TO 'B' OR NOT TO BE - A DEMOCRACY

States prepare to debate Bailhache's strategy for a legal dictatorship...


'Does the PPC Chairman accept that both of the amendments to Option B being put forward (by myself and Deputy A.K.F. Green) ensure much fairer, more equal representation in regard to parity of weight of vote for St. Helier in comparison to other parishes ad, further still, that both more strongly protect the functioning of the so-called 'Troy Rule'?'

The oral question to the Chairman of PPC detailed above leads in to what is not only the last debate before the summer recess; but also something of a rarity for this Assembly - a full and important week of debate. I say this even with my Ministerial Mole's tip off that Chief Minister Gorst suddenly pulled his pitch for a fully fledged Foreign Minister until September because he knew he was on a hiding - not least because of the embarrassment of Bailhache-Gate.

He is, according to the Mole, hoping all will have been forgotten by then. It won't of course and I'll be making sure of that this very Sitting. Not only are there rumours that Senator Bailhache will nevertheless finally make a personal statement next week (I sincerely hope he does) but I am also asking the PPC Chairman why - given that they do not even need an official complaint - he hasn't yet initiated an investigation into the matter.

Fact is its high time Senator Bailhache dropped the petulance, made his apologies to the two businessmen and then resigned. No, he need not apologise to me for his slurs and insults. An apology from a man with zero political credibility like the Senator is something I can live quite happily without. 

St. Helier's representatives truly under the spotlight...

Still, though the big debate of the week certainly is the aforesaid Option B proposals truth be told there is actually very little that hasn't already been said about why Option B in its unamended form simply must be blocked by progressives at all costs. To be fair its also equally true that just as many hares have been set running by Bailhache, Ozouf and the Constables in the hope of managing to slip it through.

Thus my only point - OK, two inter-related points actually - for people to be clear upon are these.  

If Philip Bailhache gets his way then the people of St.Helier - a third of Jersey's population let us not forget - will have their say in what happens to this Island politically hamstrung for at least a generation; possibly even two. They will, at a stroke, be made second class voters wholly at the mercy of the smaller. less populated country parishes dominated by self-interested Establishment supporters.

The second point to remember is this. The 10 St. Helier Deputies and the parish Constable, Simon Crowcroft, together have both a chance and  an obligation to vote for either my or Deputy Green's amendments and thus, just perhaps, save the day for democracy. This is, after all, about protecting the interests of the people we are meant to serve.

Alright, our capital's fate is not in our hands alone.. But what is true is that any St. Helier representative who fails to vote in their constituents' democratic interests next week; but instead bows to Emperor Bailhache's '3 line whip' for legal dictatorship needs to be driven from office come 2014. Driven from office if needs be with flaming torches and pitchforks.

Will any be that foolish or hypocritical? Word in the States is that the only St. Helier representative who will definitely stab his constituents in the back will be St. Helier No. 1's Deputy James Baker. Yet beware: there are also whispers that Rod Bryans and even Constable Crowcroft may bend the knee to Emperor Philip and join him in the hope of future patronage.

Let's hope this is wholly incorrect. Though it must be said such action would certainly be a Godsend to any candidate wishing to stand against one of them in 15 months time...

The 'secret court case' against former Senator, Stuart Syvret and the hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money no one in authority wants to be held accountable for...

On Friday morning I had a meeting with the Attorney General. He wished to clarify that neither he nor his office have any control or involvement relating to the shed loads of taxpayers' cash - our cash - that's been handed out so four private individuals could bring a secret Data Protection Law case (in reality a glorified defamation case) against former Senator Stuart Syvret.

Always happy to correct my position I would flag up here that I was grateful to the Attorney General for his clarification; and am equally happy to say sorry if I got any wires crossed on the involvement of his office. Yet the fact is one clarification only creates even more questions in a case like this.

Questions like: who is ultimately responsible for complying with requests from the Data Protection Commissioner's office that result in monies in excess of its entire annual budget being made available?

According to the Attorney General this used to come under the Treasury Minister but now comes under the control of the Chief Minister's office itself. OK then, Senator Gorst - looks like come Monday all eyes will be on you! But I have also asked Senator Ozouf as well. Will I get a full and proper answer to my questions?

Who can tell - and if the Chief Minister once again hands answering this written question over to Senator Routier the likelihood is that we'll all be even more confused than when we started! Yet if the plan is to once again fob us off with vague waffle I trust the Chief Minister (and Treasury for that matter) will also consider this.

If I don't get some proper answers we'll just have start all over again come September. And keep on asking the same questions until we do. After all, I know a whole army of taxpayers intrigued to know if any kind of background checks were carried out - this to ascertain if one particular 'man' and alleged 'victim' afforded financial assistance at their expense actually has complaints against him of Internet bullying and abuse  longer than a proverbial toilet roll!

Keep the Faith

Note: My full list of questions - both oral and written - for next week's Sitting can be read on the States Assembly website. 




WRITTEN STATES QUESTIONS FOR 2ND JULY 2013 - A FEW MORE CONCERNS ABOUT JERSEY 'JUSTICE'

I outline below my written questions for next week's States Sitting. As I posted earlier, I unfortunately have had to postpone the intended report on the Justice Select Committee meeting with States Members due to picking up a flat tyre; and then needing to rush out again for the Parish Assembly. But this post will go up on Friday latest.

Those readers who follow the blog regularly will also notice that the questions below make reference to issues that we have still had no clear answers to despite well-focused efforts. No apologies for this whatsoever - questions that are passed by the system - however flawed it might be - should in turn then be given the courtesy of full and accurate answers.

When this does not happen, as is all too often the case, then the only thing to do is keep asking again, and again, and again.Brief comments on the background to each question is also provided underneath.

Written questions to Minister for Home Affairs

 'Has the Minister now handed over all details to officers undertaking ‘Operation Elvedon’ relating to the information he advised the Assembly had been leaked to a UK journalist during a live child abuse investigation by Mr. Gradwell?' 

Comment 

Remember all the fuss made by people like Ben Shenton, Jim Perchard, Sean Power and co when they were trying (unsuccessfully) to link Lenny Harper's name to stories about Police Officers leaking information to national newspaper? 

Well, in stark contrast none of these individuals had anything to say at all about the expose by Citizens' Media that Mr. Gradwell - sickeningly portrayed by the Jersey Evening Pravda as a 'whistle-blower' - was named as leaking information to such newspapers; and done so whilst the Haut de la Garenne investigation was still live.

The Home Affairs Minister promised he would answer this question. But he hasn't. So I am back. Finally, just remember, this is not really about money but professional standards and trust. Indeed, in the UK a high ranking Met Officer was actually jailed earlier this year for this very thing...

Written question to Minister for Home Affairs

'Given that two independent businessmen have alleged that documents, including police witness statements, relating to the Dean’s suspension and the HG abuse case were read in view of passengers on a flight from Gatwick on 21st March 2013 by the Assistant Chief Minister Senator P.M. Bailhache, can the Minister confirm whether such confidential police documents were supplied to a politician acting, as we are told, simply as a lay member of the Church of England and not within his capacity as a States member and why?'

Comment

Is this question going to go away? No it won't no matter how much Senator Bailhache might bluster. He has threatened a personal statement. I say: bring it on. He has been caught bang-to-rights and trying to smear both me and, more importantly, members of the public as liars should result in the man who lectures people about the fundamental importance of 'truthfullness' and 'respecting' others biting the dust from the Council of Minister.

An important aspect to also keep in mind here. This also isn't really about how he came to have/be given the documents any more. It is about the fact he wasn't big enough to hold his hands up and tell the Assembly the true facts. 'Chief Minister' Gorst (who knows the men are both genuine and truthful) may have conveniently fled to China to avoid next week's States Sitting but nevertheless - I might just have a little surprise for both of the Senators come  the final sitting 16th July...

Written question for Attorney General

'Given that the court transcripts of a 2009 case, which resulted in James Donnelly being sentenced to 15 years in prison, revealed that a number of other individuals were also identified as abusers by both the individual eventually convicted and the victim, why was no prosecution pursued in this case?'

Comment

How ironic that, in a week that saw the Chief Minister and his favourite Assistant/Boss meeting with the Justice Select Committee at the Atlantic Hotel; this to assure them over a slap-up meal that all within Jersey 'justice' was absolutely perfect I am again contacted by members of the public with hard evidence that shows nothing could be further from the truth.

Believe me, this case - or the 'swept under the carpet' evidence that was never acted upon - has the potential to blow through the halls of Establishment 'justice' like a hurricane. This case also almost certainly has a link to why former Chief of Police Power had to be disappeared. For the record all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim; and no mention of her will be made.

It is simply about how under the Jersey 'justice' system it is not what you do that will see you either a scapegoat rotting in jail for 15 years, or walking free - it is who you are. There are no excuses for abusers - yet this kind of 'justice' cannot be allowed to go on. At this point nothing more really needs to be said. I have the evidence. I will just wait and see what the Attorney General has to say...

Written question to Attorney General 

'Now that the 'Secret' Court process against former Senator Syvret has concluded; will H.M. Attorney General clarify what has been the total cost thus far, whether public funding was made available equally to all four individuals involved, were they also required to utilise their own funds and was Mr. Syvret given “equality of financial arms”?'

Comment

Ah! The case no-one was allowed to speak about on pain of death. or at least on pain of having your door kicked in and your laptop and underwear rifled. The discerning reader will note the word 'secret' highlighted in red within the question. this case was as secret as you could get outside of a US rendition flight. But the Bailiff made me take it away. Not that he told me he was doing so until it was lodged! There will be an oral question coming fairly soon on this subject.

Secret court hearings shouldn't be happening in a place like Jersey anyway. Period. I mean, its bad enough that the JEP and Broadlands are being allowed to try and gain financially from a court case that saw the former allowed a jurat on the case who was conflicted and as suspect in commitment to 'justice' and assessing 'evidence' as one could ever hope to be. Burying bothersome, outspoken politicians behind closed doors is positively 1930's Germany in both tone and sinisterness.

Look out for a 'but the case is not fully concluded so no comment can be made' excuse in response. To which I will simply re-submit the question again, and again. We simply cannot have despicable thugs being given our money to oppress people of whom they are actually the abusers. I repeat: its our money; thousands and thousands of pounds of it. We have a right to know how it was spent; to whom it was given and just why?

Keep the Faith.

Justice Select Committee in Jersey Part 2 will be posted on Friday.

A FEW INTERESTING QUESTIONS ON THE MANY FACES OF JERSEY 'JUSTICE'

Oh no - and not a single one on jurats happy to look the other way on evidence against friends and colleagues committing child abuse!

Having not made use of my allocation of written questions over the past two States Sittings; at readers' requests I now list below each of the up-coming questions - both written and oral - that I have lodged for the States Sitting of June 18th. Whilst also obviously not wishing to preempt the fun in any shape or form I nevertheless also give a brief bit of background to a few of the most 'interesting' ones for those who may be unaware...

Written question to Minister for Home Affairs

 

'Can members of the public be arrested by the police for alleged planning infractions and, if so, can such individuals also be legally required by the Police to report to the police station on a daily basis whilst these allegations are investigated?'

Comment

Now this really is a most fascinating question given the Jersey Establishment's increasingly rapid slide toward States indifference to regular abuses of citizen's Human Rights. Human Rights, let us not forget, that would be held as sacrosanct even in many a so-called 'Developing country'.

But in brief do you think it is right that a law-abiding member of the public can be 'arrested' by order of a member of the Planning Department and bundled into a police car - all in full view of a horrified business client? A client who not surprisingly withdrew his offer of a lucrative contract as a consequence! Me neither but perhaps we are just out of step with 'The Jersey Way'? Do you think sanctions for such a person should be more strict than would apply to an alleeged mugger? Hopefully not.

 

Written question to the Attorney General

 

'Would the Attorney General advise whether individuals who are aggrieved by the fact that Option B of the Electoral Commission (which gives greater representation to residents of smaller parishes at the expense of St. Helier) would have any recourse against the States of Jersey via the European Court of Human Rights if this Option is implemented?'

Comment

Now the man behind the despicable strategy to ensure the people of St. Helier can never have a fair and equal say in the running of the States, Senator Bailhache, (not to mention his minions Senators Gorst, Ozouf and the Constables) reckon all in relation to this Master Plan to sabotage democracy by 2014 is beyond challenge from we annoying 'little people'. Are the Far-Right 'right'? Well, I know they are not. But let's see if the Attorney General plays along...

Written question to the Attorney General

'Since police investigations began in 2007 in relation to 'historic' abuse can the Minister advise if there have been any cases investigated by the States of Jersey Police where abuse was alleged by both another perpetrator of abuse and corroborated by a victim yet no prosecution was then brought and, if so, what was the reason for this?'

Comment

Now this really IS a fascinating question! A former Deputy once observed that one should always ensure you ask questions to which you already knew the answer. Rightly or wrongly to this regard it certainly is funny how certain very telling documentation often gets delivered into the hands of a politician not afraid of the Establishment bully boys. But let's not say too much for now other than this.

The law should apply equally to all, shouldn't it?. But of course the fact is that in Establishment Jersey it does not: it depends upon who you are. Any doubters to this need only ook back to the politically motivated prosecution in 2009 of Deputies Shona Pitman and Geoff Southern for the unknown offence (in every other democracy in the WORLD!) of helping the old and disabled amongst their constituents to register a request for a postal vote.

All, of course, whilst the then Attorney General simultaneously did NOT charge those non-JDA candidates who did the same. And in the same St. Helier No. 2 district! Jusstice - its wonderful isn't it!Yet the matters underlying this question are obviously even more serious. Can it really be acceptable that whilst one abuser gets many years in prison another one - fully evidenced - does not even get taken to court? Of course it isn't - and next week sees the beginning of this sickening abuse of those who control Jersey 'justice' finally being exposed.

No wonder they want to try and shaft me with a non-ECHR compliant trial!

Written question to the Minister for Housing

'Would the Minister advise whether, in the case of the owner of a self-catering property who has re-registered the premises as a lodging house yet retained one unit out of ten as a (third party) manager's flat, all of the tenants are still classed as private tenants in law?'

Comment

Nothing that really needs to be said about this question: indeed, its actually not even in the same league as the others. But having been contacted by an elderly member of the public having problems with a dispute with a Fagin-like businessman it is still a question well worth getting an official answer to. 

And by my thus doing so, of course, saving the said constituent from being forced to cross the palms of some slimy lawyer with enough silver to secure twenty minutes 'work' that could instead fund the OAP having a nice and well deserved little holiday in the sun somewhere!

Oral question to the Chief Minister

'Following his meeting with the businessmen who raised concern at seeing the Assistant Minister with responsibility for External Affairs reading confidential documents in full view of the public on a flight, does the Chief Minister support the Assistant Minister's views expressed on 14th May 2013 that the allegations were 'inaccurate' and gave a 'fictitious' and 'malicious' account and, if not, will he now be asking his Assistant Minister to resign?'

Comment

Now if you don't know the background to this question and you live in Jersey you really must have been residing in a cave without access to the wonderful Gigabyte Jersey! But should that be you...

Basically Senator Philip Bailhache was caught bang-to-rights by a local busiessman foolishly and with his trademark arrogance reading confidential documents in full view of the public on a flight from Gatwick. These documents being to do with the appallingly typical Jersey Way treatment of abuse victim 'HG' in the Dean suspension case.

Most of us would have simply held our hands up and apologised. But not the never-wrong Senator Bailhache. I was instead accused of presenting a document that only 'purported' to be an e-mail from a member of the public. The contents were called  'malicious' and 'fictitious'. Yes, businessman and yours truly were in effect basically liars. Cheers, Senator.

But then one small problem arose: far from being put off by the bluster and the bullying the businessman demanded to meet the Chief Minister. And he even brought along... another businessman who could verify his version of events! Wow! Whoever will Chief Minister Gorst now chose to believe...

Oral question to the Attorney General

'What powers, if any, does a Court have to ensure that full indemnities awarded to members of the public at the conclusion of a court case are enforced and the injured party is not left thousands of pounds out of pocket?'

Comment

Now here, last but not least, is another gem. Wouldn't you think that if you won a court case and the judge (no les than the current Bailiff!) awarded you full indemnities you would actually get that money back? Wouldn't you think the Court could actually order a lawyer who was refusing to comply to hand it over? Me too. But then this is I repeat, Establishment Jersey.

After all you might also think that our Police are obliged to accept a member of the community filing a complaint for investigation about alleged criminal activity? They are meant to. But once again in reality it all comes down to who you are and who you are complaining about. Ayway, the fact of the matter is that this particular question I am asking is just the tip of the ice-berg in a case that, though dating back some years, is likely to be making headline news very soon.

Keep the Faith & Happy States listening.

With even my old friend and serial fence-sitter Deputy Roy Le Herissier demanding an inquiry into Bailhache-Gate could be a Question Time to even keep young Pravda Lucy away from her cookery books...

 

 

 

 

 



BAILHACHE-GATE 2 - WHAT WAS THE SENATOR SAYING ABOUT 'MALICIOUS', 'FICTITIOUS' LIARS & E-MAILS 'PURPORTING' TO BE FROM THE PUBLIC...

I reproduce below - with full permission - a letter e-mailed from a local resident and businessman to Chief Minister Ian Gorst. Should you not wish to read the explanation here but only the letter itself then simply go straight to the subheading entitled 'Letter' in blue several paragraphs below.

 

As the reader can see, given this gentleman's quite understandable anger and abject disgust at his - and my integrity - being scurrilously attacked by Senator Sir Philip Bailhache during the last States Question Time he has written to the Chief Minister to demand explanations. Having again contacted me my constituent also copied in PPC Chairman, Constable Simon Crowcroft at my advice. This being suggested as some kind of safeguard (hopefully) that the matter will not be simply swept under the carpet in time-honoured Establishment party fashion.

 

So I ask readers, does the information and detail contained suggest anything 'fictitious' or 'malicious'?

 

Indeed, as it has also been described as an e-mail 'purporting' to be from a member of the public; though I have been asked to keep the gentleman's identity anonymous thus far - this being simply due to his understandable fear of repercussions in the true 'Jersey Way' -the original e-mail has also been viewed by a small number of very close political colleagues who can verify its authenticity.

 

Please read it and make up your own mind. And then perhaps ask your self this: what exactly will Chief Minister Gorst now do about the behaviour of his Assistant Chief Minister? A politician, let us not forget, who whilst regularly lecturing other members about 'respect' (often whilst attacking them personally) is also currently the individual we have to trust to represent our interests in Jersey with the hugely important role of having 'responsibility for External Relations'.

 

And remember too, Chief Minister Gorst has not only already demonstrated himself to be only too happy to accept, without question, his Assistant Minister's claim that he was only reading the Korris Report - and thus feed this back to the States Assembly as being truthful fact. He has also since attempted to fob me off with the additional line that whatever the Senator has done he was apparently 'not acting as an Assistant Minister at the time': merely a States Member and a member of the Church of England!

 

So what will he now do? This should - and certainly would - in any professional jurisdiction be the end of Senator Bailhache's 'ministerial' career. After all, Chief Minister Gorst has,of course, recently also been revealed as one of only two complaints to PPC out of many thousands of States employees who I e-mailed simply requesting views about public sector pay and the serious failings within the 'justice' system.

 

Will he now be asking PPC to initiate serious sanctions against the man we all know is really his political master? Will he be sacking him or demanding the Senator's resignation? My bet? Of course he won't. The Chief Minister just simply does not have the Testicular Fortitude. As for PPC - they only really pursue complaints against political Leftists and progressives.

 

They call it 'the Jersey Way'. And this is what the people of Jersey will continue to to get so long as they allow themselves to be hoodwinked by people who believe you all exist simply to keep them in power.

 

Keep the Faith

 

Trevor

 

 

Letter: 21st May 2013 to Chief Minister Gorst...

________________________________
From: NAME REDACTED
Sent: 21 May 2013 14:25
To: Ian Gorst
Cc: Trevor Pitman; aascrowcroft
Subject: Private and Confidential


Dear Chief Minister,

I am writing to you in response to the recent public allegation from Sir Philip Bailhache that I am the creator of a fictitious and malicious email which I sent to Deputy Pitman on 22nd March 2013 so in basic terms ‘a liar’.

You will see below a copy of the original email which I sent to Deputy Trevor Pitman on the 22nd March following a flight that I had boarded on the 21st March.

At this point I would like to point out that I personally do not have a great interest in politics nor do I really have a great understanding of politics but my interest and understanding has certainly grown since the 21st March.

I find it quite unbelievable that Sir Philip Bailhache has publicly stated the information contained in the original email below is of a fictitious and malicious nature. I can 100% assure you that there is only one person in this situation who is fictitious and that is certainly not me.

I have no axe to grind with any of our current sitting states members and can see no reason why I would. That was until being publicly called a liar from an Assistant Chief Minister when they know the real truth, I really do not feel this is appropriate conduct for any states member.

 

The short details I have given in the email below are true of the event that occurred on the 21st March flight from Gatwick airport, I was also travelling with my business partner who is also quite astonished at the allegation that has been made towards me of being a liar to which he is happy to also confirm.

 

I think the question that needs to be asked is if it was fictitious and malicious where would I get this type of information from, ‘ letters from a Robb ****** (signed I will always Love you like a daughter, love Robb)’, maybe Chief Minister you should actually read this letter yourself ,if you have not already, just to confirm this was how it was signed off because I can assure you that neither Mr ****** nor the victim in this would have ever showed me this letter.

 

So whilst Sir Philip Bailhache still stands by his response that he was only reading the Diocese of Winchester independent review I would just like to confirm to you again ‘exactly’ the details of what I was able to see of what Sir Philip Bailhace had in his possession on that flight of the 21st March from Gatwick to Jersey: 

 

Police Witness Statements – Printed on States Of Jersey Police Letterhead. 

 

A4 pages of text messages sent from the victim

Printed and Handwritten briefs of emails sent – from memory the handwritten were on yellow A4 paper.

A letter from the accused addressed to the victim and signed off with ‘I will always love you like a daughter, love Robb’

  

You will note that in my list above you will not see ‘Diocese of Winchester independent review’ as I did not see this document. 

 

*The above emphasis in red by me.

 

Personally when originally giving this information to Deputy Pitman I was merely a concerned member of public that was appalled I was able to see such information being openly read by one of our States members on a plane and at the time I did not really understand the severity of this, now I understand that not only should he have not been openly reading this information on a plane but he really shouldn’t have had it in his possession in the first place, this is something however that I suppose is not for me to question being just a mere member of the public. 

 

The question however I do feel strongly I can ask: 

 

Why would an ‘upstanding, credible and honest’ States member deceive the rest of the States assembly in his answering of recent questions from Deputy Pitman regarding the data protection breach by fabricating his answers to protect himself and why would an ‘upstanding, credible and honest’ states member publicly accuse a mere member of the public as being fictitious and malicious when they know this is a complete lie themselves?? 

 

I guess the answer to that question is: that very States member is not so ‘upstanding, credible and honest’ 

 

I now find myself in the position that I regret deeply the way I cast some of my votes at the last election and I know for sure that I will not be making that mistake again. 

 

Since my first email to Deputy Pitman I have always requested he keep my identity private purely as I do not really want to get dragged down with the Jersey way and given the recent response’s from Sir Philip Bailhache I am actually quite concerned as to what else he could be capable of, so I respectfully ask the same of you and those cc'd on this email. 

 

If you would like to meet me in person just so you can be assured I am not just a fictitious email address then I will be happy to arrange this with yourself and Deputy Pitman in attendance. If you feel it necessary to meet I will also ask my business partner who was with me on that flight to also attend as he is also happy to confirm the validity of this information. 

 

Regards

NAME REDACTED

And a reminder of the original 'malicious' and 'fictitious' e-mail...
 

From: NAME REDACTED]

Sent: 22 March 2013 16:25

To: Trevor Pitman

Subject: Private Information



Hi Trevor

How are you, long time no see or speak! I trust your life in politics is going well!!??

I am writing to you just to welcome your thoughts on a specific matter that arose yesterday afternoon on a flight back from Gatwick.

On taking my seat on the place I noticed that seated in the aisle seat on the opposite aisle to me was Sir Philip Bailhache to which I certainly commend him being seated in an economy class seat!

What disturbed me greatly was on taking off he produced a large amount of documentation to read regarding the recent issues with the Dean of Jersey. Now not wanting to be nosey of course when you are open to read such information I spent 35 minutes glancing at the various Police Statements, pages of mobile phone text messages (which has now confirmed for me that the police can in fact trace logs of all text messages), letters to the Bishop and letters from a Robb ****** (signed I will always Love you like a daughter, love Robb) just for clarification that I have seen this information!!

 

Not only was I privy to this information but at one stage an Air Hostess was also glancing at such information while she was waiting for a new pot of tea to be brought to her, she smirked when she noticed I had been watching her read! At one point he was actually holding parts of the documentation up in full view to the person sat next to him while he reviewed paperwork from his knee!

Obviously certain facts and names are kept strictly confidential from these types of cases but now I for one can name the woman in question and others that have involvement because of this lack of discretion of information being reviewed in a public place.

Correct me if I am wrong but I do strongly think that this is extremely inappropriate? I wasn’t sure how was best to convey this information over so as I know you personally I thought you would be a good point of contact or should I write a letter to the JEP?

I welcome your response.



Regards

NAME REDACTED.


End note...

As a former Senator used to say in the States: 'You couldn't make this stuff up!' Unlike the Establishment who seem wholly unable to tell the truth - even whilst casting aspersions that others who question them are liars.
*************************************************************************************************