Sunday, 16 July 2017

Graham Power on Local Investigative Journalism and Blogs.


Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

On 3rd July 2017 the Independent Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry published its long awaited report. It was a damming and scathing report for the States of Jersey and a complete vindication of the Victims and Survivors who were finally listened to and more importantly believed after decades of being ignored, vilified, threatened and pilloried for attempting to stop the abuse happening to them and for trying to bring their perpetrators to something that resembles "justice" in such a corrupt system. Victims and Survivors remained courageous and dignified and displayed tremendous resolve and tenacity in their plight to be heard. Their vindication has been far too long coming and never more deserving.

Others were vindicated by this Inquiry, to include former Deputy Chief Officer and Senior Investigating Officer (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper and the team he led during Rectangle. Graham Power the (possibly illegally) suspended Chief Police Officer was also vindicated and  "reasons" given for his suspension were shown to be (according to the COI) "LIES."

VFC interviewed the former Police Chief the day (4th July 2017) after the Committee of Inquiry published its report. Because the  story was changing almost by the hour we had to interview him again some days later where we exclusively reported he had submitted a criminal complaint, against the politician who suspended him back in 2008 Deputy Andrew Lewis. Which (as far as we are aware) was only covered by BBC Radio Jersey. ITV/CTV has been made aware of the revelation but is unwilling to report it.

Which brings us on to the subject of this Blog Posting and (an extract from) the original interview with Mr. Power. What role did the local Mainstream Media play during Operation Rectangle and what role did Bloggers like Team Voice play? Who were "investigating" and who were (not) "reporting?" what was being reported and what wasn't? How was it being reported?


Former Health Minister and whistleblower Stuart Syvret

Mr. Power's observations, and opinions, of the local Mainstream Media are far from complimentary. It should be emphasised that his opinions on the JEP are (for want of a better word) "historic." He is not making comment of the paper in its current form where we believe there has been a huge turn-around (for the better) under its current Editor. That's not to say that it now practices "Investigative Journalism." It does hold authority to account, better than it ever has, and does report stories that would never have been reported previously. This includes a comprehensive "Saturday Interview" with former Health Minister, and Whistleblower Stuart Syvret. The JEP accurately portrayed the "human story" of being a whistleblower in Jersey and its consequences. We hope to supply a link to that story when one becomes available.

Finally the COI's report has vindicated the work done by Team Voice. We have been vindicated, and thanked, by Chief Minister Senator IAN GORST. This Blog has even been complimented by Deputy Andrew Lewis who has said publicly; "it is a well written Blog"...........Praise indeed.

Team Voice is proud of the part it has played, and continues to play, in giving Victims and Survivors a voice. We are proud of the "investigative" role we have been able to play during this dark period in Jersey's history in order to bring the truth to our readers and viewers. We have been putting the truth out there despite threats of physical violence against us, to include being slashed across the face with a Stanley Blade. Death threats, racial abuse, disability hate, and constant intimidation from those who DON'T want the truth getting out.

We are thankful to the brave whistleblowers who have shown enough confidence in Team Voice to have leaked us many, many, documents which we have published (at great risk) in order to get to the truth.

We are humbled, and extremely thankful to Mr. Power for the acknowledgement and recognition he has given to Team Voice in this interview.

If you support our work and want to give a voice to the voiceless please share this Blog on Social Media Facebook/Twitter etc?




167 comments:

  1. As somebody pointed out in the previous post comments the truth of what Mr Power says about the Jersey msm was spelt out for all to see in a review and report carried out by the Home Affairs/ESC Scrutiny Panel chaired by former Deputy T Pitman, and including if memory serves former Deputies Roy Le Herissier and Wimberley and for a time at least Deputy Tadier. The section on the msm coverage and down right lies about Operation Rectangle was damning to put it politely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The particular report has been labelled "the most defining report of its era." It can be viewed from HERE.

      Delete
  2. Pravda - "central organ of the Jersey Bourgeoisie".

    "It has come on a long way, but has a long way to go"

    When they put Socialist politicians on the front page and editorialise that the person should be unelected, then democracy is perverted.

    Pravda remains a right wing tabloid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By "Socialist politicians" I presume you mean Nick Le Cornu? In which case, you might just as well as said "when they put misogynist politicians on the front page...".

      Would you be claiming that democracy was being undermined if the JEP called for Andrew Lewis to be "unelected" (whatever that means)?

      Delete
  3. A very important interview.

    Why? - why? - does Jersey fail 99.99% of the time - to produce from within the island man of such calibre, ethics, strength and decency as Graham Power and Lenny Harper?

    It's a serious question.

    Our "culture" is rotten - stagnant - decadent. "The-Jersey-Way" - the corruption-tensegrity of the Culture-of-Concealment - is so entrenched, as to be a real, quantifiable, threat to the lives of islanders.

    It is worth reminding ourselves of just how terrible - terrible - the Jersey msm are. Graham, as a Police Officer, understandably has a different perspective of Jersey's media, to that of someone like me. When you are a politician, you are fully at the mercy of the media. This is how bad it was: I would have to "pre-council" the very vulnerable child-abuse survivors I was working with, a few days ahead of any public political action I took, because the inevitable condemnations and lies directed against us by the Jersey msm made some of them suicidal.

    Let's remind ourselves - of just how remarkable - without precedent it is, in all of modern British history - that we bloggers were alone - in having the trust of a Police Chief and a Deputy Police Chief.

    http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-publics-inquiry-into-the-public-inquiry-starts-here/

    A quote from that posting: -

    "Most people probably don’t perceive this yet, as it’s the kind of event that only becomes readily seen from the panoramic distance of time, but what a few of Jersey’s bloggers have achieved represents a unique development in British history. Unique, because nowhere else in Britain would you find a vacuum where the Fourth Estate was supposed to be, just waiting to be filled by citizen journalists. To find an equivalent where the internet has enabled ordinary people to start reporting the facts usually buried by the passive media of entrenched establishments, we’d have to look at regimes around the world with no good history of democracy.

    There is nowhere else in Britain that such volumes of damming documentary evidence – and high-level witness-testimony – to so much stark and dangerous corruption – would exist, and some part or the other of the traditional mainstream media not seize upon it, report it, and lead a media feeding-frenzy.

    Think about it: can you imagine any other place in Britain, in which, on the evidence, major child-abuse investigations had been obstructed and sabotaged by a conspiracy of corrupt, culpable officials and conflicted public prosecutors – where the Deputy Police Chief had been repeatedly obstructed, and the Police Chief had been unlawfully suspended, and both of those men were not only willing to speak-out to the media about such corruptions, but had actually produced affidavits – sworn testimony – to confirm it, but yet none of the mainstream media were interested?

    It’s inconceivable – unimaginable – anywhere else in Britain.

    Try imagining a place in the British Isles in which the only media willing to report the testimony of a Deputy Police Chief and of a Police Chief were a few local bloggers?

    Indeed – try imagining a situation anywhere else in Britain where men of such high-ranking professionalism as a Police Chief and a Deputy Police Chief felt that a few local bloggers were not only the only available channels for their public interest concerns, but were also the only outlets to be relied upon for fullness and accuracy?

    This is the situation that prevails in Jersey.

    It is an unfolding event unique in British journalism.

    It is unique in British policing.

    It is unique in British history.

    These events are at the very history-making cutting-edge of citizen’s media activism in the nation.

    You could not find an equivalent state of affairs as that which prevails in Jersey, in any established Western democracy."

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Attorney General dismissed. FBI director sacked. I think you can find an equivalent state of affairs in the USA now.

      Delete
    2. No, Tony. With respect, you are wrong.

      The nature and magnitude of these events in Jersey is without precedent in any Western state.

      The USA has a separation of powers.

      The legislature has the systems and powers to scrutinise, and hold-to-account the executive, and, indeed, that laborious process is underway via various committees.

      Then, when it gets there, there is an independent judiciary, to hold the executive to account, for the legality of its particular decisions. And to hold the legislature to account for the vires of its particular policy & legislative decisions.

      Then - of course - there's a vast array of media - even competitive msm, which also holds all of the above power-structures to account.

      Jersey does not possess any equivalent - real - effective - check & balance.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    3. Trump will put the political system in the US to a challenging test ... he is acting like the president can do what he likes and override the separation of powers structure and get away with it ... not forgetting that it's politicians that will have to vote to impeach him ... interesting times ahead

      Delete
    4. Ref comment at 17:11 -

      So far, Trump's behaviour has underlined the robustness of the segregation of power in the US. His attempt to impose travel bans on citizens of certain Muslim nations has been successfully challenged in the courts, and his attempt to replace Obamacare has failed in Congress.

      Trump might be talking like a president who can override separation of powers, but so far he has signally failed to turn words into action.

      Delete
    5. Stuart Syvret is correct - the fundamental lack of basic constitutional law, the lack of separation of powers in Jersey is at the core, the root of all of this.

      It's been noted and commented upon, by many people. Actually, it doesn't take much understanding or knowledge to see it. I am not a lawyer and certainly don't claim to be a legal expert, but one of the first things that I learned as a first year business studies student in my business law classes was separation of powers.

      The fact that it takes an ex-carpenter to point out obvious facts about the failings of constitutional governance in Jersey shows you everything you need to know.

      Delete
  4. Makes you wonder what kind of people were on the interview panels for journalists for The Rag in the past. Two people come to mind.Initials only for a clue F.W. & J.A.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JA ... ? Who is this?

      Delete
    2. The surname may have something to do with label sizes....

      Delete
    3. You have it, down to a T.

      Delete
  5. This blog does truly great work. I do wish we could get back to where we were a few years ago though when it was really buzzing with several top notch blogs on political matters.

    Rico doesn't blog that much these past 18 months. Stuart seems to have stopped and where oh where is the Bald Truth? Trev Pitman's live video angle was quite unique.

    If we could get all of these back and the good old Jersey Way recordings too that would be a big step forward post inquiry report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 23:34, is anything stopping you from starting your own blog?

      With regard to Stuart's blog, and I can't speak for him, but I cannot help but think of Paul Weller's answer to a music journalist when he was asked why he no longer wrote political songs, his answer was that he had already said everything he wanted to about politics in his early career as singer and songwriter with The Jam. Possibly Stuart has already said everything that he wished to do regarding the political establishment in Jersey on his blog, who knows.

      As for Trevor Pitman, my understanding is that he no longer lives in Jersey. One can't blame him, frankly.

      Delete

  6. Graham Power comes over as a thoughly honest and decent man as does his ex colleague Mr Lenny Harper. What is more they both decided to spent time on submitting statements of some weight to the child abuse enquiry and also through link, answered questions openly with good memory and detail.

    Decent men, that deserve respect unlike Jersey's sad apology for a newspaper the JEP that is being overun with the mad troll on line.

    The appalling BBC Radio Jersey, the reason I no longer buy a BBC licence and finally being high on ego, and low on quality reporting ITV's Channel TV who constantly fail to research interview questions which are shallow sugary. Do they actually get paid for this pathetic broadcasting ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Given the 'privilege trumps perjury' Jersey Way defence of Andrew Lewis , does anyone know the nature of the criminal investigation that Graham Power has tried to instigate? Obviously he is legally savvy but if Andrew Lewis is allowed to lie in any States of Jersey context then that is a difficult hurdle to overcome ,surely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I am aware Mr. Power has still not even received an acknowledgement from the Chief Minister concerning his criminal complaint against Deputy Andrew Lewis. Mr. Power sent the complaint 12 days ago.

      Delete
    2. Based on his comments, I assume GP's complaint is that Lewis committed perjury. If so, he is doomed to fail.

      First, the law is quite clear. While his argument that the law was never intended to cover perjury is morally valid, and courts do sometimes consider what the legislature intended where a law isn't clear, that doesn't really fly in this case. Privilege is absolute and unequivocal. I think misconduct in a public office would have more traction, as it would cover the wider acts by Lewis, not just the lies.

      Second, this is Jersey. Chances of Mr Power's action succeeding even if legally sound? Nil.

      Third, the CM is not really the correct person to receive a criminal complaint. It really isn't acceptable for Gorst to ignore Mr Power - he should have forwarded it to the police or the AG - and notified Mr Power of this fact.

      I hope I am wrong.

      Delete
  8. Press Release from the Privileges and Procedures Committee. This will be the subject of an upcoming Blog Post.

    "The Privileges and Procedures Committee met on 11th July 2017 and considered the action it would be taking following the publication of the findings of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry that Deputy Andrew Lewis of St. Helier lied to the Assembly and the Inquiry.

    In accordance with Standing Order 157, the Committee intends meeting during the week commencing 24th July 2017, in order to discuss the matter further. The Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, Connétable Len Norman said “We will be reviewing all of the details of this matter and will then invite Deputy Lewis to a meeting in early August in order to address the complaint. It is intended that this meeting will be held in public.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So it goes on, and on, and on ........ Seemingly they do not know what to do.

      What is the issue/problem? How much clearer does it have to be pointed out to PPC and the facts are out there, facts that we all can see including the criticsm of the Care Inquiry who made it quite clear what their conclusion was.

      Both you and I VFC made a complaint over AL's behaviour a year ago now. I was told that they could not act until the Report was delivered. In effect they have had that 24 months, plus 2 full weeks since the release of the Report. Why the delay and what are they dithering about?

      The public August meeting should prove interesting.

      Delete
    2. August eh, The 'silly season' when the press abounds with trite stories because 'serious professionals' are away in Necker Isand, the Dordogne or Tuscany for the month. Nothing to see here, move along people.....

      S.O.

      Delete
    3. With all due respect, VFC and Gillian Gracia, frankly, the case against Lewis is a sidetrack. Lewis has been criticised in the Care Inquiry Report. We all know that. But, frankly, what of it? They failed to criticise many others, some of them more senior on the hierarchy than Lewis.

      Your parliament is now talking vaguely about maybe perhaps making some kind of admonishment against Lewis or perhaps bringing him in for a chat and that kind of thing.

      To be bluntly and brutally honest, if you think that taking Lewis out of the picture is a victory for the victims, you are playing the oligarchy game.

      As Stuart says, it goes back to the rule of law in Jersey.


      Think about it.

      Delete
  9. With Pravda running a story based on a poll of seven out of ten states members quized about getting rid of the Bailiff supporting the move can I just say a thank you to those past and present members who even got us this far.

    Montfort Tadier deserves credit for bringing it back yet again hot on the heels of the COI report. Hopefully this time enough states members will be woken from their slumber. I heard someone say the other day that Montfort was being opportunistic. So what if he is. The Bailiff is a block to democracy.

    But I also think huge credit, perhaps more than to any other, must go to Shona Pitman who brought the first (and only?) vote of no confidence vote in a Bailiff for his failings. This is now being takled about again because of what has come out at the COI. He was unfit to hold office as Shona demonstrated but the cowardly states of ten years ago bottled doing what they should have.

    Trevor Pitman too (and Shona again) for being so voiciferous and analytical in highlighting the dysfunction and naked corruption allowed to fester under successive Bailiffs and the truth that Jersey's court is nothing more than a weapon of political intimidation where even the most dishonest can sit in judgment of others. That what the last Bailiff allowed to happen to the Pitmans was wholly corrupt and politically motivated is now known to most who follow Jersey politics even if some actually condone it out of self interest.

    Last but not least Stuart Syvret also merits huge credit whatever some think of his approach. Stuart was deeply wronged in the Bailiff's bent courts and like the Pitmans deserves a full apology and probably some significant compensation. Stuart's description of our former Bailiff as having the ethics of a Bangkok pimp will go down in Jersey folklore.

    That all three of the above named are excluded from standing for election is an absolute disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sterling work Deputy Shona Pitman did often became a little overlooked after she was joined in the States by her husband because he was such a larger than life, outspoken charactor. But how right anonymous above is when he/she draws our attention back to the VONC back in the early summer of 2008? The abuse inquiry has demonstrated that Mrs Pitman's decision to lodge that vote was entirely justified. Maybe what is most relevant now to remind people though is that clearly right as she was Shona Pitman wass supported in her move by just two other politicians. Stuart Syvret and Geoff Southern. What price now I ask your readers for all of the shock and grief and if only we had known spiel from those still in the Chamber from 2008 being genuine?

      Delete
  10. Full JEP interview now published by them online.

    Link.

    Stuart's speech which was published with the original article can be read here.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for this Polo

      It's quite a read and Stuart's speech is on the money! Heart felt too.

      All you guys, Stuart, VFC, RICO and others... that have been on about this for so long - it's a wonder you can get out of bed; the disappointments must be soul destroying!

      Bravo to you all for sticking it out.

      When is the BIG breakthrough coming? I've just seen that the taxi drivers are protesting... WTF seriously? No protest on systemic child abuse; 5 decades of it! , now with official 'substantiated' proof - in black and white, from above, of systemic failure! What will it take for the people to rebel?

      I just read the comments on the JEP under Stuart's interview. What? How, who, why - I just cannot explain it to myself let alone others! Sick - it's sickening to see. What are people capable of indeed, Stuart?; humanity at its most base level.

      At the moment I just cannot see the end. I cannot see the majority acknowledging or absorbing this disaster adequately.

      What is the average person at home or on the street really thinking? I was going to say most, but it's all the people I have spoken with on this subject want it to 'go away'. the shite that they say to avoid it is unbelievable... so, so disappointed right now.

      Sorry guys, what to do?

      LH

      Delete
    2. That's right LH. Protest about taxis but sod the kids and corruption. And it is not like the States and people haven't been told is it?

      Stuart's speech was many years ago now some might say but then what about the equally brilliant one by fellow progressive ex-Deputy Trevor Pitman? This one was only made late in 2013. It is a shocking speech spelling out the Jersey Way. Yet nothing changes.

      What a place.

      Well worth reading the speech though if anyone has a link.

      Delete
    3. I remember it - "I doth my cap"- yes, it was an excellent speech. I hope it's not lost.

      Delete
    4. The excellent speech can, and should be, listened to HERE.

      Delete
  11. Hi Voice just got up the Interview of Graham Power on the BBC Radio Jersey this morning. you and your readers can listen HERE

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Lenny harper at his best

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BXzL9SY5WU

      Delete
  12. Glad to hear that PPC intends to hold its meeting in public.

    Let's not forget, Lewis is accused of lying to both the States Assembly AND the Committee of Inquiry.

    One only hopes that Wendy Kinnard and her husband Christopher Harris will be in the audience. Indeed, that is probably what PPC intends to happen. Time for a bit of truth, justice and transparency I think. Lewis has accused Christopher Harris of fabricating evidence that was submitted to the Inquiry - a very serious allegation to make.

    http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2016-02-12/care-inquiry-evidence-fabricated-says-former-home-affairs-minister/

    One of the fantastic - almost laughable - weaknesses in Lewis' argument is that he said to the inquiry "I would love to have this carbon dated."

    That is the sign of a man on the ropes.

    As wikipedia says, carbon dating "is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon (14C), a radioactive isotope of carbon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

    Let me repeat that. The age of an organic object. How long an organic object has existed on the planet, that's all. Full stop.

    It is scientifically impossible to use carbon dating to determine when a message was written in ink on paper. The guy is desperate. I hope PPC pull him up on this. He's just throwing words around, hoping to create enough of a distraction from the central allegation that he is a liar.

    I hope Sam Mezec and other members of PPC are reading this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To prove that. Lewis is a liar all anyone has to do is supply the following evidence:
      1 the Hansard of the in-camera debate re power suspension ... actually this is enough in itself!
      2 his transcript of his evidence to the COI ... again this is enough in itself!
      3 the transcript of the evidence of Christoper Harris (day 137 late afternoon) and that of Wendy Kinnard ... whom Lewis falsely accused of fabricating evidence and lying.
      4 the Hansard of the recent 'post COI report debate' in which he repeated the lies inherent in 1,2 and 3
      There is one, and only one, plausible conclusion and that is the one made by the COI ... Andrew Lewis is a liar who has lied multiple times.
      Phil

      Delete
  13. How is Andrew Lewis fighting to clear his name? Who will clear him, isn't it accepted practise to be allowed to lie (The Jersey Way)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ With all due respect, you are getting sidetracked.

      Lewis is a very obvious patsy. The fact that the focus is being placed on him by the provably corrupted Jersey oligarchy tells us everything we need to known.

      Delete
    2. You are right. Fighting in this context is fingers in ears shouting lalalala I can't hear you, and waiting for people to get bored. Then carrying on as if nothing happened.

      Delete
  14. This may be of interest:


    "A total of 547 young boys from the famous Regensburger Domspatzen ("cathedral sparrows") choir were subjected to physical and sexual abuse at the hands of priests and teachers, according to the attorney tasked with investigating the alleged abuse. 

    Presenting his 450-page report into the findings, attorney Ulrich Weber, said he found 500 cases of physical abuse and 67 instances of sexual abuse spanning over six decades."


    http://www.dw.com/en/regensburg-domspatzen-choir-more-than-500-boys-abused/a-39731018

    ReplyDelete
  15. Look into the suicide rate in Jersey, and particularly the spike in 2008/2009.

    Also, look into why the fee paying schools in Jersey are highly rated and the schools for the working class kids are among the worst rated in the UK & CI.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-jersey-15555535

    ReplyDelete
  16. The two political speeches mentioned above certainly are excellent. But if you want to understand the notorious Jersey Way I think you need look no further than the proposition Shona Pitman brought way back when regarding the disgraceful Philip Bailhache Liberation Day speech.

    More revealing still in my opinion the debate, or rather non debate that flowed from it

    Though never one of the States most confident or natural public speakers the speech Shona Pitman made in support of her proposition was very good indeed and certainly made the problems at hand crystal clear. More than this even just why they were problems and the attitude displayed by Bailhache in his speech and in allowing the paedophile Roger Holland to remain in the Honorary Police even though aware of his conviction so unacceptable.

    Yet you read the transcripts of the debate in response and all of our problems in the island and all of those now confirmed by the COI report leap out at you as if in glorious technicolour. As I said there was practically no debate because CM WAlker effectively told those in the States not to validate Pitman's vote of no confidence against his mate Bailhache by speaking on it. And hardly anyone did.

    And that as they say is how we got where we are today. Silence. Ignoring the brave. Ignoring the whistle-blowers. Ignoring the victims. Even shooting the messenger. All to protect the status quo and established order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shona Pitman always had a very good name for the huge amount of constituent work she tookon. But it is good to be reminded of the big issues she took on too. I remember reading about the proposition she tried to lodge to allow the public a direct vote for chief minister, only for Bailiff Bailhache to refuse to allow it. This is the same man who in his public evidence to the COI claimed Bailiffs had no political power! Couldn't make it up really could you.

      Delete
    2. Shona is so far above the present bunch of female politicians in her guts and principles it is quite depressing.

      Delete
  17. From a very strange person

    I would like to echo the comments of the previous poster about Lewis behaviour, when under pressure how he tries to divert attention from himself, we have the fabrication of the note the supposed affair ,but what is also interesting is the following. When giving evidence (well his version of it anyway)and under pressure from Ms MaGahey he accuses Graham Power of stage managing the inquiry and then throws insults at Grahams supporters calling them "strange people" . I strongly recommend this part of the transcript Found on 17 February pages 101 to103, perhaps some clever person could even provide a link. Well worth a read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @07:42

      Lewis on Power at COI

      Link page 101

      Delete
    2. Why does this odious little man persist in pleading innocence and adopting these diversionary tactics in a desperate attempt to cleanse himself of responsibility. What is his end game?

      Does he seriously think that trying to defend the indefensible, the survivors, the electorate at large, a significant proportion of the States, anyone with half a brain who has been following this, or indeed history will in some way turn around and vindicate him.

      "Oh yes really sorry Mr Lewis I see now that all this evidence against you was incorrect, that all those previously well respected numerous parties who's evidence contradicts yours must have been telling lies. Your clearly were under undue pressure through out and as a result I totally understand how you may not have been precise in your choice of words which was unfortunate, but nothing else. This witch hunt in the meantime has been nothing but a diversion from your true crusade to seek justice for the survivors and in defending yourself so vigorously, you can in no way be accused of trying to do the same, and were only seeking incidental justice for yourself. In my eyes your integrity is totally restored and now I realize should never have been in doubt. I humbly beg that you continue in politics and indeed become our next chief minister, and whilst at it I humbly propose that we increase the CM salary to a 7 figure sum as small measure of our appreciation for all you have done for this Island, the survivors and natural justice. Not to mention lets make sure that your business interests are awarded lucrative public contracts, no questions asked, or results expected"

      Ain't going to happen is it! Someone is still leaning on him and leaning on him big time. Question is why?

      Delete
    3. You are bang on in your analysis Anna ... of course Lewis didn't lie ... it was merely an unfortunate juxtaposition of words!

      Delete
  18. If you would like to know what Lewis is going to say in his defence at the public meeting of PPC in August then all you have to do is listen to what he said in the 7July debate ... see the 'jersey states web streaming' page which is still available ( he started speaking at 1.40 pm ... sorry can't do links) ... which was essentially a dress rehearsal of his defence case. I've just watched it again and I find it sickening.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous @ 09:20

    Lewis in the States 7 July 2017 pm

    Link

    Just incidentally, it's not 1.40pm but 1h40m into the webcast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks ... yes
      Phil

      Delete
  20. Voice has Mr Power had a reply from our Chief Minister yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand that Mr. Power has received an initial acknowledgement from the Chief Minister. I do not know the contents of that response/acknowledgement but believe that Mr. Power regards it as "courteous and professional."

      Delete
    2. ... thank you for your letter ... blah blah ... as you are aware ... blah blah ... PPC ... investigating ... blah blah ... awaiting outcome ... toodle-pip!

      Delete
  21. The jersey way continues, re ben shentons column in last nights j.e.p similar cast members today on the same gravy train

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rico Sorda has published a Blog telling readers some "facts" surrounding the Wiltshire Report (prosecution case against Graham Power) It can be read HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Once again we see the toe curling childish response of the States in thier complete inability to apologise to Graham Power (who is only one of many) The stance being that to 'apolodise' would mean WE were wrong and we can't have that now can we. Graham an apology from them is not worth anything but an apology from me and many other genuine Jersey residents might be far more apt. I hope you are really enjoying your well earned retirement. A Jersey Bean.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I just did a search in the full Inquiry report for the word "Lewis". It appears on 17 pages of the very carefully worded report. Most notable is paragraph 10.373:

    10.373 We do have to record our disquiet at the manner in which the suspension was handled and in respect of some of the evidence given to us about it. We refer, in particular, to the following issues:

    - Graham Power was suspended with no notice in respect of alleged past failings, when there was no suggestion that those past failings could have an effect on his ability in future to carry out his duties;

    - Those responsible for his suspension did not heed the advice of the Solicitor General or Attorney General about the risks of reliance on the Metropolitan Police interim report, the need to show any report to Graham Power and permit him to comment on it, or the wisdom of awaiting the full Metropolitan Police report before taking action;

    - David Warmup exaggerated to Bill Ogley the extent to which his own concerns were supported by the Metropolitan Police interim report;

    - Andrew Lewis used the interim report for disciplinary purposes, knowing that this was an impermissible use;

    - William Bailhache QC, as Attorney General, understood that the decision had already been made by the evening of 11 November 2008 that Graham Power was to be suspended. His evidence to us on this point was at odds with the evidence of Bill Ogley. We prefer the evidence of William Bailhache QC;

    - It is clear to us that, when Graham Power attended the meeting on 12 November 2008, his suspension was inevitable. We accept Graham Power’s evidence that he was given time “to consider his position” – in other words, to resign as an alternative to suspension;

    - Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police report, pretending that he had had sight of it when he had not;

    - Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier QC that he had discussed the suspension of Graham Power in October 2008, while telling us that he knew nothing about it until 11 November 2008;

    - Andrew Lewis denied that he had discussed with Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris the possibility that Graham Power would be suspended. We do not accept his evidence in this respect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love the misspelling of Warcup in the above extract ...
      para 5 begins David Warmup ... lol !!

      Delete
    2. I know, sorry, that was the autocorrect here on Blogspot or on my computer. Sorry. It is of course Warcup.

      Talking of Warcup, why haven't our local media doorstepped him yet? Here we have the report of a public inquiry that clearly says "David Warcup exaggerated to Bill Ogley the extent to which his own concerns were supported by the Metropolitan Police interim report".

      Which action led to the multi-year suspension of decorated police chief Graham Power, of course.

      If this were the UK, Warcup would have been doorstepped by a quality journalist before he'd had time to finish his Shredded Wheat.

      JEP - get someone on a plane to track this clown down and confront him with the allegation.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 01:16

      As has already been pointed out here, Warcup should be called to account not only for his exaggeration but for using, and allowing the continued use of, the "report" for disciplinary purposes. This was a serious breach of police ethics which enraged the MET at the time.

      Warcup can hardly be as hard to run to ground as was finding the Maguires, and while our intrepid reporter is at it they might quiz him on the outcome of Gradwell's interview (under caution as a suspect) of Person 737 which was on Gradwell's work schedule for the week following Power's suspension. That is, if the interview actually took place, which I am beginning to doubt. If it did not it would be conclusive evidence of Power's suspension having had an effect on the ongoing investigation. And yes, I know the 737 business concerned serial abuse of a female adult, or adults, but the point at issue here is establishment interference in the police investigation which was within the terms of reference of the Inquiry. They were too quick, in my view, in dismissing Power's suspension from having any connection with child abuse.

      Surely all of this would justify our intrepid reporter's air fare to the UK, with the odd prawn cocktail thrown in for good measure?

      Delete
    4. I wonder whether Graham Power considered including Warcup in his criminal complaint. One effect of Warcup's "exaggeration" was to land himself Graham Power's job and - one assumes - a pay rise.

      Let's not beat about the bush: Warcup was a senior police officer who was fully familiar with the "critical friend" nature of the Met report, and that it's sole purpose was to provide operational improvement. He knew exactly what he was doing when he misrepresented its contents and obtained a pecuniary advantage as a result.

      From Wikipedia: Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 2. (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

      Does Jersey have similar legislation?

      Delete
  25. Hi Voice,

    I've just put up an Old but very interesting Blog I did back in November 2012, When the BBC was talking about Bloggers and they had a few on to discus what there problem was!

    Since the Independent Care Inquiry's report has been published and that you bloggers have been justified in what you were saying I thought i would republish it.

    Its quite good Listen.

    You and your readers can listen HERE

    TJW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TJW @ 07:45

      Just to endorse that this is well worth a listen.

      It is particularly revealing in the light of the inquiry's findings.

      It also reminds us of unfinished business and areas where the Inquiry was deficient, particularly in challenging the broader political/judicial system, which continues in place.

      Listening to Le Marquand and Gripton trying to waffle their way around substantive points from Stuart, Rico and Neil would be a hoot if it weren't so serious.

      I am looking forward to hearing Trevor's tape after lunch.

      Gotta fly.

      Delete
    2. Oops. Next week.

      Great stuff. Thannks.

      Delete
  26. Replies
    1. Accredited Troll20 July 2017 at 19:19

      I hope the victim sues him for all his wealth.

      Delete
    2. I agree. And let's face it - he certainly has a lot of wealth - having taken his cut of the £25 million of tax-payers money - for operating the crappy, defective inadequate web-site of the CoI.

      Now - just how come this child-abuser came to get such a contract?

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  27. Am I alone in being dumbfounded by Ben Shenton talking about the Jersey Way in the JEP? Wasn't he firmly on the establishment side against Stuart/Graham/Lenny etc?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was part of the infamous trio with Jimmy Perchard and e-mail thief Sean Dooley Power.
      Dooley is the most dangerous, trying to make a political come back and getting support from some unlikely people who are non the wiser. Dooley writes most of the Jersey Action Group propaganda on behalf of a rival developer, and his writing style is all so familiar to a blog that used to be around a few years ago.

      Delete
  28. from a very strange person

    The COI said that Lewis lied in fact if one reads the transcript of his evidence he told many lies, systematically exposed through the questioning of Ms MaGahey, and he throws yet a further accusation into the pot, that Andy Baker of ACPO was a friend of Lenny so the ACPO report cannot be relied on as being accurate, and nearly forgot refers to the need to close down the "murder inquiry" both Lenny and Graham have consistently said there was no murder inquiry. How can we rely on anything he says being either truthful or accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  29. New States Chief Exec comes form Westminster City Council. Anyone recall Dame Shilry Prorter, votes for homes scandal? Just this year there's Ian Woodall pension fund manager who scamamed the council for £1millon, and a big row over 'social cleansing' exporting their homeless out of the councl area.

    Looks like he'll fit right in.

    S.O.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Interesting to juxtapose the last 2 comments. Do I detect a double standard? I think the new CO, whom I know nothing about, should be given a chance and judged on what he does in Jersey. Otherwise this is just mindless and destructive negativity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair comment ......but just because we have had a CoI report (of sorts) does not mean that Jersey has ceased to dysfunction in the same way

      It is well worth looking at the operation of their previous organisation before they come here.

      Do you remember Bowron?
      From the City of London?

      Readers should be aware that Bowron old force has form for abusing anti terror legislation.

      www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005375/Ian-Puddick-says-sinister-forces-tried-destroy-life-exposed-wifes-affair-multi-millionaire-lover-web.html

      Sussex police won't touch it because "civil matter" and the small businessman had "acted reasonably" but after a few strings are pulled Bowron's City of London Police flushed over £1m using anti terror legislation to multiple arrest and harass a businessman (plumber) at the behest of players in big business !


      Complete with threatening phone calls:
      ‘We’ve got deep, deep pockets and we’re going to **** you like you’ve never been ****ed before.’

      the City of London Police said: ‘An internal investigation found that there was no misconduct. There was no action taken.’ - Already trained in the Jersey Way!

      Delete
    2. 27 minute documentary here:

      www.cityoflondonpolicecorruption.co.uk/

      After the malicious prosecution of plumber Ian Puddick failed his tormentor was eventually sacked for abuse/fraud of company expenses which he used to ply his secretary with alcohol so he could have his way.

      Probably not that uncommon but it is the defence mechanism which this character was able to draw on which is really troubling. Not to mention the misappropriation of £1m spent on a corrupt, vindictive and dishonest police investigation.

      Bowron fitted right in here. Didn't he?

      Delete
    3. Bowron came here with a load of heavy baggage. Easy to find on Google.

      Delete
  31. Has your States finished for the summer now? If so when do they start again after their jolies?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cutting article in EP tonight by Richard Digard regarding lack of any movement on child enquiry report , who is he?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Digard is a very good commentor on the JEP and I am 99% certain he was the former Editor of the Guernsey equivalent of the JEP.

      He never fails to deliver.

      Delete
    2. Sorry. When it comes to maintaining the Jersey staus quo Digard is one of the boys. Still stuck in the days of Thatcherism and not rocking the boat. Just read his previous comment pieces. he is about as pro-democracy, justice, fairness as Ben Shenton currently being given a platform every other week to re-launch his failed political career as right wing populist of the most dangerous sort. Just pretending to have supported Stuart at the COI cannot cover up six years of nothing as a Senator.

      Delete
    3. http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/21/comment-complacency-over-inquirys-report-has-been-astonishing/

      Regardless of Digard's past performance its a good article raising some very important and valid points. Feel free to question his commitment, but its what we the people of Jersey do to tackle these issues that really matters. Until WE the people get of our asses and start lobbying/ demonstrating, and otherwise grabbing the political agenda nothing serious is going to happen. Even Gorst, and despite his protestations of total commitment will do little, and will water this down over time. Mark my words you heard it here first.

      A important target would be to not allow any Constables election to go uncontested and for turkeys to start advocating and voting for Christmas.

      NB To be clear when I say WE above I in no way wish to undermine the huge effort and personal sacrifices that many have made already. People such as Voice of course, Rico, Stuart, Bob Hill, the Pitmans and many more. Collectively though as an Island its ultimately in our hands.

      Delete
    4. Still, an interesting piece. He mentions HG but not 737. No harm widening the scope of comment though.

      Link

      Delete
    5. What stood out for me was the following from the article, ''I’m not singling out Sir Philip especially here – he has an exemplary record of public service''

      Isn't that the problem and a point of the Jersey Way?

      Delete
  33. The JEP has moved/removed their recent interview with Stuart Syvret from it's website

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/features/2017/07/17/stuart-syvret-interview-a-systemic-decades-long-betrayal-of-the-innocents/

    ...... now just gets the error message "Post not found: 404"


    Are they using the same child abuser for their website that the CoI did?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 18:18

      Perhaps they got a solicitor's letter.

      The full interview is available online here:

      Link

      This development must surely be very revealing, of something? And no explanation. Just vanished. Must go back and read it again in the light of this development.

      Incidentally it is still there in the digital edition of the JEP of 8 July 2017. Perhaps they no longer have the technical expertise to expunge it (bad joke1).

      Surely Andy Sibcy will not be following Sean Spicer as a result of it appearing in the first place?

      Delete
    2. I have reread the interview and the first thing to strike me on the re-read was how carefully it was drafted. Mike Morris & Andy Sibcy must have given it a very careful attention and I wouldn't be surprised if it was also screened by the JEP legal service.

      I could only find three areas which might have led to complaints:

      (i) Stuart mentions Terry Le Main and Frank Walker as supporting the Bailiff in opposing him continuing with his Christmas speech. I don't know if the States Hansard would have identified these two.

      (ii) Stuart is quoted as saying that the decisions of the AG were categorically political. The Inquiry report does not support this as far as I remember and as Stuart didn't give evidence, in the course of which he could have made that remark under privilege, he is probably leaving himself a bit open here.

      (iii) Stuart said there was no lawyer there representing the survivors. I'm not sure what role Alan Collins played at the Inquiry hearings, though I think he did submit evidence on behalf of the JCLA. Stuart's point about the lack of a level playing field (seven lawyers for the State) is valid but perhaps not 100% accurate.

      Anyway, you'd think the JEP and the PTB would have learned that in these matters it is often best to leave well enough alone and not attract unwanted attention by visibly suppressing material.

      Perhaps there is a completely innocent explanation (such as incompetence) for the piece's disappearance and all will be revealed in due course. :)

      Delete
  34. Graham Power had two States of Jersey Contracts of employment. One was kept in his Police HQ safe, (very safe you would think), the other in the safe hands of the States of Jersey Human Resources Department.
    No way can they go missing then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This whole area and the disgraceful behaviour of the authorities should not be let go of. Power has explained the contents as far as Operation Blast (?) is concerned but it gives the authorities a peg to hang criticism on if it is not cleared up in the present context.

      Delete
  35. I personally hope that Graham Power is able to come over to Jersey for the Public Hearing that PPC will be holding ref. Andrew Lewis. Pretty sure he would get a hero's welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Therefore, people need more time online.

    ReplyDelete
  37. JEPravda editor Andrew Sibcy to appear before PPC regarding Lewisgate?

    That should be riveting. This plonker is every bit as establishment lickspittle as his former boss Chris Bright. Probably do a "I don't recall" Bailhache number on PPC?

    Can it really be true that JEPravda only shifts 8.000 rags on some weekdays as I have been told? Seems incredible. But maybe not?

    Just like the UK election demonstrated with the JEPravda's mirror image tripe pamphlets the Sun and Daily Mail nespapers are becoming largely redundant.

    It is on line quality activism on social media (no not obvious trolling) that increasing numbers use for info now.

    Stuart would have been better off giving an interview to you.

    After these excellent GP interviews will you be following up with your earlier statement of other interviews with the major players?

    Perhaps even Integrity Lewis will give you an interview.

    ReplyDelete
  38. In fairness to the JEP they've apparently taken down that particular page because of the large number complainants they were receiving ABOUT the ludicrous toxic trolling comments ATTACKING me. I think, as it would appear a large number of their readers, and other social media sites did long ago, they've recognised the non-credibility and discredit it brings upon their comments pages to let or or two deranged individuals have hate-filled "conversations" of "agreement" with each-other under 30 different avatars. Perhaps this might herald a new era of credibility & usefulness on the part of the JEP comments sections? Let's hope so, because no-body, simply no-one, apart from the monomaniac, obsessional multi-"personality" authors of the dross regard any it for one second as anything other than obvious trolling.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only the very slow and unquestioning could have thought those familiar avatars were anything different from the repeater troll

      It ;my be just one familiar character with a history or it may include several unknown abusers who have an interest in doing you down

      However, if what you suggest is correct, the JEP's response is something of a typical reflection of the island's justice system that the JEP decided to take you out of circulation rather than their resident trolls

      We knew that the lunatics had taken over the asylum
      but now It seems that the trolls have taken over the zoo !

      Delete
    2. @ Stuart
      If that is the JEP's explanation. no way does it wash

      Delete
    3. Stuart @ 16:44

      I've never heard such a rubbish try on in all my life. JEP could have simply deleted all the comments and left the interview. If they were too think to do that they could have simply deleted the lot and republished the interview with comments closed. They certainly know how to do that last bit.

      My view is that they wanted the interview down. That particular online posting was the most accessible source of it. It was a link that could be forwarded anywhere with one click.

      As you will be aware I have published it on my site here.

      Link

      It's interesting how some of us, following the gyrations on the Inquiry site, have got into the habit of grabbing stuff while it is there.

      You mention the detrimental reflection on the JEP's "reputation" of it allowing all that trolling rubbish in comments on articles. I have had exactly the same experience with Jon and Stella and have had to take to moderating my blog as a result. He sent me another one about you this very day. Same old refrain.

      Delete
    4. Well, all I can say is that the explanation came to me from a senior well-placed source. And recently I've had reasonable treatment from said source.

      Stuart

      Delete
    5. Perhaps the well-placed source is not very knowledgeable in IT matters and therefore does not know that what he has been told is bollox

      Comments can be in-published just as easily as they are published

      My guess is that someone with leverage required the removal of your interview.

      Delete
    6. I agree, my guess is that somebody mentioned in the Interview has complained and the JEP have backed down.

      Delete
    7. Or it could be that upper management said "Hang on a minute. We have been denigrating this guy and everything he claimed for a decade now. Publishing the other side now makes us look like part of the problem"

      -which of course they are.

      Delete
    8. Jon Basil-Diggsy22 July 2017 at 22:37

      They should put Stuart's interview back up at once.

      Delete
  39. Voice, as a UK researcher, excuse my ignorance, but what was the report into police corruption in Jersey called? And where is it?

    ReplyDelete
  40. While we're reviewing the roll of honour of those skewered by the Jersey Oligarchy let us not forget their attempts to bankrupt Mike Higgins by withholding GRANT money for the airshow.

    These are the same people who were dishing out LOANS in recent times without adequate, if any, controls.

    Funny old world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Corrupt politically manipulated bankruptcies. Don't you know it is the favoured method of silencing the best of our politicians here in Jersey?

      be careful Deputy Higgins you troublesome scallywag with your awkward questions. Our currupt judiciary may be wanting to add your name to those of our finiest, Stuart Syvret and Trevor and Shona Pitman.

      Delete
  41. May I recommend that readers listen to this edition of "From Our Own Correspondent, on BBC Radio 4" - if they wish to hear one of the most accurate, insightful, & incisive of reflections upon "The-Jersey-Way" & the island's child-abuse disaster so far produced: -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08yltyb#play

    The first of the four reflections on topical events is by Christine Finn, who no longer lives on Jersey but spent her childhood here. Her knowledge and understanding of the Jersey history and "culture" which underpinned the child-abuse disaster is as clear and as accurate as any you'll read or listen to.

    Most strongly recommended.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  42. All alleged victims must be treated as being genuine when any allegations are made. It is also equally true that like the rest of the world the principle that anyone accuseed is also treated as innocent until he or she are convictedmust apply in Jersey. If reports on the grapevine are true following on from the Committee of Inquiry it is certainly concerning that now we might be moving from the appalling situation of no alleged victims being believed to one of no accused perpetrators pleading innocence being believed just so a justice system which has failed people for so many years can now portray themselves as strong and taking matters seriously. I ask the question can it really be true as rumoured that Jersey's Crown Officers are now making yet more judge made law that when an alleged victim is found to have history of making serial false allegations about people in his or her past none of that may be used by the latest to be falsely accussed by them? Could even Jersey's judicial system sing that low? It would be like something from the days of the Guildford Four. A put somebody away just to make the public think we are doing our job mentality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above would be effective State trial rigging. So of course it is probable that it happens in Jersey.

      The way the Jersey Way operates depends entirely on who those in power want to win or lose.

      A Potemkin Village just like Syvret says.

      Delete
    2. Name of the accused? If it's a present trial / appeal - unless extraordinary circumstances prevail- the identity of the accused will be known, as as will the case.

      At present, it is not possible to offer anything other than hypothetical debate here.

      Hypothetically - sure - miscarriages of justice - failures of justice - can happen. In either direction. False "guilt" - false "innocence" - happens all the time.

      Unless we, the public, can be made aware of some, at least, of the basic facts, we won't be able to come to any reasonable assessment of the specific point being made by the commentor at 16:58 - who - for all we know - when disparaging the alleged victim - could be the accused themselves?

      And I ask that question - because alarm-bells ring - when - in the context of"The-Jersey-Way" - I read that "an alleged victim is found to have a history of making serial false allegations about people in his or her past",

      Really?

      "FOUND"..???

      "to be making FALSE allegations...."

      Really - "FOUND"????

      "Found to making false allegations...." - by who?

      When?

      By what?

      You can't mean - surely - any parts or components of what has just been exposed as the catastrophically - decades-long - failed criminal-justice child "protection" apparatus of Jersey?

      Because if you do - I have to say - frankly - piss off.

      And I say that - because I know a significant number of child-abuse victims - and know of an even greater number of child-abuse-victims - who have - been entirely,falsely, wrongly, corruptly "FOUND to have been making false allegations" by the corrupt, failed, stagnant Jersey system, at any number of points over the post-WWII decades. "Found" to have been making false allegations - when - in fact - their complaints were true.

      And if some of those victims are now - rightly - being believed - having been wrongly dismissed in the past, then good.

      And if the author of that comment has anything approaching real concern for the good administration of justice - then they will agree the only reliably effective safe-guard we can have - is a 100% de-politicised policing, prosecution, and judicial system.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
    3. Police evidently yet from your piss off comment it seems you are happy that even what appears to be innocent people may suffer at the hands of our wonderful justice system. Possibly you are the person ever wronged the Jersey gangsters?

      Delete
    4. That should have read possibly you are the only person ever wronged by the Jersey gangsters.

      Delete
    5. "Police" - "evidently"???

      Well. Really.

      Which "police force" was that, then?

      Honorary? States?

      And when?

      Under which leadership?

      And - especially - which officers were involved?

      But before we even address those questions - a simpler, more fundamental point arises.

      You know - to any thinking person - the reasonable response to the 18:55 comment is "QED".

      Because it is rare occasion indeed - rare indeed - when a "police-force" can come to a decision which possesses legal vires - a lawful decision - of such magnitude - such apparent binding, finality - as to "find" - "an alleged victim is found to have history of making serial false allegations".

      Since when was a "police-force" - a "court".

      Answer: they aren't.

      If it were possible for a police-force to produce a "legal" finding - as is the 'strength' of the claim made by the commentor at 16:58 for the apparent "finding" - to the effect a witness was a repeat liar - then why do we bother paying for a prosecution system, and a judiciary - at all?

      Perhaps the commentor is a fan of Judge Dredd?

      No police-force can lawfully come to decisions of such magnitude - decisions to pre-judge and preempt entire criminal trials - by usurping the courts sole lawful power to adjudicate upon the credibility of witnesses.

      Least of all any "police-force" in Jersey.

      It is more apparent than it was already - that the comment at 16:58 is attempting to maintain "The-Jersey-Way".

      "Have enough friends in - or influence over - Jersey-police?" - "Then you too can avoid all that terribly 'inconvenient' & 'tiresome' charging and prosecution business!! Your friendly Boys-In-Blue can simply 'Pre-Find' your victims to be serial-lairs!!! See you down the Lodge - for the usual arrangements!!!!"

      Sometimes - it's as though the last ten years haven't happened.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
    6. Your not making any sense

      Delete
    7. I don't know the details of the case(s) referred to above but I am sick of your attitude SS. So speaketh Jersey's only victim?

      All so rich too from a man happy to find people guilty in his own Royal Court of the blog for years.

      If your experiences at the hands of Jersey justice taught you anything it should have been that said Jersey justice cuts both ways but always to achieve the result the old boys want.

      You really are a pathetic whiner and a total hypocrite.

      Delete
    8. I refer to the 18.58 comment not making any sense ...

      Delete
    9. Please keep the comments cordial. There's no need for personal insults.

      Delete
    10. Most interesting comments from 16:58 onwards. I rather think, contrary to 19:53, Mr Syvret is making perfect sense. He points out the fact that a police force is a police force. Not a prosecution system or a judiciary, so cannot be qua finders of adjudicative facts. But the commentator at 16:58 attempts to make such claim of ‘power’ for the police, ascribing to them the authority to ‘find’ against a putative victim, ‘finding’ them to be liars and their putative attackers ‘innocent’, all without the scrutiny and decision of a court. Mr Syvret is entirely correct to point out that cannot be so in any lawful sense. And that would be correct in any respectable jurisdiction. In the present circumstance of Jersey it is doubly true. At present your island’s very child protection system is in a condition of catastrophic public mistrust. God only knows how much worse things will get if unlawful, empty assertions by the past apparatus are able to be cited as authority in present or future cases, as 16:58 would have it. Mr Syvret is right. All such earlier putative ‘findings’ by your criminal justice system have to now be regarded as unsafe. Especially so when they are the unscrutinised ‘findings’ of a mere police force.

      And as an aside, may I add that the tone and anger of the personal attacks against Stuart Syvret in some of these recent comments does appear go as evidence to the suggestion your local newspaper may have had enough of carrying poisonous personal attacks against this man. Whatever his deficiencies, he was on the right the side from the beginning of this controversy. I’m very much getting the sense of a certain individual being besides themselves with uncontainable rage and fear for having been on the wrong side throughout. I’d advise to omit those comments.

      Delete
    11. What a silly comment at the end of 20.25's post. It would seem that everyone must agree with Stuart Syvret and if they don't they are probably the loathsome troll. 20.25 even asks that you omit such comments. How like the troll that is wanting to shut up anyone who holds counter views.

      I too have no idea about the case or perhaps cases that a reader mentiones above but I can well believe what the reader describes happening here. What I can also understand is the comments at 19.41. If Stuart can be stitched up by Jersey's wonderful stewards of justice then it can certainly happen to others.

      Delete
    12. I'm grateful VFC published my comment. And rather wistful that I have to respond further to this thread as of 20:48, to show the correctness of my previous comment. You see? For all the time and space which becomes consumed here with diversionary personal attacks against Stuart Syvret, the less and less likely it becomes that the necessary informed public debate focused upon facts will occur. And the less and less likely others will be encouraged to think about the important issues.

      And to prove the point, I invite readers to reflect on the comments from 16:58, including the comment at 20:48, and ask the question 'where have those who dispute his argument, dealt with Mr Syvret's basic point that an unscrutinised 'finding' of a police force can have no vires as some form of 'condemnation' of a putative victim, or 'finding' of 'innocence' against the putative attacker? In the previous comments we see no such argument advanced. Because there isn't one. Instead we see diversionary hatred. I make no apology for repeating my advice to this blog. If people wish to dispute certain factual arguments, by all means host such debate. But beware the risk of carrying empty personal abuse instead of rational discussion. I believe some of your other readers describe the Jersey newspaper's comment section as being a 'troll zoo'. This site should be better than to go down that path. And as one of your regular readers and occasional, I hope thoughtful, contributors I'd ask that my time is not wasted having to deal with nonsense, if my meagre efforts at relevant observations are valued.

      Delete
    13. It is a great shame that the commentator at 21.14 cannot face up to the truth of comments pointing out the hypocrisy of Mr Syvret's attacks on a reader's observations given his many years of setting himself up as police, judge and jurors regarding any he decided were wrong doers. That he was right about a good number isn't the point. All who read this blog must be aware that anyone could be denied justice in what is supposedly Jersey's court of law. Such people don't have to be well known or public figures. Would anyone also be daft or blinkered enough to suggest that an alleged victim (be it of abuse or some other apparent crime) has never in fact made it all up for all number of possible reasons. 21,14 is unfortunately spouting diversionary twaddle.

      Delete
    14. This is quite tiresome, but as the fundamental cause behind your decades of child abuse cover up is a failure for people to understand law, I hope this is worth it. The reader at 21:16 displays the problem perfectly, when they assert that Mr Syvret has 'set himself up as police, judge and jurors regarding any he decided were wrong doers.' That is a false claim. Under no circumstance I am aware of has Stuart Syvret ever claimed to be a police officer, a juror, or a judge, and therefore able to make relevant 'legal' decisions concerning individuals. Important legal factual point. And let me invite the commentator to point out any publication by Stuart Syvret where he did claim to be a police officer, juror, or judge? What the reader in fact is objecting to, is Stuart Syvret publishing on his blog allegations of criminal wrong doing against certain individuals and against those who shield such purported criminals. But to have done as Mr Syvret did is journalism. Investigative journalism. And if Mr Syvret was wrong, the remedy available to those who were innocent of the allegations he published was to sue him for defamation. However, by way of contrast the original commentator at 16:58 makes the claim that a 'finding', an unscrutinised 'finding' of a police force can be and should be the legally binding, credible authority within the adjudicative criminal justice system. No. It can't.

      You see? The simple and clear difference between what is lawful, a person engaging in investigative journalism, and that which is unlawful, the unscrutinised usurpation of open judicial processes by a mere police force. It isn't complicated.

      Delete
    15. A commenter claims to have heard "on the grapevine" that "Jersey's Crown Officers are now making yet more judge made law that when an alleged victim is found to have history of making serial false allegations about people in his or her past none of that may be used by the latest to be falsely accussed (sic) by them".

      The only person who can make judge-made law is a judge, and judgments are published, so no need to rely on a fictitious grapevine - just point us to the cases you have in mind so we can read them for ourselves.

      At the same time, perhaps the commenter can give us his thoughts on the principle that each case should tried upon its merits. Past convictions should be considered when determining innocence or guilt, so should the same principle not apply to the evidence of a victim?

      Interesting to speculate on the motives of the commenter in making such a comment. He wouldn't, by any chance, have had complaints of abuse made against himself? It certainly sounds like it...

      Delete
    16. Cor blimey! Now everyone who talks about injustice in the court must have had complaints made against them to make them feel that way. As it seems it only takes someone to accuse a person to define them as guilty Stuart must have been guilty as charged in our wonderful court on the word of the four proxies?

      Delete
    17. "Cor blimey" indeed. No one is suggesting that anyone is guilty of an accusation unless proved to be in a functional and fit for purpose court.

      Like the rest of us Anon @22:35 is desperately searching for an explanation of your apparent inability to understand and accept the well explained (and correct) arguments from the carpenter and the lawyer.

      The carpenter specifically concedes the difficulty of ensuring that justice is always done and I expect that the lawyer would do likewise.

      It is because they are correct that you are now trying a different tack?

      I think that you would do well to take the carpenter's advice.

      Delete
  43. Its hard to believe that Stuart Syvret has accepted what the JEP's top and trusted (by him), person has told him.
    He has been proved right after all these years, and the JEP have admitted this, yet he is ready to let this newspaper that over the years have nothing but trashed him, take his finest hour to date off line!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real story and what we should all be talking about is how not a single States Member is talking about the true big issue when in the States. This is the fact that our judiciary is corrupt beyond argument. Yet all are afraid to mention it. Not even Higgins and Tadier. The question is why.

      Delete
    2. Accredited Troll24 July 2017 at 02:12

      Stuart should never have bothered with this stupid newspaper.
      What have they ever done for him, or the Pitmans, or anybody else who they decide to snipe at?

      Delete
  44. When is Deputy Tadier's removal of the Bailiff proposition being debated?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Stuart Syvret is absolutely right. All cases must be judged on their merits.Let's consider a fictional example.

    Mr W accuses Mr X of abuse, assualt or whatever.

    Mr X denies this but learns it is going to go to court anyway.

    Along comes Mrs Y. Mrs Y knows both people and tells police she will give evidence that what Mr W has claimed could not be true.

    Mr W learns of this and now claims that Mrs Y abused, assaulted him as well even though he has never mentioned these claims earlier.

    Finally as the ficticious court case gets closer suddenly Mr W retracts these alleagations against Mrs Y admitting that he made them up.

    Learning of all this Mr X understandably wants to use this rather shocking admittance in court. But the court refuses.

    Would this be an instance of a case being decided on its merits or would the jury only be getting half a story?

    I am no lawyer, police officer (or troll for that matter). Don't have much faith in either in Jersey to be quite blunt. But to meet Stuart's outline of matters needing to be decided on their full merits I know which I lean toward.

    Can I end by asking everyone to stop slagging each other off for their differing views and keep the focus on justice. That way maybe things will begin to improve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a typical real life Jersey Royal Court case where the Chuckle brothers or their lap dogs want a particular decision? Of is the hypothosis based on a case from our twined state of Saudi Arabia?

      Delete
    2. But you left out a few important details. There is DNA evidence and clear CCTV footage of Mr X abusing Mr W. There are also claims of abuse against Mr X by Mr A, B, C, D and E, none of whom know each other, and all of whom give a similar account of Mr X's modus operandi.

      Mr X knows that Mrs Y is having an affair with Mr Z and threatens to tell her husband if she doesn't back-up his story and rubbish Mr W's testimony. Mrs Y also knows Mr S, who is Mr X's boss, and asks him to threaten to sack Mr W if he doesn't drop his claim that she abused him, in return for favours.

      Half the story indeed.

      Delete
    3. But of course 11.28's ficticious case is clearly not the same one as 23.46's ficticious case and has nothing to do with the revolting Mr K from a real well known case.

      Which all begs the question why are some so desperate to cloud the true issue at hand? Justice and an honest court.

      Delete
    4. Of course all right-thinking people want justice, and we are all aware of the possibility of false allegations, so what need it there to cloud the true issue with such diversionary guff?

      Let's put this in the context of the Jersey child abuse catastrophe, which has seen dozens - perhaps hundreds - of abuse victims over many decades have their legitimate, truthful testimony ignored, rubbished, refused and ridiculed by the Jersey authorities.

      The overwhelming failure of justice here is the failure by the island's civil service, its politicians, its police, its lawyers, its crown officers and its courts to ensure that abuse victims were received justice. Instead, most were bullied and oppressed - some to the point of taking their own lives.

      In this context, for a commenter to post supposed concerns heard on "the grapevine" about refusal by the crown officers to allow false allegations of abuse to be refuted in court, and claim that we need to be aware of the dangers of such injustice, is frankly obnoxious. It is yet another insidious way to undermine the credibility of abuse survivors.

      It is also the exact form of unalloyed arrogance and brazen victim-blaming dishonesty that is a hallmark of most abusers.

      Delete
    5. Just reading that "fictional" example. I thought I had my finger on the pulse but I'm at a loss to guess who Mr W, X, A, B, C, D, S, Z
      and Mrs Y are!

      Believable story, for Jersey

      Delete
  46. Actually I suspect that there is more to this attempt to slag off Stuart Syvret than meets the eye ... a foundation of Mr K's defence when questioned by the COI was indeed that he was being falsely accused and that the police had 'proved' as much ... his words not mine. Quite naturally the COI took issue with his claim ... as they did with a lot of things that he said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is, I forgot to mention, Mr K the golfer ... not the other Mr K

      Delete
  47. The Carpenter Troll24 July 2017 at 13:01

    Diversionary nonsense@06.44. Cor, cor blimey indeed! Far from taking a different tack I am not the same person as the original poster, unlike the apparent capenter and lawyer who from the writing are clearly the same person.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Time for a new post I suggest? The return of the bogus lawyer who can't say which firm he works for is taking this post in to ever decreasing circles. How about a Lenny Harper interview?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite so ....."ever decreasing circles" ....which focused us in on the fundamental flaws in the apparently diversionary posts starting at 16:58


      "How about a Lenny Harper interview" All in good time. I think we should leave Ex Police Chief Graham Power at the top for a bit.
      Why so desperate that we move on???

      There is something so "bogus" about your post
      and the other ones :-)
      #moveonjon

      Delete
  49. It is high time our government re-claimed its sovereignty from the Bailiff's court. Until this happens we can forget any form of fit for purpose judicial system.

    Not very likely to happen though is it when not one of 49 members is even bringing the issue up within the debates arising from the COI report.

    I have always voted like most of your readers no doubt. But do our votes really make any difference? I no longer know.

    ReplyDelete
  50. OK, here's an idea... Standing Orders provides a mechanism (Schedule 1) by which members of the public may submit a petition to the States. How about a petition requesting that the States and / or the Chief Minister make a formal apology to Stuart Syvret for their behaviour towards him when he exposed the extent and nature of the child abuse scandal?

    Perhaps a second item on the petition to provide for a mechanism by which parliamentary privilege can be removed when a States Member is believed to have deliberately lied and / or committed perjury?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Stuart is most deserving of a public apology. But would the apology instantly dismiss the secret injunction placed upon him? Words would account for virtually nothing if it is not removed and deliberately squashed. The injunction was a state-led operation to oppress him. They should admit it too and apologise for it specifically. Also, the nurse Stuart named in public interest should be re-investigated. That was another state-led decision to hide, then drop the investigation for the interest of the image of Jersey which the establishment hold way too high. A true apology not only says sorry but also aims to put right, make amends. All the claims Stuart makes are reasonable, they're all in the public interest- for example, the rule of law, a fundamental democratic principle. We shouldn't have to ask for it in 21st Century Europe. It's simply an appalling mess, this whole thing. I'd like to see Syvret compensated as well as the multiple apologies. His life has been ruined by the establishment in their pursuit of covering up child abuse, and other notable crimes such as the serial rapist whose case was being investigated and then dropped immediately when Graham Power was suspended.

      Delete
    2. I have no knowledge of any injunctions to which Stuart may be subject, but what I do know is that if a petition is widened to the point that it appears to be an "omnirant", it will be rejected out of hand.

      The petition I describe is limited in scope to matters specifically relevant to the States as a body, and is not moderate in scope. The first part - the apology - is long overdue. The States as a body behaved despicably towards Stuart; remember the Christmas speech debacle, the Horst Wessel foot-stomping, the spittle-flecked hatred, the grotesque way in which Frank Walker, chief minister, sided with the abusers and their protectors. An apology might only be words, but words can have great power, and a transformative effect. They won't give Stuart his life back, but they will be significant.

      The second part is a clearly-needed curtailment of an over wide privilege. States members should be able to rely on a high degree of legal protection over what they say in the States (all the more ironic considering what was done to Stuart Syvret for exercising that right). However, that protection clearly needs to be based on good faith. A member who deliberately sets out to mislead the States should be subject to criminal sanction.

      Delete
    3. An apology for Graham Power should be top of the agenda. Then some compensation.

      Delete
    4. Hello 18:28, let's assume a double victory, an apology to Stuart and the introduction of prosecution for lying States Members, is this sufficient? IMO this is merely tinkering around the edges. IYO, what else, if anything, needs to follow?

      Delete
    5. 01:08
      Good lord, no... nowhere near sufficient. Off the top of my head we need the following:
      Abolition of the role of Bailiff
      A truly independent, impartial, and accountable prosecution service
      Ditto court system
      Transfer of the right to charge suspects from the parish police to the States police
      A new law introducing a statutory requirement for public employees to report suspicion of criminal behaviour (along the ines of the money laundering legislation).
      Statutory protection of whistleblowers in public service, and criminal sanction for managers who victimise them.
      A children's commissioner who is truly independent and appointed by a panel that includes representatives of abuse survivors.
      Independent inspection of all States run facilities, with genuine powers to require remediation, including removal of staff who underperform
      Independent review of complaints of abuse, by a UK prosecutor, to consider cases where no charges were laid, to consider whether they should be brought forward.
      Independent review of the actions of Attorneys General to consider whether they acted in good faith at all times.
      States to abolish the practise of in-camera sittings, unless public security is involved.
      Criminal investigation of former senior police officers, senior civil servants and states members involved in the suspension of Graham Power
      A public apology to Mr Power

      Possibly a bit ambitious for a single petition... one step at a time.

      Delete
    6. Thanks 18:20 & 09:37. It wasn't clear to me from your earlier post if you thought your petition was sufficient or not. Also, I wasn't sure what you meant by "omnirant". It's not on google. I agree with your extended list or requirements. Essentially it's the Rule of Law within a functioning democracy that you, I and others seek for Jersey. It's interesting that 10:32 has given up, believing this won't happen in the current era. I'd like to remain more optimistic, even if the only hope is a black swan event.

      Delete
  51. Do our votes make any difference ... yes but only insofar as voting gives legitimacy to the claim that Jersey is truly democratic

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think PPC met yesterday in closed session to discuss Andrew Lewis. Any news?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prediction. This will be spun out until after the election. As an aside I thought Deputy Sam Mezec was on PPC? Is he not interested in anything else apart from reform no matter how nonsesical like the Andrew Lewis drivel?

      Delete
  53. If I may I would like to say a very big respect and thank you for all of your hard work down the years. On the matters of HDLG and that wider monster we know is the Jersey Way your blog has provided cutting edge and always balanced analysis. I have not always agreed with you and your team's views but certainly never once doubted your integrity in providing such a highly professional service. Like only a handful, less than a handful set within the bigger picture really, you have always stuck to telling the narrative as you saw it. No doubt at significant risk when we see what has happened to some of our other champions.

    Now I am afraid that I have reached the end of my endurance. Our island will never change I sadly believe. Certainly not in this current era. Too many who hold positions of power just do not care about the issues at hand. Or possibly are simply too cowardly. Some who do care seem to have gradually become stuck in a repeating cycle of everything being all about their own trevails resulting in comment sections to great articles just chasing their tails.

    Not much you can do about this I accept. Vetting comments and wanting everyone to be able to have their say must be hard at the best of times.For those who see wider, more important issues and angles getting buried in all of this it is still all quite depressing though. I don't think Jersey has a best blog award but if it did you and those who assist you would certainly be serial winners over the seven or eight years I have followed things.

    Thank you again for all you have done or tried to do. Hopefully one day Jersey will have a government and court system worthy of the titles. Goodbye and best of luck. You have been an inspiration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @10:32
      Odd to apparently be throwing the towel in just at the point when the side of incompetence, abuse and cover up is at it's most vulnerable ever.

      The fake CoI is far from a total victory but has resulted in the taking of huge tracts of ground with the quality blogs (like you say) not only holding the moral high ground but being seen to hold it.

      Surely now is the time for consolidation to stop the forces of evil insidiously creeping back over their lost ground.

      Further victory might only be achieved through targeted civil disobedience.
      Otherwise we may as well not have bothered and lube ourselves up!
      (and also the children, of course)

      Delete
  54. It may interest readers to know that the interview I did with the JEP has now been re-posted by that organisation. It can be read at the following link: -

    "A Decades-Long Betrayal of the Innocents": -

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/features/2017/07/25/stuart-syvret-interview-a-systemic-decades-long-betrayal-of-the-innocents-2/

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good that they put it back up

      Several days offline will have got it off their most read list so few will find it now?

      Delete
    2. Look ... it's back ... be happy!

      Delete
    3. Stuart @ 15:28

      I note it's not open to comments.

      Slow learners.




      Delete
    4. It's centre stage in the features page ... so well done jep ... something I thought I would never say !!!

      Delete
  55. It's rare enough that the JEP does anything we usually agree with, so when they do, let's show some appreciation eh? The interview is back up, which is great. And I don't think we've given them enough credit for interviewing Stuart in the first place. Think about it. They could have chosen any number of people to do that 1st major interview after the COI report came out. I thought it was very significant that of all people, they chose Stuart. And they were right to. I bet they got dog's abuse from certain quarters for making that brave choice. Let's give them a chance. Maybe its a sign of a better msm in future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is also a pretty damn good interview for the JEP

      We must keep an eye on them and hope for more of this quality and balanced reporting.

      The next few months and the run up to the next election will help us make up our minds

      Delete
    2. Always thought the JEP nothing more than the mouthpiece for the powerful. But maybe the Syvret interview is a watershed moment? Today they are even publishing revelations on a court case that even this blog hasn't covered yet. Have they got a new editor or owners or something?

      Delete
  56. May I take this opportunity to commend Polo for his dogged determination to find out whether Mick Gradwell ever interviewed witness 737 in the days after Graham Power's suspension. I'm sure Polo can provide the primary source of evidence of the planned meeting - somewhere in Mick Gladwell's inquiry evidence, wasn't it Polo?

    This is one of the biggest unanswered question of all the police investigations. If the planned interview was cancelled, why? On whose authority?

    ReplyDelete
  57. I can't find any trace of witness 737 on the COI web site... did this person actually give evidence... if not why is he called witness 737?

    ReplyDelete
  58. The importance of this cannot be underestimated it is a real pin to balloon moment. Obviously all of the 'it's an operational matter' defences will be brought to play. Keepi going Polo Slan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 23:59

      Thanks for the compliment. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was paying attention.

      I have described this as a litmus test of whether the police inquiry was affected by Power's dismissal or not.

      Either way it is, as described by Anonymous @ 07:52, a pivotal moment.

      If the interview did not take place and under the conditions specified (under caution as a suspect) then the Inquiry was affected and Power's suspicion of who might have been behind his dismissal takes on a new life. In that case the Jersey Inquiry's ruling out of his dismissal from their remit on the grounds that it had nothing to do with interference in the police inquiry would become a serious error on their part and undermine one of their comfortable findings.

      If the interview did take place as specified in Gradwell's Policy Record, then we should know the result of it and, here again, the question of further follow up arises. We know there are a number of allegations against Person 737, but for the record these relate to serial rape of a female adult or adults.

      Person 737 was not a witness at the Jersey Inquiry as their remit related to child sexual abuse. However, particularly if the interview did not take place, it could be argued that they should have called Person 737 as a witness in relation to outside interference in the police inquiry.

      You can see the basis for my ongoing curiosity at the link below to the documentation submitted by Mick Gradwell.

      Link Page 77

      Delete
  59. Could someone please explain why person/witness 737 has been given this title if he was not a witness at the COI.?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Because he was referred to in Graham Power's statement/documentation in relation to an outstanding investigation into serial rape allegation and the Inquiry felt obliged to protect his identity.

    Mind you they didn't do a very good job on that either.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Good to see the real reason for the UK government doing nothing about judicial corruption and cover ups like Haut de la Garenne in the newspapers again. Along with the Netherlands the UK is the leading player in disappearing owed taxes to financial cesspits like tax have Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anymore news on A Lewis? Its when will he go, rather than if he goes.
    Looking forward to the bi-election.

    ReplyDelete