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,