Sunday, 29 December 2013


With the old year nearly run its course and a  new one looming just a short post this evening. As the heading suggests its purpose is plain and simple yet in truth no less important than any of the many in depth political issues that have been covered on the Bald Truth Jersey these past 12 months.
So whether you simply read the blogs - be they here in Jersey or anywhere else in the world - and then help spread the word about highlighted injustices and abuses which need to be challenged; or  whether you actually run and write a blog yourself, please give yourself a big pat on the back at this time of apparent goodwill. Trust me - you all really deserve it.
You are doing the job which the so-called 'Mainstream Media' here in Jersey at least seem to have all but abdicated.
A big 'thank you' too to all of the others who help fight the justice battle in their own way. Whether this be through offering direct support and assistance to the world's victims and betrayed; or by actually standing up to let governments know that ultimately they will NOT get away with abusing the trust of people who they are meant to protect - no matter how untouchable they may paint themselves.
But let us also remind ourselves of something else here. Just prior to Christmas I had conversations with two fellow States Members which being quite honest left me feeling both saddened and deeply disturbed. The reason for this?
The two - one a Constable; the other a Deputy stated that they fully knew there was much which wasn't right within both Jersey's government and so-called justice system. Yet they further claimed that, just because they did not speak out didn't mean that they 'agreed' with it! They simply could not, these two politicians stated, 'Stand up and speak out about it like you and Shona do.' It was just 'too hard'.
If my responses were possibly somewhat blunt I hope you will understand why.
After all, for those who have actually been terribly abused and betrayed standing up and speaking out about it directly can be impossible. But a politician can have no such excuse. For there is no 'middle ground' when it comes to facing up to abuses and injustices brought to your attention when you have been entrusted with the publics' votes.
Arguing that just because you keep silent does not 'put you on the side' of those who abuse their positions just does not cut it and this is what I said to my two colleagues.  Indeed, such silence as I told them actually enables the abuse and injustices to be carried out. To pretend this is not the case is simply to try and fool yourself.
So let me end this post by simply stating that I truly hope that in the coming year of 2014 a few more politicians here in Jersey can discover that 'Testicular Fortitude' is actually pretty easy to ferment. All one has to do is ask yourself quite honestly: 'whose side will my actions leave me on and do I really want to be there?'
Keep the Faith & have a truly great New Year's Eve!
With the hard fought for Committee of Inquiry finally on the horizon at last; not to mention a couple of personal projects I hope to be able to speak about before the Spring, this year can actually be a very good one indeed.

Wednesday, 18 December 2013


The shameless manipulation of the 'justice' system as a tool of oppression by the Jersey Establishment continues...

I reproduce below an 'open letter' sent yesterday to both UK Justice Minister, Lord McNally (who has done absolutely nothing about the abuses of justice evident in our case - other than to offer to refer us back to the very Bailiff who had allowed it all to happen) and Her Majesty The Queen's representative here on the island, the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John McColl.
It outlines the incredible - and it must be said, deeply disturbing - latest unfoldings of what has been passed off as 'justice' in our case since we we were foolish enough to place our trust in the Jersey judicial system.
Indeed, should you be naive or perhaps simply unaware enough to still have even the smallest trace of trust that the Jersey 'justice' system is anything other than a farce; a completely hijacked tool for the Establishment to both avoid the holding to account of those amongst their ranks who merit it; and to try and bury all and any who dare challenge it please simply read this and the attached letter from current Jurat Collette Crill and think again.
A fairly long read perhaps, but five minutes of your time well spent. Finally, tempting as it was to deconstruct the shortcomings and attempted re-writing of historical fact within the letter from Jurat Crill readers of the bald Truth Jersey will perhaps understand why I felt this better to leave to others...
Keep the Faith                                                             

Dear Lord McNally and Lieutenant-Governor 

We write to you in the form of this open letter to bring to your attention – in the remote chance that either of you should have any genuine concern for the on-going abuse of the justice system here on Jersey – to highlight the latest episode of the many abuses evident within our attempt to secure justice for ourselves via the courts.  

As you will both be aware due to previous correspondence our present situation arose from us daring to trust that we would be afforded – just like any other person – a fair and ECHR Article 6 compliant court process. Indeed, as is now well documented the reality has been not only that we were instead faced with a Jurat – John Le Breton - who has a proven history of looking the other way on evidence of child abuse against a former friend and colleague; but who also felt quite above accepted global judicial standards to not recuse himself from sitting on our case – even though he is further evidenced to have wined and dined a director of the Jersey Evening Post’s owning company the Guiton Group. 

That all of this was allowed to take place by Jersey’s Bailiff (who we copy in) and has most recently even been rubber-stamped by three Jersey Appeal Court Judges who – quite incredibly – attempted to re-write the findings of the 1999 Stephen Sharp Report into the child abuse cover-up at the island’s Victoria College to claim within their judgement: i.e. that there is apparently nothing in the report which would warrant John Le Breton being viewed as unfit for such a role would suggest that this leaves little more to be said.  

At least until we progress our case to the Privy Council; and more likely, we must accept, if this abuse of justice is so acceptable to those who should be intervening on behalf of the Queen and United Kingdom government, to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Nevertheless, given the latest developments which we now outline below we will have at least placed upon record yet more evidence of the corruption and inexcusable failings evident in our case – just as this is within the cases of so many others. 

As you may or may not already be aware, having been brought to bankruptcy by our pursuit of justice; following on from the Appeal Court Judges inexplicable ruling on Friday 29th November 2013 our lawyer (yes, in Jersey you even have to engage a lawyer to become officially bankrupt!) brought to the court a request that we be granted the process of Remise de biens.

Should either of you not know of this ancient Jersey aspect of law what this does is bring about a form of bankruptcy which allows – subject to certain criteria all of which our situation meets – for one’s property and assets to be sold off by the court. The issue here is that there must be enough money available to pay off in full any secured creditor: in our case just our bank as the mortgage lender. Further still, that some surplus must remain to allow some form of dividend to then be shared between the unsecured creditors such as the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands – the entities who colluded to publish the lies claiming we had increased our income by four times by Trevor entering politics. 

Once accepted by the court and a Remise has been successfully completed with a property being sold and the secured creditor paid in full; and unsecured creditors having received a share of the remaining dividend, the matter is concluded and a discharge from the bankruptcy debt may be obtained allowing people to start again. This is clearly the best route for us to follow, especially given the fact that having been forced to this position by the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands an additional consequence almost no other individual would face is that we immediately lose our positions and income as States Members. 

Even given the clear UK authorities indifference to the delivery of justice here in the Crown Dependency we would thus hope that to then find the judge hearing our request for a Remise – no less an individual than the Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, attempt to wholly mislead our lawyer with false information as to how the process works and it’s benefits and drawbacks; and indeed, to suggest – in our view, we repeat, attempt  to mislead – that the best route for us would instead be to seek to go en desastre is wholly unacceptable. Following this route would actually place us in a far worse position and leave this hanging over us for a full five years 

That the Deputy Bailiff would not know of the damaging misinformation he was suggesting as the better way forward for us is clearly inconceivable. Indeed, the true facts have been verified by lawyers and even the Viscounts Office.  

We were fortunately tipped off to the above by a concerned person who was in the court on the day and we have now even secured an audio disc of the exchange. We feel that we must ask that you look into this as a matter of urgency as – very co-incidentally – the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands, having no doubt been failed by their own lawyers, just happen to now suddenly be seeking that the court reject the fully justified Remise and push us down the desastre route suggested by William Bailhache. We repeat: what a strange coincidence. Not only do two of the biggest critics of the Establishment’s failings on matters such as abuses of justice and child protection cover-ups get forced out of public office; we also face manipulation by the court down an even more damaging bankruptcy path than is necessary.  

We would thus hope that you might understand that all of the above cannot do anything, other than fill us with concern as to a likely pre-decided outcome of the Remise hearing set for Thursday 19th December – just two days hence. After all, should you also not be aware of it this was actually set to be concluded this past Friday. However, any hopes we might have had of some degree of fair play - given that both our lawyer and the two Jurats who compiled the necessary report confirmed we met all criteria to satisfy a successful Remise were quickly stripped away when the lawyer for the Jersey Evening Post, Advocate Nuno Santos-Costa, informed our lawyer just moments before the hearing that he had a close personal friendship with one of the Jurats sitting; this being Jurat Collette Crill. 

Having been made aware that both the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands were attempting to buy time as they knew they really had very little grounds for argument, the fact that this Advocate – who had at no time appeared for the JEP during the defamation case – suddenly appeared to be followed by this announcement was highly suspicious in itself. Has Jersey really got such an unprofessional and shambolic court-process that a lawyer- any lawyer – would not know beforehand which Jurats were sitting?  

With this conflict raised the court retired for a brief time then returned. Here, quite incredibly, Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith announced that whilst the court would reconvene with two other Jurats at a later date Jurat Crill, nevertheless, apparently felt that her close friendship with the lawyer for the Jersey Evening Post – and a lawyer whose firm obviously stood to make many thousands of pounds from a decision in his client’s favour did ‘not’ conflict her from ‘administering justice’! 

We must put it to you as representatives of the Queen and UK government respectively that the picture this all paints of the attitude to justice for all within the island, is totally unacceptable. Indeed, once aware of who Jurat Crill was once we returned home a little on line research following further contact from the public revealed matters to be even more disturbing. 

Not only was it quite apparent that we had a Judge in William Bailhache who has no love for us or our politics, attempting to mislead our lawyer to take us down a route far more damaging to us than the requested and merited Remise de biens; it now became apparent we had had a Jurat who was intending to sit on our case in the full knowledge that she had previously written an insulting – many would say malicious – personal attack on Shona within a letter published by no less than the Jersey Evening Post. All, we would point out for the record, because Shona had dared to bring a vote of no confidence in Sir Philip Bailhache whilst he was Bailiff. This being on account of his several well documented serious failings on child abuse. 

That such behaviour could not be seen as a serious conflict of interest is impossible to credit even within a jurisdiction with Jersey’s laissez-faire approach to judicial corruption. That Jurat Crill could not be aware of her resulting conflict; or that her remaining silent on the matter was completely at odds with the principles of justice – certainly as applied by any respectable jurisdiction - are even more inarguable. Indeed, not only does the Jurat’s letter reveal just how little she was aware of the true facts relating to Jersey’s appalling child protection failings arising from those in high office; her choice of insults demonstrate beyond any question her entirely prejudiced attitude to a person upon whom the Jurat wished to now ‘administer justice’. For the record we reproduce the letter from Jurat Crill below.  

As you will both be aware we have little reason to have any faith in the justice system that is allowed to operate under this present Bailiff, Sir Michael Birt, and for very good reason when one considers the evidence of our case alone. A case that is, of course, just one of many destroying the lives of ordinary Jersey people simply because the UK does not fulfil its obligation to step in on ensuring good governance and law and order. As with a growing number of other islanders we will continue to highlight these abuses and fight for them to be rectified no matter what.  

Yet with our hearing set for just two days hence we first urgently ask you: what confidence can we have that a process for which we meet all of the criteria (even with our home having been mysteriously undervalued compared with independent valuations of just a year ago to the tune of some £60 + thousand) will not somehow instead be manipulated to accommodate the wishes of the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands estate agents? We have, it must be said, been put through hell by the catalogue of appalling failings allowed to go un-rectified during our case. Yet it seems that even having reached the stage when we expected to achieve – at least - some degree of conclusion for ourselves and our families the system was once again manipulated to thwart this with the unfolding of the deeply disturbing events surrounding this past week or so.  

We believe this is what is known locally as ‘The Jersey Way’. 

Yours sincerely 

Shona & Trevor Pitman 
17th December 2013
The letter published in the JEP from the now Jurat Collette Crill who attempted to sit to 'administer justice' on our case... 

JEP – 2 July 2008.  Collette Crill, Le Solaize, Les Ruisseaux, St Brelade. 

“On the day of her election, Deputy Shona Pitman engaged in offensive behaviour in public.  Many would deem that such behaviour rendered her unfit for elected office.  Since then I am unaware that the Deputy has distinguished herself as a States Member.  It seems particularly ironic, therefore, that it is she who sees fit to call for a vote of no confidence in order to vilify and bully the Bailiff.  Mont of the Bailiff’s career has been devoted to serving this Island in Crown Office, instead of pursing a more lucrative path in private practice.  One can’t help wondering whether Deputy Pitman even understands, let alone appreciates, that all our Crown Officers are highly skilled and in many cases brilliant legal practitioners who choose for altruistic reasons, to offer themselves for Crown service instead of using their admirable academic and intellectual skills in far more self-serving ways. 

Given the behaviour and performance of many of our present elected representatives on can’t help feeling that precisely the opposite motivation applies to them.  The list of our current Bailiff’s achievements for this island good is as long as it is impressive, not only as a lawyer and judge, but also in so many other aspects of island life. In common with the reset of humanity, he is not infallible and as humility is one of his many qualities, I believe he would be the first to acknowledge this.  Indeed, he has publicly expressed regret for a possible error of judgement made years ago, long before he became Bailiff, in relation to the Holland case. 

Deputy Pitman, though, would have us believe that along with one sentence in his Liberation Day speech when he spoke about Jersey’s recently maligned reputation, using a turn of phrase not quite up to Deputy Pitman’s exacting standards, this is enough to wipe out years of exemplary service and dedication to the island. 

Deputy Pitman’s use of this form of politics is absurd and risible, yet sadly dangerous and adding to the immense harm that some of our politicians seek to cause by being so obsessive destructive and negative.  She and her cabal would be far better employed in using their position and salary, our money, in trying to rectify the many genuinely important matters of injustice and inequality in this island.  Of course, it’s so much easier to be negative and destructive.  Or could it be that they don’t actually have any positive or constructive ideas to offer?”



Monday, 9 December 2013


Faked letters attacking Progressive politicians fine. Genuine letters from the public which don't share the editor's view are... not

Though I will have a new post up in the next day or two in the meantime I reproduce below, with the kind permission of the member of the public in question, a letter sent to the editor of the Jersey Evening Post in the week following our original court case back in April 2012. Just as important, of course, is the curt and, it has to be said, arrogantly pathetic reply from Mr Chris Bright.
Having stumbled upon this again the other day I think it is very telling with regard to the way the 'newspaper' attempts to mislead its ever-dwindling readership to maintain the favoured Establishment view and thus help keep the 'right' sort of people in office.  All whilst claiming, of course, that Pravda is a fair minded and responsible journal treating all views and perspectives equally and without any prejudice.
Everything in the letter was as per the JEP's publication policy
As is wholly apparent the letter from Mr Whitworth - who actually stood against me in the 2008 election and thus can hardly be described as a friend displaying bias - is both polite, concise and entirely in line with the 'newspaper's' claimed policy for publication. Where it falls down, of course, is that Mr Whitworth expresses the view held by the vast majority and clearly Mr Bright cannot have that type of thing within his pages!
This is a fact made all the more disturbing, of course, given the hard reality that under Bright's stewardship of the JEP he has regularly been proven to quite happily print wholly fabricated letters from non-exitent people attacking politicians who dare challenge the Establishment line so beloved of the 'newspaper'.
Faked letters whose sprurious content we have quickly and easily demonstrated to be fabricated at that by a quick and simple visit - even though Bright and his minions have repeatedly claimed to me and others that the authenticity of all letters to be published are first throughly checked out by the JEP's staff. Opinion manipulation, it has to be said, of the most despicable and unprofessional kind; and behaviour hardly appropriate to a claimed 'quality' newspaper.
The 'Jersey Way' in all it's sordid glory
Of course, as we found out the hard way just like so many others -in a Jersey court to win a case you can't simply rely upon being right as with respectable jurisdictions. You just have to be on the right 'team'. 
A light-hearted Christmas cartoon? No. As the man behind it, Broadland's Mr Roger Trower was forced to concede in court; far from a result of his being 'pleased' Jersey now had a 'husband and wife team' in the States: 'Yes...' the cartoon was 'serious political comment at the end of the day.' And it was also a pack of lies which painted a wholly false picture of the political platform upon which we had stood.
No wonder an ever-growing number of local people are heading out on the long but necessary trek to Strasbourg.
The letter from Mr Chris Whitworth
12th April 2012


Dear Sir, 

After reading the recent Andy Sibcy libel action report regarding both Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman against estate agency Broadlands 2008 Christmas advert published in the JEP, I began my own small survey. 

Commissioner Sir Charles Gray was responsible for advising the two Jurats Le Breton & Milner on whether this advertising feature was in fact defamatory. They were advised to consider it through the eyes of the ordinary or reasonable reader. 

Interestingly, my survey involved asking some of the aforementioned readers for their opinions and so far everyone has responded that it was all about the money they can earn as states members. Asked about the quote ‘4 x the salary darling’ and not one person associated this with the mortgage multiplier used by lenders to work out how much a couple can borrow – even when ‘joint’ was added to the quote. 

Now, I cannot be totally sure that the people I asked are not extraordinary or unreasonable readers and totally agree that my poll has no credible value at all, but it does question whether the deputies ever had a chance in this case. 

I, as I imagine all parties involved in this disagreement, would defend the right to freedom of speech; however, when so many people are misinterpreting the intention of this advert, then obviously something has gone very wrong. 

I may be mistaken, but I cannot recall any article or relevance with a mortgage relating to these deputies in 2008. 

As for the picture in question, the expressions on the deputies’ faces along with the fact that the rosette is surrounded with pound notes, is very misleading at the very least. 

Perhaps, in future any such material should be produced in such a way that it is clearly understood by all readers and not just those with knowledge of mathematical multipliers. 

Yours Faithfully

Chris Whitworth 
JEP Editor Chris Bright's reply

                                                                                                                                                19 April, 2012

Dear Mr Whitworth, 

I write in reply to your letter of 12 April, which I have decided not to publish because it effectively says little more than that, despite your not having been present in court, you disagree with the verdict it reached. With due respect, although you are entitled to your personal opinion on the subject, that is of little interest to the general public. 

If you would care to submit a letter commenting on any related issues in a more general way, I would be happy to consider its publication. 

Yours sincerely, 



Friday, 29 November 2013


The interview I reproduce here featuring Shona and myself is from the exciting and truly excellent new, international on-line TV station The People's Voice - TPV as it is rapidly becoming known. Truly a breath of fresh air; here we have a TV station which is doing what the Jersey Establishment Party and its mainstream media mouthpieces truly hate so much - letting the public know the truth - and letting those who know spill the beans!

No Jersey Evening Post-style bullying, lies, fabrications and twisting of truth for The People's Voice. No BBC Jersey-style re-tweeting of hate sites or cutting off politician's microphones because they don't want the lies their chums have spun being revealed. No ITV Jersey-style shutting up of a rare honest journalist because the bosses don't want the facts to ruin their false angle.

Hell - for The People's Voice NO covering up for a year and half that Jurat John Le Breton - the senior Jurat who sat on our case and many others over 14 years - has a history of refusing to look at evidence against a sickening paedophile, helped protect the abuser's reputation and even lobbied on his behalf prior to being made a 'respected member' of the Jersey judiciary - as all of the three Jersey media outlets named above have done.

The People's Voice tell the truth and they tell it straight. All involved deserve great credit and I thank them for giving Shona and myself the opportunity to tell the truth the Jersey mainstream 'media' don't want you to know. Give this new venture every support that you can - it really is that important in helping to get justice for the victims of abuse and injustice. Not just here in Jersey but everywhere.

Keep the Faith

Tuesday, 26 November 2013


The article I adapt below is the copyright of and kindly made available by the excellent UK magazine 'Big Issue in The North' and Mark Metcalf. I will attach a direct link to the magazine as soon as have it - assuming I still have IT access after our latest court battle at 10am Tuesday morning 26th November!
Meanwhile, thanks once again to Mark and his editor Kevin for regularly keeping an eye on the on-going struggle to drag Jersey democracy and its 'judicial' system into the 21st Century.With further UK coverage on the Jersey 'justice' system and our own battle coming up shortly Keep the Faith that one day the Bald Truth about the cover-ups will shine through!
Deputy Trevor Pitman 
‘Gagging’ claims as Jersey court case gets under way


An MP fears the victims of child abuse on Jersey will be “gagged” if the establishment on the island is successful in bankrupting and disqualifying from office two local members of parliament.  

Shona Pitman and her husband Trevor have represented the St Helier parish since 2005 and 2008 respectively. Both have expressed their concerns about child abuse on many occasions. Jersey’s child abuse scandal first surfaced in 2007, following which 192 victims and 151 abusers were identified during a police investigation. Seven people were successfully prosecuted.
An inquiry into child abuse on the island was due to have started this autumn but had to be delayed due to the overseeing judge suffering a heart attack. Visits by Jimmy Savile to a children’s home on Jersey will form part of the inquiry. The Pitmans believe the island’s Law Office has not pursued evidence against abusers. They have attempted, with backing from other parliamentary members and campaigners against child abuse, to get justice minister Lord McNally to “ensure good governance”.


This drew a muted response from the Lib Dem peer who replied: “Jersey has its own justice system so we can’t really interfere.” The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, who is head of the Privy Council – which acts as a court of appeal for Jersey – has also refused to get involved.
Last year, the couple sought damages for defamation against the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) and the Broadlands estate agency, which placed a cartoon advert in the paper in 2008. The Pitmans alleged this was intended to portray them as money-grabbers who had entered politics for personal gain.

John Lyndon Le Breton, the senior jurat in the case, was a friend of the newspaper’s (owning company) director and vice-principal of an exclusive fee-paying secondary school where, for indecently assaulting teenagers, paedophile Andrew Jervis-Dykes was given a four-year sentence in 1999. Colleagues of the guilty man refused to co-operate with the police and Le Breton wrote in support of him.
Le Breton subsequently sat on other child abuse cases but has since retired. The Pitmans lost their case after the defendants successfully argued the cartoon referred to the fact that the plaintiffs would be able to obtain a mortgage worth four times their joint salaries.  


The Jersey parliamentarians were left owing around a quarter of a million pounds in costs to their lawyers and the two defendants. This week the Pitmans will appear before the Jersey Appeal Court in an attempt to overturn an earlier decision that they have exhausted the time period in which they can appeal against the defamation decision.
They are representing themselves and need to win or face being declared bankrupt. Unlike in Britain, this will mean they are disqualified from elected office. Their home and jobs would be lost. The Pitmans argue: “The establishment and JEP want us to be forced out of politics.”  

Earlier this month, the Pitmans unsuccessfully sought an injunction to prevent the JEP publishing a story about threatening letters that had been sent to the lawyers for the JEP and Broadlands, as well as a prominent individual in the original defamation case and the Jersey politician Sean Power, who has previously criticised the Pitmans in the JEP.
The Pitmans accused the JEP of “yet another smear” and argued the letters had been sent to undermine them in the lead-up to their appeal. The newspaper; deputy editor, Andy Sibcy, has refused to comment on the Pitmans’ accusations or their claim that the letters had nothing to do with them. The incident has led to no police arrests.  

Abuse allegations  

Birmingham Yardley MP John Hemming has taken a keen interest in events on Jersey and it was his intervention that helped remove the 500-day ban on American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman from visiting the island and investigating child abuse allegations.
Hemming has recently supported Stuart Syvret, Jersey’s former health minister, who was jailed for contempt of court after he refused to remove online allegations about four islanders. The Data Protection Commissioner brought the case against Syvret. None of the four has attempted to sue the former politician for defamation. Hemming has named the four individuals in an early day motion in Parliament and called Syvret’s jailing “an affront to freedom of speech”.  

This is the second time Syvret has gone to jail. In 2010 he published a confidential report into suspicious deaths at Jersey’s General Hospital. In both case cases, Syvret has argued there has been a “cover-up”.

Hemming has now expressed his “fears that the establishment in Jersey are using legal proceedings to disqualify the Pitmans from their role in the island’s parliament”. He added: “This has the effect of gagging victims of abuse as fewer people can speak out on their behalf. I very much hope they are successful in their appeal.”
                                                                                                                                                                         MARK METCALF



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

Monday, 4 November 2013


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.