Thursday, 14 November 2013


They say that a week is a long time in politics. Yet what a difference a week appears to make to the selective memories of those behind Jersey's Establishment mouthpiece the Jersey Evening Post! After all, it was only a few short days ago that we had had to seek a costly temporary injunction due to the newspaper's plans to again smear us by falsely linking Shona and myself with the now infamous bogus 'threatening letter' scam.
Of course, even though new editor-designate Andy Sibcy had to back down on this quite heinous lie as a consequence of the judges' words the Main Stream Media still ran a story that gave a wholly misleading and deliberately negative spin on the truth to the Jersey public.
Indeed, not only were we falsely accused by the JEP of trying to stifle 'free speech' because we had stood up to these threats of yet another smear; but being fully aware of the truth due to the presence of their journalist Leah Ferguson at the injunction hearing, Channel Television (ITV) still told their viewers that the bogus letter 'threat' was linked to us!  Incidentally, the Director, Karen Rankine is, of course, very good friends of a number of Establishment Ministers, though we are sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with her company refusing to tell their viewers the truth.
OK so such behaviour by the Island's MSM is no surprise to anyone who follows local politics closely. Indeed, it is a prime reason why more and more local people are abandoning them for Citizens' Media blogs who tell people the truths the Establishment want covered up.
Nevertheless, given that all of this revolves around a court case which the Establishment hope to manipulate to force us out of politics because we refuse to be silenced on matters such as child abuse and judicial corruption; if the MSM really wish to protest their impartiality and fairness then I wonder how they will now report this? 
The JEP want to prevent you the public from knowing the truth about a Jurat happy to look the other way on evidence of the most serious nature!
Yes indeed, the Jersey Evening Post being a veritable bastion of truth seekers (or so you would imagine after last week's sermonising) have just attempted via their lawyers - in a submission to the Appeal Court judges actually kept secret from us in clear contempt for legal protocol - to prevent the damning evidence against Jurat John Le Breton contained within the Sharp Report from being made available to the Appeal Court in our application to be heard in the week of November 25th.
Evidence that would then become available to you and thus allow the public to finally know what the appeal is truly about. Evidence that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that ANY court in which John Le Breton sat could never be regarded as safe let alone Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights compliant. Why?
Because this independent and long-suppressed report reveals a man who was allowed to be put forward - and consequently sit - as a Jurat for 14 years even though it was known by the those at the apex of the Jersey judiciary that he could not be relied upon to fulfil the one sacred duty at the very core of a Jurat's role:
Indeed, regardless of all the other overwhelming evidence in support of our contention that the findings of Jurat John Le Breton and his inexperienced colleague Sylvia Milner were without merit, the evidence laid out about Le Breton's failings within the Sharp Report render the whole court process untenable in itself. Yet guess what? Those pillars of justice and transparency at the Jersey Evening Post have secretly attempted to argue through their lawyers that Le Breton's openness to 'looking the other way' on evidence against certain parties - no matter how serious - are...'irrelevant'!
No - you didn't read that wrong. 'IRRELEVANT'!
So (and I make no apologies for repeating any of this again) let's just have a quick re-cap on just what the Sharp Report reveals about the cover-up of the sickening child abuse of Andrew Jervis-Dykes at Victoria College; and what his friend and colleague, John Le Breton did and didn't do in response. Indeed, a re-cap on what the Jersey Evening Post and its lawyers do not want the court to be able to consider nor you to even know should it damage their hopes of benefiting from the original court's failings....
Over a period of many years Jervis-Dykes manipulated off-island boat trips where Jervis-Dykes would ensure he was the only adult member of staff. The College knew about this but did nothing. The consequence? Jervis-Dykes was free to ply young boys with large amounts of alcohol in order that he could then wait until darkness and sexually abuse them. His speciality was both masturbating and performing forced oral sex on children. He even liked to video this abuse!
What did John Le Breton do, when all of this sickening abuse over many years finally began to hit the buffers after years of the College deliberately keeping a lid on the events?
As far back as in 1992 Sharp reveals, along with the College Headmaster, he is seen to have been quite willing to flout all child protection guidelines in not contacting the Police and Education/Children's Service authorities following complaints from two pupils of abuse. Instead, participating in what can only be described as a humiliating and wholly inappropriate ad-hoc 'internal inquiry'. And this was not the only failing by a long way. 
Yet now, faced with the abuse finally about to become public, even when asked by the Headmaster to examine video evidence against his friend and colleague, John Le Breton instead refused to look at the evidence. Yes - he REFUSED! Even worse perhaps he incredibly then even went on to argue in the paedophile's defence. His argument in support of the paedophile included truly incredible contentions that:
  • 'he had served the College in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way'
  • 'that there may be no case to answer'
  • that if Jervis-Dykes had to resign he should be allowed to do so  'with some dignity'
  • that without a Police prosecution any resignation could be seen as a consequence of 'an unsubstantiated allegation.'
  • that even if Jervis-Dykes had to resign he should be allowed to continue teaching pupils as Head of Maths as this 'would not place anyone at risk'
Yet the JEP and their lawyers want all of this to be seen as 'irrelevant' and kept out of both the court's considerations and public knowledge
All whilst they continue to seek to force us out of politics and financially ruin us. For let readers be in no doubt of the duplicity here. Whilst spouting nonsense about such failures within the judicial process being 'irrelevant', the JEP through their lawyers Collas Crill have already sought a Viscounts order to seize our possessions. We will also of course be forced from our home - and perhaps most central to the motivation behind all of this - consequently forced out of being able to represent our constituents by losing our seats under the States of Jersey (2005) law.  All of this in the event of losing our Appeal as a consequence of this travesty.
Oh yes, the hypocrisy of the Jersey Evening Post in regard to attempting to both stifle 'free speech' and keeping crucial evidence from both court and the Island's people appear to know neither shame nor limit. Remember analysing evidence is at the very heart of what a Jurat is entrusted by the court to do. It cannot be said to be 'irrelevant' under any circumstance.
It is what the public - and most certainly those directly involved in any court process - MUST be able to entrust a Jurat to do. Yet for Jurat John Le Breton as we can see - and it really does not matter at all whether through misguided loyalties; incompetence or simple lack of integrity - this fundamental commitment to evidence clearly is not there.
I thus put it to readers of the Bald Truth Jersey bluntly. When one considers this claim of 'irrelevance' from the Island's only newspaper; and indeed, the possibility that a court would let the findings of such a deeply unreliable individual stand, does anyone really wonder why decade upon decade of institutional child abuse has been allowed to go on unchecked?
For perhaps a very good 'snapshot judgement' upon whether anything within the now infamous so-called 'Jersey Way' that allowed all of the child abuse to happen down the years has changed, will simply be to see how many of our MSM (Mainstream Media) now report this attempt at stifling the truth and evidence I reveal and do so fairly. I for one must say I will not be holding my breath.
Keep the Faith


  1. Ha ha ha JEP caught out bang-to-rights. Hypocrites doesn't do them justice.But just how do they think this looks after the number they did on you last week?

  2. Another damning post. Jersey really needs international rescue.

  3. Trevor.

    The discredited and disgraced Jersey Evening Post misleading its reader(s)? NEVER!

  4. Beggars belief.

    Bastards (if you'll excuse the mildness of the language)

    If any evidence was ever needed of the slant, bias and complicity of the Jersey main stream media (JEP, BBC, ITV) the reporting of your case and the letter saga is it, in open court, so to speak, for all to see.

    Jersey stuff can get very complicated for those who are new to it, or who are not following it closely enough, but your case is a simple irrefutable illustration of how the establishment works to discredit and crush those whom it finds inconvenient or threatening.

    Even knowing the score, I have been very struck by the Greek chorus all reading from the same hymn sheet.

    What it illustrates for me is how high up the rot must go in the Jersey establishment. No wonder there is so much kept secret in this society. They are even trying to smother the Sharp report, which is already in the public domain.

    It reminds me a bit of the CIA, I think it was, many decades ago when some files were released only to be found to contain newspaper cuttings marked TOP SECRET.

    The perverted mind of a rotten establishment knows no limits, irrespective of place or time.

    May the force be with you both.

  5. Given the Solicitor Generals ' comment on the Data Protection (Jersey) Law in court was,"The test is whether the data is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial stress to that individual. That is the test".
    Any failure of the Data Commissioner to act on the contents of this posting despite them being clearly provable, can only mean that Jurat Le Breton has not objected and does not regard the comments as causing substantial damage or stress.
    The only interpretation that would be left is that Jurat Le Breton is accepting that the comments reflect the accepted truth and were fully known those who placed him in the position he now holds.The consequences of that position for the Jersey legal system are self-evident.

    1. Readers should also be aware that in his wrongfully denying us the initial right to appeal the Single Appeal Court Judge, Mr Beloff happily accepted the words of the Bailiff (a man at the centre of all of these failings of course) that...

      John le Breton would be said 'by all who have worked with him 'to be a very fair and careful Jurat'

      The judge somehow came to this conclusion despite his having been sent the Sharp Report! There it is in black and white: the mere opinion of the Bailiff will be accepted over hard evidence within a damning official report such as Stephen Sharp's.

      The Jersey Way.

  6. To the messager who asked 'why we were not focusiing on the key issue that the cartoon was defamatory' - we of course are doing that as well.

    It is sadly - though predictably - the way of so-called 'justice' in Jersey that Jurats can make up any decision they like yet can get away without needing to substantiate that finding.

    One of the reasons we need a proper full jury system instead of this collection of mates of the great and the good elected by their mates.

    There are a number of issues being challenged which all show the court process was both not ECHR compliant and a farce that would result - in any respectable court - of the findings being thrown out.

    Of course the consequences for Jersey would be huge and this is why we know we will be blocked in such waays at every turn. More on all of this later.

    They key point to remember is that all involved want to crush us and force us from politics because we ruffle too many feathers with uncomfortable questions. Thus we won't get a fair hearing and will have to move on the Privy Council and possibly even Strasbourg.

    What they are relying on is that by the time we win we will have been forced out of politics. This is what they want so desperately.

    I think it is called 'the Jersey Way'.

  7. Incidentally, readers should also be aware that not a single one of the Jersey MSM who were happy to shaft us over the 'threatening letter' scam last week have approached me for an interview. All in it together?

    1. I can tell you that outside journalism/free speech/human rights organizations who are looking at the Data Protection Law issues are aghast at the local mainstream media behaviour. As I've said before, what is provided by state media in Jersey isn't just poor journalism, it has become a force of anti-journalism, with very few exceptions.


  8. "I think it is called 'the Jersey Way' "

    Without support from the UK they would not be able to get away with this though.

  9. Just shows that our repeaters of the Jersey msm all stick together when it comes to following orders from the law office.

  10. For any of your readers who haven't yet read and digested the Sharp Report, it can be read here The Sharp Report and here Missing page 20 . Only in Jersey ....

  11. Whatever can the Jep and their lawyers at Collas crill be running scared of? Good it be that the Sharp report shows just how bent our judicial system is with people like John Le Breton being allowed to sit as a lordly jurat even though he couldn't give a damn about evidence? me thinks it is so.

  12. Trevor;
    I am sure that you as well as I will find the circumstances surrounding the total blocking out of Rico Sorda's contact to and from all aspects of including personal ie possibly medical contact ,deeply disturbing. That this should have obviously arisen at the behest of the AG or similar on the basis of a perfectly valid and polite enquiry is ,( I struggle to find the word here but unfortunately 'totalitarian' fits the bill well), To then suggest that this was a respose to an abusive writer and a mistaken 'click' by SoJ IT is doubly unbelievable.
    I do hope that you and your political colleagues who are more than 'noddies',will wring the truth out here because if not then you can be all rendered powerless, mute and non-representative at the flick of a switch, here comes that word 'totalitarian ' again .
    Taken in isolation this might just be an 'oversight' or an over-enthusiasm, but linked to the other steps currently in train , this is stepping out way beyond mere coincidence and can now be realistically interpreted as a co-ordinated control process.

    1. A not believable explanation from the government for the email blocking, which is a bit like announcing that a spy died when he locked himself in a bag and suffocated.

  13. The U.K. Government and H.M. the Queen desperately want to keep hold of its City of London Corporation – Bank of England - Jersey Tax Haven; H.M. Armed Forces are expensive to run!

    The Jersey Way is really the way of the U.K. triumvirate; Parliament - H.M. the Queen - City of London Corporation.

    Deputy Pitman, do some original research and discover for yourself how this U.K. triumvirate use the island of Jersey’s Government and Financial Institutions to generate billions.

    Remember, you are not just up against the Jersey Way (that type of thinking will get you nowhere), you are up against far more!

    Do the research, get some real facts and truly understand what you are up against... If you don’t, they will have you chasing your own tail in a hall of smoke and mirrors until your political demise!

    1. This comment says it as it is and I'm sure Stuart would agree with what this observant person has written. Watch this 3 minute video. It will leave you wanting more......

    2. Yes, UK Gold is an excellent documentary; although it has a limited screening in “fringe” venues across the country, not exactly what may be termed as a mass media event to inform a wide-spectrum of the populace.

      Although it would be good to have this documentary screened in the island.

      Deputy Pitman, try and establish dialogue with Jersey’s former economic advisor, John Christensen at the Tax Justice Network:


      Skype: jechristensen3153

      Telephone: +44 79 79 868 302

      He will be able to help you get up to speed with the triumvirate you are politically up against...

      Best regards,


    3. Deputy Pitman, become informed, establish political-links with like-minded allies and become ‘organised’, then, INFORM THE PEOPLE OF JERSEY!

      Use citizen media (and side-step state-controlled-media) to inform the public of “the truth”; you will have no doubt found that the internet is a powerful tool of free-speech which allows your voice to be heard in every home in this island and in a wider global arena.

      Win the hearts and minds of the Jersey populace by ‘speaking the truth’ that they do not hear on the state-controlled media.

      If you do not become politically organised, the very same triumvirate media-smear-tactics that a post-war Norman Le Brocq faced will also be employed to politically “take you down”.

  14. Are there any updates on the threatening letter saga?

  15. I s'pose you can understand the Rag running scared on this. Face it you spouting straight from the Sharp report shafts their argument about Le Breton not being conflicted or fit big time. But when you say that none of the rest of Jerseys finest have covered this major story it just spells baton down the hatches cover up. If it wasn't so predictable it would be truly shocking.

  16. Does Jersey have any tolerance for you elected officials who don't show undue deference to feudalist masters? It's getting so bad some may start rumours that former Health Ministers can be super-injunctioned and imprisoned for blogging the truth, international journalists can be banned for investigating child abuse, then subject to smear sites linked to the local BBC chief and a popular, accurate investigative blog journalist might even be blocked from emailing his own government. Official Jurats protecting paedophiles might be hinted at next if Jersey isn't successful in framing the teller of the baldest truths with a letter-threat scam.

    No. Not believable. No part of the modern west could get away with that.

  17. Evidence of the Jersey Mafia.

    The judiciary has a closed selection scheme for loyal establishment figures to become Jurats.

    The home affairs Minister and ex head stand in puppet of Jersey's police force, Mr Warcup organises, breaking in to the suspended Police Chiefs personal cabinet and illegally seizing personal belongings including a contract which then goes missing.

    Conflicted Jurat, friendly with directors of a live case does not recluse, but hands down legal judgment’s while being conflicted and also having poor judgment of previously trying to protect a pedophile.

    Top Judge hears of problems regarding noisy neighbours in a case brought by a fellow lawyer, advices on ancient law, which allows said lawyer to win the case. Same judge presides.

    Ex Chief Minister who sits on the board of the Waterfront Enterprise Board and attends it’s meetings, says stringent checks have been run over Developer Harcourt the one and only chosen developer. Ex Chief Minister announces they have no issues we should give them the largest contract Jersey has ever seen worth more than £300 million.

    On the day the States were due to pass a resolution giving Harcourt all contracts to build, evidence discovered on the internet in a few minutes by a deputy, proved they were being sued in two countries and had loans of more than €250 million

    Why would the Ex Chief Minister openly mislead the house supported by his treasurer and other ministers? No one was held to account.

    Removal of Health Minister who, in answering a question in the States replied that he had no confidence in child protection services and was ousted from office with the help of the civil service executives protecting their own.

    An increase in arms length,States commercial quango’s placing friends of the establishment in well paid directorships including ex politicians like Walker and Le Suer and ex chief executive John Mill’s.

    Miss using data protection laws funded by taxpayers, to try and silence critic’s. Highlighting Jersey’s fear of transparency and using a stick instead of existing libel laws. Then trying to keep the outrageous legal fees secret, as was the kangaroo court case. Names freely available on the internet.

    The head judge also sits as speaker in the Government, no separation of duel rolls forthcoming although illegal by the EU as proved in other democratic jurisdictions.

    The Ministers in Government you voted in, support most of this repression.

    The Jersey Way.

  18. Is your email address now hidden Trevor as I cant find it on either your website or facebook. I am aware that there is a new internet tv station starting up tomorrow. I think that you posted regarding it just last week but I cannot find a link to it. Can you remind us please.


  19. Matthew controls the microphone. Naming people live on air to an individual who lives in fear of libel is not a good idea. He made it quite clear on a number of occasions that he had closed her mic and still she could be heard in the background. Its such a shame that she didn't keep to Mathews topic as that would have been far better than what happened.

    posted on bbc jersey facebook

    What a drama with the Shona Pitman interview. I assume that its normal bbc procedure to ask guests before they go on air not to potentially libel anyone ? Theres a phrase I have heard over the years on this station which really annoys me, its to the effect that "you cant say things about people if they are not here to defend themselves". My answer to that would be to invite them on to reply.
    Yes, i understand that the bbc are worried that they will end up in court on libel charges, but the onus should be on the individual making the 'unproved' claims, and the bbc only held accountable if they rebroadcast the allegations without permission from the aggrieved parties.
    Would mrs Pitman have been allowed to make her allegations as long as she omitted names ?

    1. A stitch up from start to finish as predicted. Oh yes the 'impartial' BBC.

      Are they trying to out do the JEP in terms of lies and hypocrisy?

      Sean Power and the JEP can come on and spout lies it seems - but if one of their targets speaks the truth your mike will be turned off.

      A pub quiz question for years to come: what have Matthew Price, Jon Gripton, Andy Sibcy and Deputy Sean Power got in common?

      Answer: they are all liars and all happy to conceal the truth.

      What big, brave men the four are! Not.

  20. I have just heard the 'interview' with Shona from this morning. Is there any point complainig to the BBC, do you think. As for the JEP, I have experience of the way they malign people. Mind you, Mr Price did make me laugh by claiming that it is a responsible, well run newspaper!

    1. Anonymous, my experience of complaining to the BBC (detailed on my blog) is that there is no point because when they investigate, the local editors just lie and mislead them.

    2. In chronological order -

  21. Trevor.

    Discredited, and disgraced BBC reach NEW LOW

  22. So, the Jersey Social Survey tells us that only 50% of Jersey residents have confidence in Jersey's judiciary.

    That is an appalling statistic for a jurisdiction that spouts on about its modern legal system to outside investors. Frankly, the Home Affairs scrutiny panel should commence an immediate review into why this figure is so low.

    The other irony is that civil cases in Jersey, like in the UK, are judged "on the balance of probabilities", that is to say something must be proved to be 51% likely to have happened.

    If you follow that logic then, on even the lowest threshold test of the balance of probabilities, then Jersey's judiciary is not fit for purpose!

    If I were a member of the judiciary in Jersey, reading that figure of 50%, I would hang my head in shame.

  23. All set for tomorrow's show down then?


    Bankrupt Euro MP'S can carry on but not Jersey ones is this correct?