powers that be you really have nowhere to go to get justice. This is as mind boggling as it is frightening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! I thought being a Crown Dependency meant that we were somewhat protected by UK laws. Do I take it that McNally's argument is why the English Law Society has not intervened. If so what could be done to change this?

      Delete
  4. 8 MILLION POUNDS!!! To attempt to silence Stuart Syvret? This can't be true, surely?

    Truly shocked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I heard that but its also been said that had he not broken data protections laws in the first place then the bill would be nil.

      Makes sense.

      Delete
    2. At a time when ordinary people are being threatened with not getting any benefits should their reason for leaving a job not fit in with a wholly undefined criteria from Social Security; just what message does it send out when a lawyer can pick up £400,000 for achieving Sweet FA?

      Money that belongs to you and me!

      £8 million all told IS the overall cost advised from an internal source to generally achieve Sweet FA for anyone.

      Forget criticising the Finance industry failings for a while - maybe what we need to do is turn our collective guns on the 'legal' industry. Money for old rope - no wonder they don't want their closed shop being spoiled by English lawyers. Costs would plummet.

      Delete
    3. £8 million to gag the former Health Minister of Jersey, Stuart Syvret.

      Meanwhile in Jersey, cancer patients are denied drugs that could prolong their lives.

      http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline%5Fjerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=506991

      What will it take for national media to sit up and take notice?

      Delete
  5. Others have broken 'data protection' yet not been pursued like a rabid dog with expense not even an issue.

    Look at e-mail thief Deputy Sean Power. Look at the hate site these stolen e-mails ended up on.

    Look at Tel Boy when he broke 'data protection' - twice.

    It al depends who you are.

    Just as the police wanted to prosecute Jersey's most deranged internet troll but the AG won't and Data Protection won't give anyone else the same financial support to launch exactly the same sort of case behind the 'secret court' proceedings against Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post! The idea of a reality show just might have merit. Good to see you and other popular Jersey bloggers way on top of the game today with some excellent new postings.

    What it boils down to, I think, is the fact that there is no enshrined right to "fair remedy" in the legal interpretation of the word. Any system which provides no legal avenue of remedy for obvious injustice should be considered a non-functional system. There appears to be no transparently empowered entity "willing" to assume ultimate legal responsibility for ensuring justice from the lowest level of authority in Jersey all the way through to the Crown, leaving odd sorts to make it up as they go along. And they do. Perhaps it would have been more efficient, not to mention honest, if TPTB had invested that 8 mil in establishing Philip Bailhache as the arbitrary and capricious king he deems himself to be.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pleased to see this post Trevor. A good few of us had wondered why you hadn't responded to the sickening attack on you and Shona a couple of weeks back by that scumbag Sean Power in the rag. Can we now expect that you will be highlighting a few home truths about the Priory Boy fairly soon? We certainly hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trevor.

    Nice to see you back, alive and kicking.
    Its sad to think that we can only rely on a handful of present states members to ask uncomfortable questions.
    And no doubt you and the few others will keep these questions coming.
    Because without a doubt they will in the long term.
    Make a change.
    Kick ass.
    Because you can.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For those of your readers who do not get or read the Jersey Evening Post could you enlighten us to the gist of the piece by Sean Power

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let me tell you something about Sean Power and his self opinionated moral standing on the planning process in Jersey.

    I know of a case where a private developer in St Brelade renovated a farmhouse without any planning or building permission - and when the shit was about to hit the fan this certain developer got in touch with the our planning process fairness campaigner Sean Power.

    What Sean Power begun to do was to get involved in burying the whole matter, he interfered with the planning department and used his influence to make sure that the developer was given immediate retrospective permission "without" an application, and also, made sure that no regulatory charges were brought against this private developer who he is friends with.

    And this Deputy Sean Power talks about fairness in the planning process, this man is an absolute disgrace and i urge the public of St Brelade to make sure that he is not voted in the States again becasue he is evidently a corrupt , self praising, self promoting, and hypocritical man who uses his ministerial influence in the fashion of a despot within our States assembly.

    The public of St Brelade really need to look at this man for what he is and how he interferes in matters that have nothing to do with him . In many peoples opinion he is the type of character who attempts to cloud the publics opinions of his true personality with all the "do gooder" charities that he self promotes himself with, and one can only take the position that there is nothing worse in a man when he attempts to mask his motivations publically by attempting to be seen as a do gooder!

    I think we have seen that recently with a high profile case! what it does is gives a man an avenue to believe that he is not expendable, and therefore believes it gives him power and the unquestioned right to steer public and political opinion , and yes the old adage, power corrupts , and absolute power corrupts absolutely-no matter the scale.

    GET THIS MAN OUT PLEASE - FOR THE SAKE OF OPENNESS AND REAL FAIRNESS IN JERSEY! NOT SOMEONE WHO JUST PRETENDS TO BE !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I obviously do not know the truth about this claim. I can say. however, that I have been contacted by another member of the public alleging things in the same vein. One to look in to I guess. Unlike Sean Power, however, I will not be making statements myself until I can verify them personally. But Power and the Pravda - what a toxic combination!

      Delete
  11. I see the States bully has returned.
    Sean Power is not a thief or breaker of data protection, why do you lie all the time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes - as General Insanity melchette of Blackadder fame once opined: wwhen all else else has failed a blind refusal to look facts in the face will see us through!'

      Power helped himself to perssonal e-mails that he knew were not his. They then ended up on a horrible hate site of which he even once told me he contributed.

      Far from 'putting his hand up' to a 'mistake' as he likes to claim the truth is he was caught out by his States security code and only admitted his actions once this had happened.

      Delete
    2. Sean Power stole something (personal emails) that doesn't belong to him without making any attempt to return said items to rightful owner. Instead gave them to a site which protected pedophiles. The emails contained personal data , he stole them and caused them to be published on a pedophile protecting website. This makes him a thief and a data protection breacher and an altogether untrustworthy shyster.

      Delete
    3. Trevor.

      "Mr. Harper has labelled Senators Perchard, Shenton and Deputy Power as "The Three Goons". In this first episode he explains why and also goes on to tell us a little more about these individuals and their alleged shenanigans and suggests they are not best placed to be questioning ANYBODY'S leaking of e-mails............and more."

      From HERE

      Delete
  12. I could never understand why Sean Power was not forced to resign over his sickening betrayal of his office. Really how can we have a man who rather than give an email back to the person indicated on it steals it and allows it or maybe even sent it to a horrible website peddling filth and hate?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Deputy Sean Power is a data thief. Don't let that issue overshadow this excellent posting.

    8 million on Syvret

    But what happens about all millions wasted on Curtis Warren?????????

    He is released next year. Bet that will shock some....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoa! Next year? Is more money left from Warren to invest in Stuart's continued persecution?

      Delete
    2. The figures relating to the pursuit of Syvret came to me from a direct source within the legal industry. Okay, so I'm sure a few pounds here and then may be out. But £8 million pounds is apparently on the money and the secret court process is set to be equally huge so my mole says. Money well spent? Not.

      Delete
  14. Excellent to read your new blog posting Trevor. Sorry to hear of your family members ill health.

    Without any doubt, the Jersey local blogs are catching on fast and so is the information contained in the blogs. Come the next election, it will be states members who openly converse with the electorate that may be surprised at the forthcoming support.

    While those opening offices around the world, going on jollies, and refusing to answer questions is the assembly will be shunned, and rightly so. They are supposed to be working for the good of the island and it's people. Not themselves or their ego's. Good to have you back.

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm told that a highly respected local blogger has a recorded phone conversation in which the notorious Jersey troll alleges that our Deputy Power was the key man behind the old murder farce gutter blog. Certainly be interesting if that ever gets put up on you tube or some such.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Though I can't help but agree that this huge waste of our money is scandalous I do hope you are right on no action being taken against the former Senator's blog. It is absolutely crucial that people like Syvret can still tell us the truth about violent sickos who make death threats to people and spread anonymous bile via internet sites.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point you raise is a good one.

      Though I may not agree with everything Stuart Syvret writes, when it is quite clear that what he has written about a bully and a coward is spot-on then it can only be a good thing that the action against him will fail to see that description removed.

      If only the said 'outed' coward would write in his own names when spreading the jealous hate he seems to spend 24/7 concocting anonymously rather than going to work you might have a bit more respect - such as you can for a drunken lowlife.

      Fact is though such a cowardly bully boy should now have to pay all the money that he has been afforded by the Data Protection Office back if the case has failed.

      Or is it that only some of us have to use our own money for court cases in Jersey?

      Delete
  17. An issue that needs to be highlighted is that of why certain internet sites/blogs are targeted by Data Protection and our Law Office whilst the most hateful are not. The one you refer to is a prime exampmle as is its successor in publishing slime. Those behind it COULD be prosecuted and the authorities know who is behind them. It is just that the above offices do not want to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The perfect words for that selective prosecution are enshrined in English Common Law throughout the English-speaking West as "Arbitrary and Capricious."

      Elle

      Delete
  18. These revelations about the amount of money spent on pursuing Syvret which you let us in on can only be described as terrifying. How can kind of state sponsored witch hunt be allowed?

    Considering the fact that the same establishment gangsters are also abusing the courts to try and get you and Shona it is very clear this not a one off. What have you three all got in common? You stand up for what is right and the people who elected you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Deputy Pitman,

    If the above post is genuine and correct when,

    that the developer was given immediate retrospective permission "without" an application, and also, made sure that no regulatory charges were brought against this private developer who he is friends with.

    This must be illegal ?

    Follow the money as they say. The judiciary lawyers, helping themselves to taxpayers money by taking over Syvret civil spurious data cases supported by a States department. Did planning officers and Power get brown envelops from the developer, is Jersey corrupt ? do bears……………..

    Get your teeth into that Gorst, Bailhache, Ozouf or are you all to busy with Jersey's reputation damage limitation. The clock is ticking.

    ReplyDelete
  20. We certainly need to know how much tax payers money has been allocated without any justification to the four individuals behind the secret court saga. Once we have this total we can work out how much each one has had by simple division. No doubt the cases all differ in quality. But as so many people observe, in a case like the intranet bully and court convicted thug, with there being no result against mr Syvret this yobbo really should have to pay this money back to the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I agree.

      You should go down to Emma Martin's office with a CTV Camera and ask her why an intranet bully and court convicted thug is allowed to take action with 3 others against Stuart Syvret and see what she says Deputy Pitman.

      Delete
  21. These two threads paint a very grim picture of our island. The amounts of money which you reveal as being spent are, as a reader commented, staggering.

    Yet I would have to say that in my opinion the fact that in Jersey we appear to have nobody who is responsible in shocking cases like jurat Le Breton's is even worse.

    To echo your own words how can any of this be in any way Human Rights compliant?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I see the teacher in the shooting incident has been fined and described as having good character and integrity! So that's all right then!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Was the attack on Stuart Syvret, based on the opinion that it was in the Public Interest and therefore the £8m has served the public. Whereas, it was previously suggested that a few million would be too much for a COI into what happend at HDLG. All very odd.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I see the teacher in the shooting incident has been fined and described as having good character and integrity!"

    Whereas, we know differently by the very action he took and the lack of action after.

    Perhaps the character reference came from an ex-jurat!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. It should surely follow that the Data Protection Officer and the 'Famous Four', having brought a frivolous action against Stuart Syvret, which has resulted in no action being taken against him should be held responsible for the costs incurred. This is usually the case, and taxpayers should be up in arms about this.

    Egg in face Emma Martins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about a little demo in front of her office?

      A placard or two with the sum and the reason

      And asking the question - Who authorised this expenditure?

      Delete
  26. You cannot be serious 8 million pounds on secret court case?

    That is 3 times the cost of the whole Haut De La Garenne investigation.

    Why are local media not reporting this?

    How is it possible to spend 8 million of something secret? Where is the scrutiny, accountability, responsibility of decision making behind this spend of tax payers money?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous

      Though it is hardly a big misunderstanding here the £8 million the post refers to is what my legal infiltrator reports has been spent on the case involving a single individual and brought against Stuart Syvret and obviously involving the States.

      I am, however, similarly informed from the same legal source that the wholly no Human Rights compliat case aginst the former Senator involving the States and 4 x individuals will not only achieve nothing whatsoever but will also cost in the same multi-million bracket of wasted taxpayers' money.

      Of course, if Chief Minister Gorst or his man in charge of data protection wants to come on here and correct any figures I will be very happy to assist. Bottom line is our money has been wasted hand over fist and has been done so without any accountability whatsoever.

      Where is the scrutiny and/or accountability you ask? i think with respect that like me you know the answer already. It won't happen because 95% of States Members are too scared/disinterested or in fact happy to collude with such things so long as it only impacts on progressive figures.

      sad but unfortunately true.

      Delete
    2. So are you saying that Stuart is no longer under a Super injunction?

      Delete
    3. No anonymous I am not saying that.

      I have given you a confident prediction that the case against him will have to be announced as having come to nothing. Nothing beneficial anyway. of course I have been around long enough to know that it won't be reported that way but spun as something else.

      I know of people who have had the same effective treatment of super injunctions with gagging orders that they were misled to belive only impact other parties involved - but actually prevented them speaking out about how they were shafted.

      Only Stuart could tell you if he is still under a super injunction and if he doesn't then you will know that he is! This will all come out eventually no matter how our Establishment try to suppress it.

      I mean I may well be forced out of politics before too long but the fact is this will be relatively unimportant in the bigger picture/long term. Whatever happens to me one thing I can promise is that they won't manage to shut me up.

      What was it my nephews used to go on about with Buzz Lightyear? 'Infinity and beyond!' How about privy Council all the way to Strasbourg and beyond!'

      Got a certain ring to it...

      Delete
    4. But if the Super Injunction is still in place then the case cannot be finished?

      Delete
    5. It can take two sides to 'finish' a court case sometimes can't it. I can't really say much more just now but I stand by my legal insider's informatin on what this will all cost we taxpayers.

      I don't know if it is helpful but I know that one of the men - actually I take that back, he isn't a 'man' at all but a drunken inadequate halfwit - involved in the case has been blabbing in a number of town pubs about all of this whilst pissed.

      What I'm saying is if you have the time just hang out in a few town pubs and look out for a dishevelled middle-aged tramp-type usually in a spliff stained Capatain Beefheart t shirt and smelling of stale sewat and urine and you'll probably be able to ask him about the finer points yourself.

      Of course, I know you will probably have personal standards that are far to respectable to allow you to do this so instead my advice is just hang on a week or two. All will become clear before too long.

      Delete
    6. Apologies to readers - a typo above with the new word 'sewat'. In talking about the infamous drunken buffoon who wanted to silence Syvret I meant to type that every time he shambles up to me pissed he reeks of stale sweat and urine. I would hate to suggest that he smelt of 'sewat'!I might get taken to court!

      Delete
  27. Can you answer this. Who approved the figure of 8 million pounds on one case and will approve the subsequent estimated figure of the possible same amount from the public purse?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. But you are on the money that this is something that we have to drag out in to the daylight no matter how long it takes. I'm up for it if you are?

      Delete
  28. LOL. The only way anyone can discredit the 8 million figure is to admit to the actual sum. The exact cost is undoubtedly too high and unaccountably expensed for them to ever do that in any form that could be documented as accurate. Well played.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ''Can you answer this. Who approved the figure of 8 million pounds on one case and will approve the subsequent estimated figure of the possible same amount from the public purse?''

    This is a question the national press should be asking
    if the Jersey media fail too.

    8 million to silence one man is news not to be sniffed at.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have an oral question in to Chief Minister asking under what mandate UK Justice Minister, Lord McNally being asked to intervene on Jersey's understandable placing on the French taxation black list.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I just read the front page of the JEP and you said nothing would come of this case against Syvret and not only have they found him guilty but he has to pay costs.
    Can you not get your facts right before making such claims in future because what you wrote was not the truth at all was it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing of substance HAS come of the case. Syvret won't have to remove the material that 'caused' it all and how exactly do you think they will be getting paid by him?

      The JEP story - especially the bit about them never being able to report on it because they 'didn't know' about it is a rather embarrassing joke. One of their 'journalists' actually discussed it all witth me several months ago in fact.

      Maybe do a blog soon myelf?

      Delete
  32. Whats the betting on the infamous 4 having you done after this Syvret trial you reckon?
    You've meddled in it from the word go!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say that the chance is a big fat zero Jon. The chance of you finally getting your collar felt however is increasingly daily.

      Delete
    2. As for the 'famous'4... wonder why others did not want the case of a convicted petty yobbo attached to theirs? LOL!

      Delete
  33. Is it really necessary to mock people who have drink problems?
    Deputy Sean Power has courage to admit to a past drink problem and to refer to people who drink and soil themselves like you do his hardly befitting for a Deputy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My best friend had a seious drink problem. Yet he never used it as an excuse to try and cover up for sickening, cowardly behavious such as stealing other people's personal e-mails or spreading scurrilous lies about others as Sean Power does.

      I thus don't mock people with drink problems at al.

      It is just sickening to see an obnoxious bully coward and thief like Sean Power lauching his desperate re-election campaign in such a fashion. Indeed, when will this 'man' summon the Testiculat Fortitude to apologise to Carolyn Labey and Judy Martin for his shameful actions?

      Delete
  34. Trevor, if you want to open another front on the war against Jersey's injustice system, you might like to start asking the AG whether the system of Parish Hall Enquiries complies with Jersey's human rights obligations. You know, those micky-mouse courts where a redneck with a parish tie makes arbitrary decisions about guilt or innocence, and acts as judge, jury and executioner. Where your rights aren't explained and you are unrepresented, and where no due process is followed.

    Of course, the old canard is that they are a quick and cheap form of injustice, but the truth is they provide one of the last raisons d'etre for the parish system. After all, for the sorts of minor procedural offences typically dealt with, like speeding, why not just operate something similar to parking tickets, where you can either cough-up or challenge without the need to appear before the local marsupial?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually anon, the truth is that "If" by the slightest chance you actually muster up the courage to tell these arbitrary w*nkers to go f*ck themselves, chances are that you will never ever see the inside of a Jersey Court House, simply because they cannot get you into Court without your consent....Every demand these scum make, is just an offer, an offer for you to accept, or reject. When you Jersey pussies muster enough courage to reject their very kind offer, get in touch with myself or Cyril, we will support you all the way as long as you don't 'bail' on us like every BEAN so far has done!!!

      Delete
  35. Trevor.

    Stuart Syvret's latest comments on his latest posting. Gives a few answers to your latest posting, regarding the lost 8 million plus, of tax payers pounds!

    ReplyDelete
  36. It is a fact that usually less than 3% reply or post on blogs and in five days there are 65 comments including a few of your own deputy.

    Thats a big readership.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Wow what is Stuart's greatest admirer Jonnie No-Mates on tonight?! If I would publish all of his bampot rants I could have added a third to the comments - yet they are all the same *rap. Guess Jonnie just wants to feel that he is 'someone'? Coz we all know he is a loser and a a comlete joke, a nobody of the lowest sort. Fair play to the ex-Senator for outing him. Never could understand how one can be taken to court for telling the truth about a convicted thug? But this is Jersey I suppose. What we need to find out how much of our taxpayers' money this sicko has been given by the 'Law' Office. And we will begin to do that next week. Sleep well Jonnie and don't trip over the empty Stella cans...

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Blogger Deputy Trevor Pitman said...
    Reference the Jep.

    As one small example. When Shona and Geoff Southern were being fitted up by the Jersey 'Law' Office for asisting elderly and/or disabled constituents to complete an application form to request a postal vote I met up with Andy Sibcy at the Greek cafe in the Royal Square.

    I showed him proof - that dragged out of William Bailhache by me in the States - that whilst Shona and Geoff were being prosecuted in an Establishment witch hunt non JDA candiates who had breached the same ridiculous law were NOT being pursued by Bailhache.

    This included a candiate whose offence was actually wrongly initially charged against Geoff Southern. There was also the police transcipts showing the Establishment candidate in the same St. helier No 2 district described in the document as having a beard and a three letter name beginning with R.

    Did the Andy and the JEP do what any professional journalist/newspaper would do and blow these malicious prosecutions out of the water? No, of course they didn't. They kept quiet even though the truth and evidence was there.

    Say no more.

    September 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM"

    SHONA IS A CRIMINAL AND THAT IS A FACT TREV. IF YOU EVEN MANAGE TO STAND IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS WE WILL MAKE SURE THE WHOLE FUCKING ISLAND IS REMINDED ABOUT IT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jon. Stella kicking in early tonight? Yup, Shona is a criminal because she helped two disabled people complete an application form to request they might receive a postal vote. Something not a crime even in North Korea! So not as if she, oh...I don't know...made a death threat phone call to an innocnet faimly or something like that.

      PS

      Why do you always took about yourself as 'we'? Its a bit freaky quite frankly.

      Delete
  39. Trevor.

    Stuart Syvret, Super-Injunction and State Media PART 1

    ReplyDelete
  40. One of the little anomalies is this idea that Stuart Syvret will have to pay the four's costs.

    So how does that work when at least two of the fout - and probably all four - haven't had ANY costs?

    I mean how can Syvret be asked to pay a bone idle yob and petty criminal anything when it the said toe rag hasn't paid anything anyway?

    And likely couldn't because he doesn't work out of choice according to what a couple of his pub 'buddies' say?

    ReplyDelete
  41. My most important ever posting, and just for the survival of HUMANKIND Wake the hell up sheep!!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Trevor

    Don't waste energy replying to trolls. They are out to provoke and deflect from the real concerns. File the idiot's posts and leave the comments to constructive contributions as to how we can fight back.

    As you know, the issues are very serious and what is happening here is unfortunately little different to elsewhere.

    We are in a fight against the massive power of the corporate state and the financialization of everything.

    All of the spin, the hijacking of the justice system, the covering up of serious crime, the corruption and funny handshakes is there to protect the elite and their wealth and power.

    Our mate Jonny is a foot soldier for interests that really care nothing about him. Ignore him. It's your blog - they've already got the MSM for their poison.

    ReplyDelete
  43. It would appear that due to the recent case against Stuart, you should be able to employ the services of Emma Martins and the funds too, so you can pursue the JEP for any stress and distress you may have gone through, with their reporting of any personal facts that you consider were incorrect.

    I do wonder how many other people will now benefit from this new case law, regardless to just how bizarre it is.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Trevor,

    In the States today you heard Senator Sarah Ferguson ask Chief Minister Ian Gorst a question without notice, asking why a case that appeared to be a libel case was brought as a data protection case.

    Astonishingly, Senator Gorst appeared to mislead the house not once but twice in a single answer!

    Firstly, he said words to the effect that the Chapman report recommended such action. It made no such recommendation. Read its recommendations here, in particular recommendation 4:

    http://www.gov.je/ImportedNewsObject/ChapmanReportNovember2009.pdf

    Secondly, he talked about the States' duty of care to employees, invoking Chapman again.

    Remind me how many of the representors were serving employees? By my reckoning it was one current employee, one former employee, one officeholder (important distinction) and one who has NEVER worked for the States.

    I was staggered to hear the answer. The assembly was blatantly misled. They are making it up as they go along. The Hansard for 10 Sept 2013 will make great reading once published.

    Please forward this comment to Senator Ferguson on my behalf. I don't email Jersey politicians as you never know who is reading what. Or which States member will steal a print out of an email from a printer. But hell, the NSA reads it all anyway!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The chief minister's questions without notice are now online in audio format

      http://thejerseyway.blogspot.fr/2013/09/question-without-answers-100913.html

      Delete
    2. Hansard now published. See page 84.

      http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyHansard/2013/2013.09.10%20States%20-%20Edited%20Transcript.pdf

      Trev, surely you and Senator Ferguson are not going to take this Chapman Report guff seriously, are you?

      "7.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:
      Sorry, I was temporarily out and I hope I am not repeating anything. In the recent court case involving the former Senator Stuart Syvret, why was the Data Protection Law used in what appears to be a libel suit and what is the estimate of the total cost to the States over and above ... we have been given an estimate for the Data Protection Department, what is the total cost estimated to be?

      Senator I.J. Gorst:
      As I said in my previous answer the cost that I outlined was for legal costs, the legal costs of giving advice to the Data Protection Office. Of course the Data Protection Office has a budget, which is approved by this Assembly, and the functions of that office and staff are carried out within that budget and of course the Court Service itself is given a budget, which is approved by this Assembly, and the running of the courts are met from within those costs. I do not know whether you have a daily cost per unit of court sitting or how it works, I suspect not, but I think that is the information which the Deputy is asking which I do not have readily to hand.

      7.5.1 Senator S.C. Ferguson:
      Supplementary? The Minister has not answered the first part of my question, why was the Data Protection Law used, according to the reporting in the press, in what appears to be a libel suit?

      Senator I.J. Gorst:
      The Senator will probably be aware of the Chapman Report and some of the issues raised in that report with regard to duty of care and it happened in this case that the attributes, I suppose, one could say of the case, fell within the Data Protection Law that we, in this Assembly, approved.

      Delete
  45. Yet another cracking judicial corruption case came my way this evening.

    Just how have they been getting away with it all of these years?

    Hopefully have a new post up tomorrow night.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The question Ian Goorst must answer at last: how much has the case involving the 4 x proxy Plaintiffs REALLY cost the island's taxpayers? Trust me - forget Andy Sibcy's guff - it is one hell of a lot more than £387,000. But will you read that in the JEP with a 'Deputy Pitman told us so.' Like hell you will.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I note there is going to be an appeal to try and stop 28 homes being built on land in Plemont, to be brought by 103 residents. Just amazing.

    Could this be a precedent, for St Helier to vote against the new Police Station being positioned where it has been planned to do. Like above, both were given planning permission.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You've predicted it. They won't heed you. Now sit back and watch it turn out exactly as you know it will. The JEP won't touch the truth, the other msm ignore it, and it will all come out anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  49. As comical as it seems, don't laugh to much at THIS Trevor, it's really not that funny!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi Deputy.

    Just but up the second part of Matthew Price's interviews this morning, makes you think why do we have to pay for this?

    You & your reader's can Listen HERE

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Senator I.J. Gorst:
    I do not know whether you have a daily cost per unit of court sitting or how it works, I suspect not, but I think that is the information which the Deputy is asking which I do not have readily to hand."

    Trevor,

    I trust next week you'll be asking Gorst if he can have that information readily to hand in time for the following week's sitting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - already lodged. Look out for Sean Power to try and come up with some excuse why I should not ask about where our money has gone and the true facts about how much the real total is.

      Delete
    2. Is this what Sean Power does?

      Delete
    3. Well, we all remember the States e-mail thief trying to prevent my correctly lodged question about how much Gorst had blown on the slap-up banquet for him, Senators Bailhache, Ozouf and the Bailiff with the Parliament Select Committee at the Atlantic Hotel a few weeks back...

      Delete
  52. Will finally have a new post up - if not later tonight then for tomorrow. Sorry for delay - but we can't all just duck out of work because we aren't getting our way on electoral reform!

    ReplyDelete
  53. You were very good on the BBC interview segment.

    Could you comment on how you think this twisting of the intent of the data protection act will play out? Would you agree that the court was somewhat aware of the foolishness of this action? Do you think that was why the court wouldn't recommend further action against Stuart Syvret? Do you see any place where evidence could have a place in this murky action? I ask, because I suspect avoiding any public awareness of the evidence was the motivation for DP taking this up in the first place, and for the outrageous amount of public funding.

    ReplyDelete