Tuesday, October 2, 2012



From: rico sorda >

To: "i.gorst@gov.je"  
Cc: Francis ; Montfort Tadier ; jon gripton ; Chris Rayner- Jersey ; Jersey Care Leavers Association  

Sent: Friday, 28 September 2012, 6:43

Subject: Committee of Enquiry

Dear Chief Minister,

First simple question. How did Andrew Williamson get it so wrong? His Report was the size of an A4 sheet of paper with quite a few inaccuracies. This came about because he was asked to do the impossible. How was he expected to amend the Verita Report that had clearly didn't need amending.

Because some are scared in the 'COM' you have been left in a difficult situation. 

And yet we are talking Child Abuse. Nothing more or nothing less, plain simple Child Abuse 

My point is this Chief Minister. You will be solely judged on the proposition you lodge. This proposition must be so robust that not one single amendment needs to be lodged. Not one. I have a feeling that you will lodge a weak proposition and ask members to amend it. This can not be allowed to happen. I will urge all members not to amend it.  The reason for this again is very simple. The States of Jersey and its conservative voting pattern is so obvious that the amendments would be voted out. You might disagree with this but I live in the land of reality. Certain members would assert a little pressure and we know what happens.

Look at the voting on a 'COI' into the resignation of Chris Swinson. 28 voted against. Says it all. 

The Buck stops with you Chief Minister

No amendments

Kind Regards 

Rico Sorda


Citizen Investigator

Having listened to many States debates over the years, and more importantly, the propositions lodged regarding the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation -  shambolic suspension of the former Chief of Police Graham Power - and other related matters. I was pleased to see this comment on the VFC  posting.

Anonymous said...

It was clear from the outset that the CM is in favour of a full COI and that the problem lies with the Council Of Ministers (COM).

This is perhaps the most important thing that you have said here. Unless we admit the possibility that someone right outside the circle is effectively blackmailing members of the COM to oppose Verita, we can eliminate a lot of suspects and bring it down to about nine names.

A look at the minutes of COM meetings shows that there are two categories of attender: the full members and invitees. Assistant ministers can sit in to represent their ministers, but the CM's two deputies do not attend other than as invitees. For once in his life, the immediate obstacle to Verita is not PB. I would also be surprised if the assistant ministers would of their own initiative attempt to block a proposal.

So the full members of the COM are:
CM Gorst - who has declared in favour of Verita and can be eliminated: Ozouf, MacLean, Le Marquand, Pryke, Le Gresley, Ryan, Green, Lewis, Duhamel

Let's take a look at them in turn.

Senator Le Gresley - having forced the States to keep promises about holding a COI in the first place, he is as unlikely a suspect as could be.

Senator MacLean - is a serial non-attender at COM, and I rather think that rules him out.

Deputy Duhamel - I can't see a motive. The only thing you might hold against him is that he is about the oldest hand here - 19 years in the States.

Deputy Lewis - again, I can't see a motive.

Deputy Green - not a long serving politician, but interesting that he returned to Jersey in 1981 to work as a caterer for Jersey Health and Social Services. Did this mean working at HdlG?

Senator Ozouf - has track record in brushing unpleasant stuff under the carpet and moving on (Lime Grove, GST, etc). But he of all members has the least personal connection with events - he was barely even out of university at the 1994 cut-off.

Deputy Pryke - if the rule of "corporation sole" is applied to her, she would have a lot of awkward questions to answer. Her voting record in the last States suggests very little capacity for independent thought, so it would depend who was pulling her strings: she could be part of the bloc, but not the initiator.

Deputy Ryan - the same applies on "corporation sole". He is an older hand, having served in the States 2002-8, but the limited biography I have found suggests he had no particular interest at that point in children's welfare: again, possibly a bloc member, but I don't think the prime mover.

Senator Le Marquand - prime suspect. Gorst wanted to move him out of Home Affairs but after he lost to Ozouf in the vote for Treasury minister, he hung onto it. If the COI reveals significant mismanagement, his use of the corporation sole rule would surely put him in jeopardy - either as incompetent, or dishonest, or both. It would also ruin his credibility with the church." End

I was pleased to see this as I have just started my research into the voting pattern of all propositions regarding the above issues. Its very alarming. Not so much so when these propositions are voted on months apart and votes fade into obscurity, but when they are put together.  A very strong pattern emerges. The same politicians keep voting against open and transparent  government. 
This is why I'm saying no amendments. If Chief Minister Gorst lodges a weak proposition then it should be shown the contempt it deserves. They will hope that the progressives will add the amendments and then the usual 28 or so can vote them out.





Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 


Anonymous said...

Rico - Good letter and observation on the COM voting patterns. Talking of letters, Rob Wilson MP wrote a good one to the BBC Trust today.

Perhaps the BBC Trust should be made aware of BBC Jersey's deafening silence regarding Jersey matters and their collusion with the establishment?


rico sorda said...

Senator Paul Routier

Senator Philip Ozouf

Senator Alan Maclean

Senator Ian Le Marquand

Deputy Ian Gorst

Deputy Anne Pryke

All consistently vote against open and transparent government. Oh, there are many more but the question is WHY??????

Anonymous said...

Given the latest developments in the Jimmy Savile scandal, it seems to me that the media over here must be in real trouble now. The BBC itself is now knee deep in trouble and under serious investigation itself by at least two police forces.
The daily references to Savile's alleged transgressions in Jersey will inevitably lead to an investigation of BBC Jersey's coverage. Perhaps Graham Power's 62000 word document will feature in this.
Thanks to you and other local bloggers, Pandora's Box in now well and truly open and it will be far more difficult for the media and our politicians to continue the cover up.

Anonymous said...

Given the recent expose regarding Saville, and also rumours surrounding Ted Heath, Wilfrid Bramble and other notable, high profile, connected people, it is becoming a little clearer why a full enquiry is not desired.

These and other 'celebs' were, it seems, coming to Jersey and abusing our children. There is no chance that they simply stepped off the plane and picked up a kid. It was arranged. People knew about it, assisted it and covered it up.

The problem now though is that the UK and the world is once again turning its eye to Jersey's seedy underbelly.

It needs to be nationally known that Verita has provided TOR for a full enquiry and that Jersey's government is doing all it can to scupper it. The genie has to be let out of the bottle.

Anonymous said...

Good stuff Rico.

Whilst your personal analysis of individual members of the COM is accurate enough, there are other factors that should be taken into consideration.

Chief amongst these is the reputation of the Bailhache dynasty. The two current Bailhache boys are both in positions of immense power and influence. Each in his own way is inextricably linked to the way that the whole child abuse investigation/cover up has been controlled.
Alongside these, there are obviously others outside the States (as yet unnamed) who stand to lose reputation and possibly liberty if and when the full extent of child abuse and cover up is exposed.
There is enormous pressure being put on to the members of COM, each of whom must be wrestling both with his/her conscience and also their future prospects as politicians.
On top of this, a major scandal will inevitably cause severe damage to the Island as a whole. If this had been faced up to in the first place, it could have been managed easily and we could have emerged with honour. Now, however, after years of denial and cover up, the damage will be much more serious. Everyone in the Island could suffer badly as a result. A rock and a hard place.
But, to comment on your individual comments -
1. Gorst: a fundamentally decent man who now must decide to put his job on the line. I think he might well rise to the occasion.
2. Le Gresley: again, a fundamentally decent man who I feel sure will continue to support a full COI.
3. MacLean: a political opportunist who will eventually take the line of least resistence.
4. Duhamel: an eccentric with strange (at least they appear strange to many of us) ideas and ideals. Not totally devoid of personal ambition but his eccentricity could lead anywhere.
5. Lewis: will go with the flow. I hope that there is a decent man somewhere inside.
5. Green: I would forget any link between him and HDLG. I believe him to be a decent bloke with realistic ideals. He has no history in this matter and I would be surprised if he wouldn't one of Gorst's supporters for a full COI.
6. Ozouf: a highly complex character. Unless there are skeletons in the Ozouf family cupboard, his main concern will be to limit damage to Jersey's economy. I believe he would go to any lengths to achieve this.
7. Pryke: the very epitome of weakness. Someone totally out of her depth in every respect. Any full COI will inevitably find much damning evidence against H&SS over many years. Here weakness is that she has been complicit in cover ups.
8. Ryan: a canny political chameleon. Will always try to come out on the winning side regardless of whether he believes in what he supports.
9. Le Marquand: your analysis is good. He cannot now come out of any inquiry with his reputation intact. Next to the Bailhaches, he has most to lose.

Anonymous said...


The reason the same people don't want transparent government may not be one reason but several.

Ozouf and Maclean are running the economy into the ground and want to CYA.

Pryke and Le Marquand may be tied up to the ongoing shambles around child abuse (though Pryke's tenure has also seen the hospital's name dragged through the mud).

Gorst - well, actually Gorst isn't entirely anti transparent government, because he forced voting for ministerial posts into the open.

Routier - hmmm...

Anonymous said...

I can't see how PB can be ruled out as not being involved in this. Did not ILM say at a States sitting earlier this year when asked what his plans were for the rest of the day/week and he confirmed that he was meeting with PB to discuss the COI! Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Anonymous said...

Not having the Verita TOR would leave Jersey looking like it has something to hide, it will also highlight to many UK families that rightly or wrongly there is a den of hidden child abuse, so no I'm not taking my children on holiday to Jersey.

Jersey must have the strongest COI possible, otherwise, things will just get even worse!

Small Axe said...


There's one extra thing related to this for Gorst & Co. to consider in light of the current Jimmy Saville allegations raising yet again the spectre of Haute de la Garenne in the national media.

Had a full committee of enquiry already been undertaken using the original terms of reference, the island could now in response to the Saville/Jersey story be holding it's head up high and proudly proclaiming to have thoroughly cleaned house where child abuse matters are concerned.

Instead, from comments I'm now seeing appear on non-local websites, which will no doubt be mirrored by some elements of the national media, the talk has once again been of Jersey being an island of dirty secrets and murky and conspirational cover-ups when it comes to child abuse.

THAT is the direct legacy of the constant stalling of the committee of enquiry. Jersey's reputation being nationally smeared again in relation to child sex crime, Jersey again being given a high national profile as a child sex crime location.

I would suggest one very simple thing to those within Jersey's government and civil service who have been proactive or complicit in holding back the local child abuse enquiry; take note of that consequence.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @1103: you need to read Carrie Modral's post again.

Carrie was there at the meeting with Williamson, and Gorst said very specifically that he was pro the Verita TOR, but that the opposition came from members of the COM.

PB is not a member of the COM; therefore he is not in the first instance the cause of the problem. He may be talking to Le Marquand because he has concerns, but Le Marquand has more than enough reason of his own to obstruct Verita.

In fact the political upheaval is only the half of it for him, because he was the Chief Magistrate from 1999 to 2008. As such, there is a direct link between him and the abusive regime applied at Greenfields. Cutting the enquiry off at 1994 keeps him right out of it.

rico sorda said...

I will be doing some postings on the voting patterns of some members. This is taking some time but should have the first one up online this weekend.

It really is staggering.


rico sorda said...

I hope to have some news soon on the challenge I sent out to the editors of the Jersey Evening Post.

I have been contacted by BBC Jersey.


Anonymous said...

With the evidence you have provided on your blog the BBC would need to dedicate at least a day to debate with you.

Anonymous said...

It would seem that Senator Gorst would have nothing to lose, in supporting a full COI....

Yet a Hell of a lot to lose if he doesn't!?

rico sorda said...

From: rico sorda
To: "jgreffe@gov.je"
Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2012, 20:36

Subject: Re: Research Information

Dear Sirs,

Could you please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that it is being dealt with

Yours Faithfully

Rico Sorda


Citizen Investigator

From: rico sorda
To: "jgreffe@gov.je"
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 13:38
Subject: Research Information

Dear sirs,

Could you please help me in my research. Im researching the role of the Jurats in Jersey. I'm particularly interested in the nomination and election of John Le Breton who was elected to position of Jurat in 1998. Is this on public record? If not, could you please help me with the following.

1. Who Nominated John le Breton

2. What was the Vote score

3. Was the Bailiff - Deputy Bailiff and Attorney General in attendance

4. Is it a secret ballot.

5. If not can I have a list of who voted for who

Your assistance would be much appreciated.

Thank you

Kind Regards

Rico Sorda


Citizen Investigator

The reason for the above email ties in with the Sharp Report and that Jurat Le Breton sat on Graham Powers Judicial Review.

Was his judgement flagged up when elected as Jurat?

We can only ask the questions


Anonymous said...

"With the evidence you have provided on your blog the BBC would need to dedicate at least a day to debate with you. "

Rico will probably be offered 15 mins between riveting items such as gardening tips for a desert landscape and flogging a relation's book on astronomy ...

However, this is progress of sorts.

The Beano is not the rag

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up two Interviews from today on Jersey Radio of Mark Williams-Thomas & Esther Rantzen.

You & your readers can Listen HERE


rico sorda said...

Iris Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee


26th July 1990

Mr. & Mrs A. Maguire
Flat 4, 80 St. Marks Road
St. Helier

Dear Mr & Mrs Maguire

On Wednesday the 25th July, 1990, the Education Committee was officially informed of your decision to retire as house parents of the group home, Le Squez.

The Committee recalled that you have been house parents to the children of the group home since 1980 and during the past ten years had cared for many children on our behalf.

Several members of the Committee, including myself, were already familiar with your excellent work during this time having served on the Children’s Sub-Committee, and have always been impressed with your total commitment to the children in your charge.

It is therefore with regret that we learn of your retirement. Although we fully appreciate that after ten years of extremely hard work for our children a change of direction and a rest from the 24 hour-a-day commitment you have shown over all these years was well deserved.

My Committee therefore asked that I write on behalf of every member to thank you for your many years of excellent service on behalf of the children in your charge and to wish you all the very best for your future. We were delighted to learn that Mrs. Maguire will continue to work for the Committee in our developing Family Centre service and therefore would not be losing your services all together.

Once again many thanks for your 110% commitment and hard work, the proof of which will live on in the children for whom you have shown much love and care.

All best wishes

Yours sincerely

J. M. Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee.

Staggering !! Every time you think you've seen & heard it all, something else makes you wonder what sort of island we live in. Seen the above letter from Anon before "somewhere" else Online, (that was totally outrageous in itself), but the fact that Le Breton was nominated by the same person that penned the letter is .. I don't know, I can't think of words to describe it. Sends shivers up your spine! What else can there be, what else is going to be revealed in the future, it seems it can't, but it truly does get worse & worse.

Richard, are you saying that Iris nominated Le Breton?

If so, simply staggering. Can you confirm this?


Anonymous said...

See Trevor Pitman's blog for the Iris Le Feuvre info re nomination of Le Breton.

voiceforchildren said...


Senator Francis Le Gresley tells VFC Exclusively "I WILL RESIGN" over Child Abuse COI.

Anonymous said...

REF: "See Trevor Pitman's blog for the Iris Le Feuvre info re nomination of Le Breton." @7:39am

Can't find it.

Link / www / date / comment please

I did find this though:

extract from the Sharp Report Page 23, Paragraph B35 :
‘On 5 August, Mr. Le Breton wrote to Advocate Falle. He said that the police did not as yet seem inclined to press charges and that there may indeed be no case to answer. He went on to say that Mr. Jarvis-Dykes had served the College in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way. He accepted that there was now evidence of misconduct on off island trips and that in his view this was now a resignation matter. He asked that Mr. Jervis-Dykes be allowed to leave with some dignity and suggested that the Governors consider a resignation from Christmas or Easter. He did not believe that his (Jervis-Dykes) continued presence teaching Maths and as Head of Maths would place anyone at risk. “In the absence of a police case, the resignation would be seen as an inevitable consequence of an intolerable situation caused by an unsubstantiated allegation.” (Mr. Le Breton had not taken up the Headmaster’s suggestion in June that he might view the videos* and he was not aware that Mr. Baker had seen them)

[The "unsubstantiated" allegations were errrrr....... substantiated by the videos and Jarvis-Dykes is a convicted peadophile, in spite of Le Breton's best efforts]

The sharp report is available at :


or by following the link from Syvret blog.

Anonymous said...

Has an accepted form of dealing with issues in Jersey been to hide the issue from the public thereby what they don't know will not hurt them.

Secret meetings with media consultants, secret in camera meetings, shredded notes, reports held back from the public, State media reporting on redacted released reports, secret ballot votes in Jurat selection and golden handshakes to name a few.

Hiding things is not dealing with them nor will it make them go away.

Anonymous said...

Here is TP's comment on his own blog on 2 October at 23.28 -

"Hi Richard

The only thing holding up the proposition has been my other commitments, both political/constituent wise and with my mum's on-going illness. This and the fact that the Law Office are not exactly being as helpful as they could and in my view should be.

To this regard because the Judicial Greffier's office were trying to convince me that no records were kept of who proposed and seconded candidates to be Jurats unless - the election was contested - I have had to waste my time down at the Library and the like! Farce this certinly is.

The reality is that someone can only beccome a Jurat if he or she is proposed and seconded from within the 'Electoral College' so if there really is no record then all those Jurats 'elected' without a contested election ought to be suspended until the necessary documentation can 'be found'.Otherwise how are we to know that they ever were? really - how can it even be half plausible that the Court does not record such things?

But here's something interesting that readers might like to reflect upon in the meantime. By my own digging guess what I stumbled upon? Jurat John Le Breton who is so badly depicted in the suppressed Sharp Report was actually seconded (put forward etc) for the role by none other than... a former Pressident of Education!

Yes, indeed, an experienced politician, former Constable Le Feuvre of St. Lawrence who should surely have been in a good position to judge whether somebody from 'within' Education was appropraite to sit dishing out 'fair and impartial' does of 'justice' on decent ordinary people?.

Fascinating surely given that research reveals that complaints and concerns about the goings on at Victoria College had been talked about for years. Does all of this make you feel confident that our Establisshment Party really are committed to a 'no stone left unturned' inquiry into historic abuse?

If yes, then you have a lot more faith than me..."

Anonymous said...

Any judgement Le Breton was involved in should be struck out.

rico sorda said...

I have now obtained a list of Jurats and who nominated them. It is some read.

The Graham Power Judicial Review has just got even more alarming.


Ian Evans said...

Bowron V,s MINTY BOY

Anonymous said...

I was reading up on the family X case and see there was a judicial review and appeal.

Also an unreported judicial case. I was unable to check who sat on the unreported case. I wonder if Jurat Le Breton would of sat on any of these?

Anonymous said...

This is the time for those who know of illegal corrupt practices to step forward and take the consequences of not saying anything sooner. It will be so much worse if you wait until you are implicated publicly. Consider the events at the end of the Second World War and the Jersey Occupation. Would you want to be known for your collaboration or for your assistance in healing the pain of victims.

Anonymous said...

I noted on the new post today at:

It quotes "Media reporting of the breaking child abuse and murder scandal in Jersey have conspicuously omitted to mention that Governor of the Jersey Home for Boys (Haut de la Garenne) during the 1970s and 1980s was the island's current Bailiff, Sir Philip Martin Bailhache KGB."

Surely if he was Governor of the care home, he should not be involved in the COI.

Anonymous said...

Have you had a reply from Ian Gorst?

Ian Evans said...

No presents for Ian this CHRISTMAS

Anonymous said...

I found it interesting at work today and yesterday as comments were made about Jimmy Saville and how they are not surprised. This coming from a couple of people who pretty much denounced any child abuse happened in Jersey or were just disgusted that Jersey should be in the papers because "it happend everywhere why should we be all over the papers"!!!

I will be honest I just kept my trap shut and listened because last time I spoke up I just got shouted at, and that is not a discussion in my view. He who shouts loudest is not heard by me! Plus I was interested in hearing how a few viewpoints had changed.

I am getting the impression that views of people who at first either denied the abuse or just wanted our image kept are changing little by little. Next time the subject is brought up, and it won't be by me so I can't be seen as jumping on the bandwagon I will ask the question, what would you prefer, it to be covered up a bit longer or have our reputation taken back by having a robust inquiry and saying we wont stand for it.

I know what I am now going to say is only from a film and fairly pointless but it is a decent comment if I have it right. It is from Prometheus, the Alien film and it said close to this "in order to build first you have to destroy". That is a relative comment on the abuse situation and our reputation/image. First we need to have this inquiry, destroy the mechanisms that allowed the abuse to continue for decades and then rebuild. Then Jersey will regain the image so many people are scared of losing.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up Audio & Links to last nights Question Time, with Janet Street-Porter saying it wasn't just Rumours.

But didn't say anything.

You & your readers can Listen HERE

rico sorda said...

From The Guardian in 2009

In early 2007, convinced there was a broad network of abusers operating on the island and mindful of Jersey's steadfast refusal to introduce a sex offenders' register, Harper began reviewing statements made by Sea Cadets who had alleged abuse. He discovered that many had been in care, especially in Haut de la Garenne. Calling up their care files, Harper found that a member of Jersey police's family protection team, Brian Carter, had been there before him. Carter was no longer in the force, but finding him on the island was easy. It turned out that in 2004 Carter had noticed an unusually high incidence of suicide among men who had passed through Haut de la Garenne. Reviewing the records of 950 former residents, he discovered that a significant number had complained of sexual and physical abuse, describing similar acts and perpetrators, going back to the 50s. Shockingly, even though supervisors at the homes had dutifully noted the complaints, none had been properly investigated.

Carter had sought out victims and taken statements detailing how they were allegedly beaten and raped by older children and staff, and also by Sea Cadet officers, St John Ambulance volunteers and at least one senator in the States Assembly. In April 2006, Carter handed the dossier to Jersey CID. Nothing happened.
Suspecting that allegations of crimes against hundreds of children were being brushed under the carpet, Carter quit the force in late 2006. Now, Harper alerted Graham Power, head of Jersey's police, to the dossier. Appalled, Power contacted the Association of Chief Police Officers which launched an independent inquiry, currently being handled by South Yorkshire. In September 2007, Power gave Harper the go-ahead to launch a full-scale child abuse investigation, with Carter re-employed as a civilian investigator. Together they set up an incident room at Jersey police headquarters in Rouge Bouillon, St Helier. Detective inspector Alison Fossey, another outsider, originally from Strathclyde, was called in to help sift through the first of 4,000 children's files.End

This Brian Carter chap sounds like he new the score. What ever happened to him? Couldn't have done him many favours


rico sorda said...

Senator Gorst hasn't replied. He probably has a lot on his plate with the ones who vote a certain way. Sundays posting will give you a very good idea.


Anonymous said...

Carter sounds like a decent cop so they must have got rid of him. NOW is the time for Carter to speak out. Does anybody know if he is still in Jersey?

rico sorda said...

"Carter had sought out victims and taken statements detailing how they were allegedly beaten and raped by older children and staff, and also by Sea Cadet officers, St John Ambulance volunteers and at least one senator in the States Assembly. In April 2006, Carter handed the dossier to Jersey CID. Nothing happened"

Is this the Report that Andre Bonjour left on his desk to gave dust and why an investigation by the South Yorkshire Police was instigated. Is it all starting to fall into place?

The Committee of Enquiry must be scaring the hell out of some people


Anonymous said...

I know of a Brian Carter who worked as a cop but don't know where he is now sorry.

Anonymous said...

Could they be hoping that Minty will be the scape goat for Warcup and Gradwel?

Or is this just the start of the end?

Anonymous said...

Just taking a stab at a theory here, but when the big rats start throwing the lesser rats overboard, you know the times are changing. A smart move would be to sacrifice someone who is so dirty he can't be trusted, so obvious he can't be covered for, and someone who can be easily discredited. That would be Minty. Now, Minty's hands are dirty in other areas besides the child abuse cover up, so if they sacrifice him, very few would care, and they have enough on him in other areas to think he wouldn't talk. Even better, they can behave like any other tin pot dictatorship and create legal obstacles to reporting on the details. That keeps him tightly bound and packaged up away from prying outside eyes.

Anonymous said...

Did Brian Carter become a Private Detective?

Anonymous said...

Anony, @ 8.59 said.

That keeps him tightly bound and packaged up away from prying outside eyes.

Thats what the hard core of the Jersey establishment thought, and then, hoped for and now pray for.

Its called the internet, the nightmare comes alive for criminals and yes men/women in high office who think they are untouchable.

In far yonder dark hills is a very small bright white light, and you had better believe, it will take a while a long while but its heading your way to bathe you in light.

Be afraid, very afraid.

Anonymous said...

I commented at 8:59 PM that it "...keeps him tightly bound and packaged up away from prying outside eyes", but I agree that it is far too late for the guilty to conceal all their crimes. The internet is changing the nature of free speech and media complicity beyond what these oligarchs are keeping up with. A banning or injunction against free speech only brings greater fame or notoriety to the situation. They do not understand that whatever they do to Stuart or Leah or you, will be a cause for bloggers and activists outside the UK sphere of influence. That is the nature of what they need to think about, It. Is. A. World. Wide. Web.

Anonymous said...

That's an interesting slant......was the alleged super-injunction used to keep DM, rather than SS, quiet?

Anonymous said...

There is a private detective, David Watkins (I think), who has, or certainly had, audio tapes of one of the local church hierarchy abusing a vulnerable girl. Early 80's, I think it was.

Ian Evans said...

Meeting DEAN CLIFFORD Part 3 of 3

Anonymous said...

Commenter @ October 6, 2012 8:10 AM asked,

"That's an interesting slant......was the alleged super-injunction used to keep DM, rather than SS, quiet?"

You may be on to something here. They can't possibly believe they can keep Stuart from speaking out. There may be more than a few ways to misuse a Super-Injunction, and if there are, Jersey will find those ways.

It is food for thought now that people involved, people in the know but of less than knighthood level status, may be tempted to tell all and implicate others.