THE HYPOCRISY OF THE JEP - ATTEMPT TO GAG US ON REVEALING THE FAILINGS OF PAEDOPHILE PROTECTING JURAT AT THE CENTRE OF OUR APPEAL!

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:

 

TO FULLY CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE REACHING A DECISION ON FACT!

 

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

 

 

A 'LETTER', A LIE & A RAT...OR A VERY CONVENIENT SCAM TO DISTRACT FROM JURAT WHO LOOKED THE OTHER WAY ON EVIDENCE AGAINST A CHILD ABUSER

A quick post tonight but one of grave importance, particularly if you are one of the dwindling number who puts any faith In what you will be told by the Jersey MSM tomorrow - such as the infamous Jersey Evening Pravda. Indeed, with quite remarkable coincidence the story I outline below all raised its head just days after we had lodged our court papers in regard to our November 25th application to appeal against the now infamous ruling which went against us in the '4 x the salary, darling!' defamation case.

 

Court papers, of course, that demonstrate beyond the remotest shadow of a doubt how the absolute right guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights i.e. for all people - including even Bolshie 'anti-Establishment' politicians who ask difficult questions - to have a fair trial had been completely disregarded by those at the apex of Jersey's 'justice' system.

 

What happened in this latest unfolding of skulduggery was basically this. 

 

Whilst looking after my mum at the end of last week, I was interrupted by a phone call from one Andy Sibcy - heir apparent to the role of Editor of the JEP. Within this call Sibcy attempted to force me into commenting on what he claimed was a 'letter' threatening a number of individuals with, he said, 'having their homes burnt down' should we lose our home as a result of the above said court case decision we are appealing against.

 

Obviously I informed Sibcy that I knew nothing about this whatsoever;  and also pointed out that it was a bit difficult to comment upon something which I had obviously not seen and consequently could not know the full content of. I further asked Sibcy to tell me exactly what the 'letter' (no 'letter' actually exists but more on that later) said; further still, who were these 'several' individuals who had allegedly received it. Sibcy blankly refused on both counts.

 

Alarm bells to yet more possible dirty tricks were already beginning to ring very loudly.

 

After all, where else would the verdict of just two Jurats - one who had not only been proven to have a history of happily disregarding evidence against a predatory paedophile; but had also been caught out having taken a director of the JEP's owning company to dinner at his own home be allowed to stand once these breaches of the ECHR had been highlighted for the authorities as they had done here in Jersey? The answer of course is nowhere.

 

So how credible really was it now that anyone allegedly receiving a serious threat relating to our case (allegedly) would run to the good old JEP or any media instead of just to the Police? It wasn't I concluded. Not unless there was an ulterior motive here and a very serious one at that.

 

Yet Andy Sibcy was telling me that this 'letter' I wasn't allowed to know the full content of; nor to know how credible the individuals were who had allegedly received it, was 'clearly' emanating from 'our supporters' and by extension Shona and I ourselves. Of course, as with so much of the misrepresented rubbish and  even smears the Jersey Evening Pravda churn out against those who don't toe the Establishment Party line, Sibcy's justification for such a claim was non existent. 

 

Sibcy, it seems, had just decided in time honoured Pravda fashion that this was the case. A little matter which made the fact that his 'newspaper' was apparently planning to run a cover story inferring this the very next day even more concerning. Obviously should any such incident genuinely have arisen from any 'supporter' known to Shona or I we would condemn such an action.

 

Not only would such behaviour be wholly wrong - we simply do not need any such actions: our case is rock solid and try as the Establishment might (and no doubt will) ultimately, whether here or via the Privy Council or Strasbourg, Jersey's  kangaroo 'justice' system will be brought to book for not insuring the ECHR Article 6 court process which was our right. No, the whole thing smelt of a set up.

 

Our biggest concern - and the concern that ultimately informed our decision to seek a temporary injunction on this nonsense being published was that some of those who had allegedly received this threatening 'letter' might be from within the judiciary - a judiciary of course who in just two and a half weeks we would be appealing to for justice!

 

Thus to cut a very long story short (for the present time) with both Pravda and even the Police - who I had contacted straightaway - completely refusing to give me any details ,we made the decision to seek the said temporary injunction to stand just until the day after our appeal hearing would be concluded. Hopefully by which time the Police investigation would also have brought to book the culprits.

 

This initial request for a temporary injunction until we could find out the truth was granted by Mr Pitchers QC, until a court hearing to ascertain more details could take place today at 4pm.

 

Of course, as we were to eventually find out - if only Mr Sibcy would have been a bit more forthcoming with his over-the-top hype to try and make me comment and accept his spin on things as to what had allegedly taken place; and as to the contents of the 'letter' we really wouldn't have bothered. Yes, whilst unpleasant to be sure it really was in truth that much of a non-story. Unless, I suppose, you are a party hoping to damage another without any justification or evidence for some reason?

 

For lo and behold, shortly before going to court I was eventually able to pin down the Police Officers who were investigating the case. It was, even with their understandable inability to tell me everything with an investigation to run, starkly illuminating in comparison with the Sibcy and Pravda version.

 

I wasn't a suspect in being behind this. Shona was not a suspect in being behind this. Indeed, contrary to the JEP claims the Police confirmed there was also absolutely no evidence or credible suggestion that the 'letter' (more on that in a minute, honest!) must have 'clearly' emanated from what Sibcy called 'our supporters' at all! It was just bull. The rat if I may use that term began to smell even more strongly!

 

And yet on going to court for the hearing we were to be in for even more shocks. The alleged 'letter' didn't as I say exist at all. All that did - and suddenly thanks to the judge the JEP had to allow Shona and I to finally see it as they could have done when Sibcy was spinning his story - was nothing more than 5 scrawled and badly written lines in what looks like marker pen. A note of just 16 words. Its content not even a shadow of the abuse Shona and I - as with many others - have complained to the Police, the Data Protection Office, and the Attorney General about on numerous occasions. And guess what else?

 

• It did not even refer to either Shona or me by name at any point!
• It did not even specifically mention our court case by name!
• Indeed, just as the Police said it did not provide even the remotest justification for Sibcy's claim that it 'clearly' came from 'our supporters'!

 

Odd then how the JEP had managed to contrive such a potentially damaging, for both our case and, indeed, our public reputation interpretation of this note? The undeniable fact was it had all of the suggestions of an attempted stitch up from someone wanting to try and discredit Shona and I and with it undermine our appeal against the failings of the Jersey courts.

 

And yet the stink arising from this stunt was about to reach heights that would even make a Jersey tax avoidance 'sniff test' official suspicious. For we finally got to know the 4 names of the apparent recipients.  

• Lawyer for the Jersey Evening Post, Advocate Danny Le Maistre
•  Lawyer for Broadlands/1st Jersey Limited, Advocate David Steenson
• The individual behind the infamous '4 x the salary, darling!'advert/cartoon Mr Roger Trower

 

And finally....

 

One Deputy Sean Power!

 

Yes, you read that correctly - Deputy Sean Power. A man who hasn't got the remotest link to our court case in any way. But a man who has only recently been afforded the front page of the Jersey Evening Post to spin lies about us relating to a planning application. Lies, of course, for which he has been asked to apologise for by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Rob Duhamel, after Shona publicly exposed him and requested that the Minister take action. An apology, for which we still await.

 

Deputy Sean Power: a man who you might recall had to resign in shame as Minister for Housing after he was caught out having stolen personal e-mails from Deputy Judy Martin relating to her friend, the Deputy of Grouville. E-mails which then ended up on an sickening Internet hate site. A man who we can only conclude appears to have some kind of warped personal vendetta against Shona and I, of the sort you might usually associate with the likes of a deranged Internet troll perhaps?

 

And that - for now - is where I will leave it. This attempt to link either Shona or myself, or indeed any of 'our supporters' has about as much credibility as a Jurat who refuses to look at evidence against a paedophile. It stinks of set up. And it needs the Police to leave no stone unturned in bringing those behind it to court. Trouble is with our experience of 'justice' in Jersey even if the Police do so, those behind it will likely be referred to just a parish hall inquiry for their sins. Its just 'the Jersey Way'...

 

Meanwhile, the Police have been handed two names by me which really do merit the most rapid and thorough investigation possible.  To this regard I am confident that not even Andy Sibcy or his Pravda employers could sell either one to the public as being 'our supporters'  in a month of Sundays. Of course, when people are desperate they still may well try....

 

Keep the Faith. The Privy Council and if necessary Strasbourg grow ever closer and with this ultimately a Justice system where that justice will at last be guaranteed for all. Truth will always win out in the end.