Sunday, August 7, 2011

3 Politicians & A Gimp -Jersey 2011

The Trolling Gimp

Senator Shenton 

Senator Perchard

Deputy Power

What is it with these 4?

On this blog posting I will be publishing the reply that the JCLA sent Chris Bright of the JEP.

First up I wish Stuart Syvret all the best for tomorrow.  No matter what happens the fight goes on. Tomorrows judgement is the beginning of the real stuff. Judge Pritchers knows that it's not as simple as just putting Syvret in Jail - unlike a local Magistrate  who was  under the spell of Stephen Baker. 

We are also heading into the next election - no doubt this will be keeping us all on our toes as Team Ozouf/ Walker go into some Viagra Endused Election Feeding Frenzy - interesting times.  We will also be looking at the Establishment Big Gun the Feudal King himself Sir Philip of Bailhache - Sharp Report - Holland Affair- Reg's Skips - Independence - Liberation Day Speech 2008 - Illegally kicking Syvret out  the States for 6 months  etc etc etc plus all the other right wingers they will be trying to force through so Senator Ozouf can become Chief Minister.

I was asked the other day that if I had to choose between Senator Le Marquand or Senator Ozouf to become Chief Minister who would I choose, the answer is very simple,  it was Senator Le Marquand.  This might shock some people but I have my reasons and all will explained over the coming months but let us not be under any doubt as to where Senator Ozouf and his Right Wing Puppet Masters are leading us.

The next round of BDO Scrutiny hearings are looming on the Horizon  there are many unanswered questions relating to this. The one im trying to get my head around is that the likes of Perchard, Shenton, Power and their Gimp Like Troll are looking to all corners of the world to try and stick a leak on Lenny Harper yet under their very noses they have Mick Gradwell who WAS  leaking to known Abuse Denier Journalist David Rose but there not interested WHY???????????

Guys, what's the problem here?

You have the Abuse Survivors best interests at heart here surely???


You don't need wild Goose Chasers concerning the 'NOTW' why haven't you lodged any questions concerning the conduct of D/Supt Mick Gradwell - Come on boys I don't get it. Why are you all Anti Harper/ Abuse Investigation?  What happened before the 23rd February 2008 that got you all fired up. The fact that you have used a Child Abuse Investigation to try and trash and undermine the lead SIO Lenny Harper says more about you than him.  The one thing that would make your conduct easier to fathom is  publishing all the good things that you have done concerning the Child Abuse Investigation you know an impartial stance - but nothing you Attack Attack Attack.

On this video from Scrutiny im talking about Senator Le Marquand & D/Supt Mick Gradwell - 

The below letter is from the JCLA to the JEP

You can read the original letter that they refused to publish here


Rico Sorda

Team Voice

3'd August 2011 

Dear Mr Bright, 

Thank you for your letter dated 28ft July outlining your reasons for not wishing to publish our letter in its fullest form.  However, we have no intention of redrafting this letter as suggested, and indeed if we can make the following points perhaps you will see why. Firstly, nowhere did we say your headline mentioned leaks, indeed we quoted your headline exactly as it was. However the article that followed was clearly about leaks, and indeed more than half the article is focussed on Lenny Harper therefore leaving readers in no doubt as to what you were inferring, and which I believe Mr Harper shares similar sentiments about. Misleading journalism at its worst/best? Only the public canjudge. 

Secondly, you do not state which 'assumptions' you feel are unsubstantiated or potentially defamatory, so let us try and work it out for ourselves. The behaviour of Messrs Shenton and Power has been widely published in the public domain, so we can assume you are not referring to them. Mr Gradwell is now known to have leaked information to the press. This has been confirmed at the BDO Scrutiny hearing, and Mr Warcup is also known to have refused Lenny Harper to be interviewed as part of the same enquiry. That is on public record.  Is it therefore Mr Perchard you are speaking of? It is in the public domain both in sworn affidavits from Graham Power and LennyHarper that he indeed leaked confidential information to David Rose. I quote from a comment Mr Harper has already made, again publicly - 'However for their benefit, at no time, unlike Perchard and Gradwell did I unlawfully leak confidential information to any journalist. Let me repeat again - David Rose in a reeorded conversation admitted that Perchard leaked him a confidential police e mail. Perchard was the recipient of that e mail. that is why we suggested that Mr Perchard's behaviour should also be subject to investigation alongside that of Mr Gradwell. You also state that the behaviour of David Rose would be extraordinary behaviour for any journalist. However it would seem to us that Mr Rose IS no ordinary journalist! 

It is quite easy to do searches on the internet to see he has not always behaved in a professional  manner. Just again to quote one source it is said of him - David Rose is a British journalist who by his own admission served as a conduit for intelligence 

disinformation on both sides of the Atlantic. Three of his stories, based on alarmist testimony from INC defectors and asserting an lraq-al-Qaida link' played a key role in selling the Iraq war.

Rose has also repeatedly written articles misquoting scientists on climate change. This journalist who could not possibly behave in an extraordinary manner is also a known child abuse denier. 

However, with hindsight, it came as no great surprise that you would not publish our letter. There has nevei been a great deal of interest in the abuse survivors from the JEp, as indeed the only interest into the Historic Abuse enquiry seems to have been to 

trash both that and Mr. Power and Mr Harper. 

We are disappointed that once again the abuse survivors have not been afforded the opportunity io put their views forward in your papef. As you are probably aware our original letter has now appeared on a couple of blogs where we hope it will be read by 

many people. 

Yours sincerely 



Anonymous said...

Well done JCLA....
The JEP is a waste of paper...

voiceforchildren said...


The JEP seem to be a bit of a HOT TOPIC.

No surprise that they won't publish anything from the Abuse Survivors but will put up photo's of Perchard (Potty Mouth) Power and Shenton (in an election year) questioning the integrity of the very person who exposed Jersey's filthy and sordid secret(s)...............with more to come.

Anonymous said...

Welcome back, hope you had a good break.

Its funny, in a desperately sad and despicable way that 3 politicians, a troll and lets not for get his master are so fixated on trashing an investigation into child abuse. I don't offer an explanation as to what they hope to acheive, all I can think of is they have such a personal vendetta they must do nothing but carry on. Alternatively, they are probably saying the same about you and other blogs, what is your personal reason to want it to carry on and wy dont you lay it to bed.

I can only put it down to two sides of the story, one side cares about what went on in states homes for children and wants to protect them in the future. The other doesn't give a monkeys providing their personal vendettas continue and/or any outcome of an inquiry does not affect business as usual in their own specific businesses.

All 4/5 of these people have their own reasons in my opinion

1. Dont want to lose business to other companies because even the tax dodgers draw a line.

2. Are no better than Stuart Syvret when it comes to releasing information in the public interest.

3. Have gone a bit further and told somebody to kill themself so need the limelight removed.

4. Is a troll that has spent the last god knows how many years writing rubbish on comment pages or blogs etc and then got caught out saying their name in a recorded conversation.

5. Started a blog only interested in trashing the abuse investigation, receives multiple posts from 4 and probably 3,2 and 1 above plus TLM and once even made the effort in a blog post to say he or she actually was concerned.

All five of the above points I make indicate to me at least that none of the above give a monkeys about child abuse. It's all about denying it at all costs and protecting their own interests, apart from 4 perhaps as not sure a troll has any interests bar trolling and kissing bottoms.

Thats my moan over, eat it up BS, SP, JP, TLM and the other 2 i wont initialise as they arent politicians so will respect their anonymity.

Anonymous said...

It's been publicly declared Mick Gradwell WAS leaking information yet the three goons and the JEP say nothing. Instead they turn it round to try and trash Lenny Harper and the child abuse investigation by asking if he Could have leaked anything. Why aren't you asking questions about Gradwell Perchard Power and empty seat Shenton?

Anonymous said...

Troll Gimp well funny

Anonymous said...

Rico, why have you posted a picture of Deputy Dawg?

voiceforchildren said...



You know the one? The one that Mick Gradwell has given any evidence to. Have Sean Power Jimmy Perchard or Ben Shenton got any questions to ask about that?

Lenny Harper and Graham Power have both submitted evidence, but not Gradwell? More about that (and Potty Mouth) coming up in part 4 of the interview with Lenny Harper.........

rico sorda said...

"Rico, why have you posted a picture of Deputy Dawg?"

All will be explained in the future .


Anonymous said...

I would like to know, if, once the findings of Scrutiny are finalised could they take independent legal advice on the findings.?

Anonymous said...

Jersey, ruled by the rich running the taxes, middle earners, in general only concerned if the status quo changes and the lower paid expecting their vote is worth nothing. Fantastic, just how it's meant to be!!

rico sorda said...

"I would like to know, if, once the findings of Scrutiny are finalised could they take independent legal advice on the findings."

I have no idea on this does anyone else?


Anonymous said...

The findings will get slung in the bin along with every other scrutiny report that's ever been done.

Anonymous said...

Good Luck to Stuart Also, Behind You All The Way. Maybe you should get statements from some if the victims you know, because myself for sure are forever grateful to you Stuart because if it had not been for you, this would still be hidden by our corrupt government. I know it has been very distressing & disturbing for us victims to go thru all we have had to, but we knew it had to be done & I will always be forever grateful to you. Thank You. JDA

Anonymous said...

See section 4 Scrutiny & public accounts committee

Progress in some areas has been slower than I would have liked and, in particular, the issue of legal advice to Scrutiny remains unresolved. This is an important issue which has identified some fundamental questions regarding the operation of Ministerial government. I am hopeful that a resolution will be achieved early in 2007.

I will keep looking not sure if this was resolved but does not look as though it could be ruled out.

Anonymous said...

following on from earlier post. 4.5.2. Code of Practice

This was drafted and approved by the Chairmen’s Committee in early 2006. It subsequently suffered a lengthy delay in lodging “au Greffe” due to ongoing discussions with the Council of Ministers about Scrutiny access to legal advice, both to its own function from the Law Officers’ Department and access to advice given to Ministers from that Department. The draft Code of Practice was finally lodged “au Greffe” on 15th August 2006, only to be withdrawn on 7th November 2006 as the matter relating to the legal advice issue had not progressed. To date, this matter remains unresolved.

I have read somewhere, though cannot find at the moment Mr. Shenton himself discussing this subject.

Anonymous said...

found what I was looking for. See first para page 16

worth reading all the way through top of page 16

Anonymous said...

The original letter by the JLA and their response letter to the JEP show the JLA to be on firm ground, factually. They also demonstrate an articulate grasp of media bias and dissect it very, very well. The JEP will be loathe to let readers see it!


rico sorda said...


Anonymous said...

More naughty press leaks, this time involving Jonathon Sumption!!!

Anonymous said...

Is Dinah Rose any relation to David Rose?

Anonymous said...

Rico, after a very good result today in the Royal Court you will be also pleased to hear that Andrew Lewis will be standing for Deputy in St John. The Circus is coming to town lol how the circus is coming to town....

Anonymous said...

Stuart Syvret standing for Senator what a result... I hope people can help with his fine... Keep going on the BDO plus please don't stop asking the questions. The Jersey Blogs are really good even Ted Viberts last posting..

Ian Evans said...


Anonymous said...

Please post up how much he was fined and I know people will want to dig deep

Anonymous said...

It’s good to see JCLA standing up for what they believe in and they put forward a very good and researched argument however, it would be even better if some of our local politicians could publicly support them a bit more. Interestingly the Perchard leaking has been in the public domain since 2008 when Guernsey Press published Lenny Harpers’ letter “reproduced below” in response to Frank Walkers attack on the Guernsey Press. Perhaps they would consider publishing the JCLA press release in stead?

“Guernsey Press 9th September 2011
‘Support is not there from large majority of politicians’
I DO not wish to get involved in any political arguments about the relative merits of the islands’ legal systems, nor do I wish to get involved in a slanging match with the chief minister, but there are a number of points in his letter which need challenging, writes Lenny Harper (pictured).
Firstly, I would challenge his view on the priorities of all those involved.
Although the two Home Affairs ministers in Jersey were unstinting in their support for the enquiry, the minister and his assistant who had responsibility for child welfare spent all of their time sniping at the enquiry from the sidelines and engaging in petty insults to officers involved by sending childish emails to States colleagues.
According to the journalist, David Rose, one of them leaked an official States email to him and one of them or the small band of politicians sympathetic to them, called the victims ‘people with criminal records and disturbed minds’.
Someone in the States leaked to the media that the enquiry had cost £6m. when in fact it was half that and the other half consisted of other departments claiming costs, including somewhere in the region of over £1m. for legal fees.
This is also in an environment where, in the presence of the Home Affairs minister, a senior politician tried to instruct me to remove the word, ‘victims’, from a press release as ‘nothing has been proved yet’.
The Home Affairs minister, as she has been throughout, was supportive of our stance and I refused.
Let me make it clear that only the two Home Affairs ministers have continually supported the investigation in public and in private.
The chief minister made whatever resources were needed available and stated so publicly early on. A number of politicians approached me privately and expressed support and thanks but for whatever reason did not feel they could do so publicly.
A small number could not disguise their hatred of what was being uncovered and did all they could to discredit us, even joining forces with a number of corrupt ex-cops and their associates.
The chief minister is also wide of the target when he states that it is not unusual for lawyers to join police investigation teams in the UK and Jersey.
Lawyers and police work together as investigators in serious fraud cases in both jurisdictions, such as the Serious Fraud Office. Police investigators work closely with CPS lawyers in the UK, but the lawyers are not investigators and only have a role in police stations in charge rooms.
However, that is not what was being asked by the Attorney General in Jersey. What he wanted was a blurring of the role between investigator and prosecutor. He wanted a lawyer sitting in the incident room where raw data in the form of intelligence and information was coming in.
This was nowhere near the stage where a file was being drawn up for submission for possible prosecution. This was a live police investigation where sensitive intelligence was being provided by victims highly suspicious of the legal establishment in Jersey.
Some of the intelligence provided contained allegations against members of the legal establishment. To have allowed one of the AG’s lawyers in the incident room would have totally destroyed the hard-earned confidence that the police had gained from the victims. If you are in any doubt about this ask some of the victims or their representatives.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, as much of the material did not relate to pending prosecutions, it is debatable whether or not the AG and his staff had a right to even see it. That is why I took the stand I did.
I emphasise that I am not accusing the AG of any dubious motive. I have no evidence as to what his motivation was, nor why he thought it was proper to seek the arrangement he did. Only he knows that.
I did not leak my report to The Times newspaper and I do not know who did. I did not even speak to the paper. However, the article was accurate in everything it said about the report which I had written.
If the chief minister thinks that state of affairs shows a relationship based on trust and mutual aims to help victims, then he is looking at it from a different perspective from me and, I suspect, many others.
I note that the States of Jersey has said that the leaked memo was genuine. I can confirm that from what I saw. Someone, a politician I believe, said that the source of the leak was being investigated.
I hope that more effort is expended on investigating this leak than was when the States Police complained to the chief minister’s office of the leaking of an official email by Senator Perchard (the minister responsible for child protection) to Mr Rose, the anti-historical abuse investigation journalist.
Mr Rose admitted that Senator Perchard had leaked the email to him and we complained, but the allegation seems to have been buried without trace in the chief minister’s office.”
Article posted on 9th September, 2008 - 2.21p

Read more:

Anonymous said...

Good result? He has been found guilty of data protecion offences and he lost his appeal. Whats good about that?

Anonymous said...

Thought I would put this up for you to look at.
What about our Interests in these matter, sod the bloody States Members.

8 August 2011

Committee of inquiry – terms of reference

You will know from the recent letter from Senator Terry Le Sueur, Chief Minister, that Verita has been asked to help formulate terms of reference for the proposed committee of inquiry into historical child abuse. We will be drawing on the outcomes of the P19 debate of earlier this year in doing our work. The results of our discussions about the terms of reference will be reported to the Council of Ministers and States Members later this year.

A senior colleague and I will be visiting the island for a week commencing Monday 5 September and we will be based in Morier House. The purpose of our visit is to hear the views of a broad range of individuals and organisations about this important matter.

Lyn Houguez in the States Greffe is making the arrangements for our visit. We would very much like to hear from all States Members with an interest in this matter so please do contact Lyn if you would like to meet us

Ed Marsden
Managing director

Anonymous said...

It would appear that Dinah Rose QC is David Rose's sister.

Anonymous said...

WHOO HOO! Dinah Rose is David Rose's sister!

(Coincidentally, my sister, Dinah Rose, Q.C., is representing Mohamed in the London case.)

Oh, Jonathon Sumption, what a naughty little intregue have we got here then?

Anonymous said...

Liberty gave her Human Rights Lawyer of the Year award in 2009.

Human Rights Awards 2009

Human Rights Lawyer of the Year Award

Dinah Rose QC - for her leading contribution towards a range of human rights cases - including that relating to the rendition and torture of Binyam Mohamed, which continues to bring to light the abuses being carried out in the name of 'the War on Terror'.
Also shortlisted were: Stephen Cragg and Martin Howe

Anonymous said...

This just gets more and more interesting by the minuit:

"It is not the first time that a clash between Jonathan ¬Sumption QC and Dinah Rose QC has created a public storm.
The pair met in the House of Lords in 2008 when Rose was instructed by campaign groups The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade in their bid for a judicial review into the decision to drop an SFO investigation into BAE Systems’ arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Sumption represented the SFO and won. The case against BAE was dropped."

Could Dinah Rose be a professional loser?

Anonymous said...

Just google it in one search using the quotes like this:
"Jonathan Sumption" "Dinah Rose"

You will see hundreds of interesting results.

Anonymous said...

"You don't need wild Goose Chasers concerning the 'NOTW' why haven't you lodged any questions concerning the conduct of D/Supt Mick Gradwell - Come on boys I don't get it. Why are you all Anti Harper/ Abuse Investigation?"

Good question "without answers"

Anonymous said...

Has anyone emailed Senator Perchard and asked him about his alleged leak?

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that PJ Deputy Dawg is not a Fergy after all, but has been Jonny Ha-Worthless all along?
Spill the beans mate!!

Anonymous said...

person convicted of death threats calling somebody else a criminal. good one Jon

Ian Evans said...


Ian Evans said...