Saturday, March 30, 2013








We at Team Voice have become aware of a document describing a serious and possible illegal misuse of personal data.  This data breach looks to have been committed by former Bailiff and now Senator, Sir Philip Bailhache.  Senator Bailhache, it would appear, is in possession of very sensitive data concerning the alleged abuse victim HG and churchwarden EY. 

This document lays out an incident that occurred on a plane journey between London and Jersey. Members of the public had a clear view of the sensitive data being read by Senator, Sir Philip Bailhace. In amongst these sensitive documents, viewed by members of the public, were alleged Police Statements, text messages, letters to the Bishop and letters from the churchwarden EY.  These were in such clear view that members of the public were able to read the names of the alleged abuser and we are are told also of the name of the alleged victim. 


Have you noticed how in period dramas such as “Downton Abbey” the upper crust openly discuss their private business in the presence of servants and still assume that what they have said will remain confidential?   Others have remarked on this and offered the theory that old aristocratic types do not regard the lower orders as “people” in the full meaning of the term, and certainly do not think that the plebs are able to fully understand what they might hear or for that matter what they might read.   They are wrong of course as has been demonstrated by many an indiscretion finding its way into the public domain.   So, you might ask, what has this to do with our esteemed unofficial “leader” Senator Sir Philip Bailhache?   Well if you are one of the Jersey travelling public you might know the answer to this question already.

In these times of dire financial restraint the good Sir Philip, our self appointed defender of Jersey rights, has been forced to suffer the indignity of travelling economy class among the plebs.   A bit tricky sometimes when you have confidential papers in your possession relating to the matter of the Dean of Jersey, and his suspension by the Bishop of Winchester for his alleged mishandling of abuse allegations relating to a Church Warden and a vulnerable member of the congregation.   Followers of this sage will be aware that this issue has aroused the close interest of Senator Bailhache.   Not of course on account of any matters relating to the welfare of the alleged victim.   That would not be the “Jersey Way.”   Rather, the good Sir Philip has been deeply engrossed in attacking what he sees as the external interference in the affairs of Jersey by an upstart Bishop and a Church of England both of whom simply fail to understand the special and untouchable nature of Jersey’s legal and constitutional position, especially when it relates to the Islands unchallengeable constitutional right for important people to abuse the vulnerable and get away with it, because that is the “Jersey Way.”    Nevertheless, the tribulations of economy class travel appear to pose no anxieties on that front for Sir Philip.   After all, economy class is populated by plebs who surely cannot read or comprehend the sort of documents entrusted to the good Senator.   Or can they?

Well, if reports reaching this blog are reliable, and they appear to be, then whether the travelling public are plebs or otherwise they appear to be well capable of taking in the contents of “confidential” paperwork which Bailhache chooses to leave open in public view.   The same ability to read and comprehend what is on open display also appears to be shared by the mere “servants” who work on aircraft and other means of public transport.

It is by this means that we have learned a number of new and interesting facts about the case in question.   For example, a member of the Jersey travelling public has provided us with the name of the Churchwarden in the case and also the name of the alleged victim.   All of this information was obtained from “confidential” paperwork openly displayed by Bailhache.   By similar means we have learned that when communicating with the alleged victim the Churchwarden concerned signed off his messages with the phrase.”I will always Love you like a daughter love xxxx”   We also know that Sir Philip appears to be in possession of police statements relating to the case along with copies of relevant text messages all of which appear to be highly confidential.   What we do not know is just on what legal basis the Senator is in possession of any of this information or whether his possession amounts to a breach of the data protection laws.   At the very least, his open and indiscreet display of this information to the travelling public is breach of trust if not the law.   But we doubt if the good Senator has any worries on these issues.   He is a member of the Jersey elite and is therefore untouchable.   His business is none of ours.   We can only twist our caps and show due respect to our betters.   That is our lot in life.   Or that is what they think.   Perchance they have some surprises coming their way.   Watch this space.

There are many serious issues that are raised concerning the above incident not least the identification of the two people involved.

But we must not overlook the fact that Senator, Sir Philip Bailhache, has in his possession, some very personal and highly sensitive data. The question that must be asked is on what authority or who's' authority has he been able to obtain this highly sensitive -personal data un-redeacted? 

 There are now very serious questions to be answered concerning Data Protection. Will Emma Martins be conducting an investigation? Questions will be asked.

We will keep you posted.

Rico Sorda 

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Wednesday, March 27, 2013











It was David Rose who started the whole Coconut business. Even in the piece below he has no words of comfort for the victims of horrific abuse. Well you can have your say in the comments section below. I hope Mr Rose will come forward and explain the Jersey situation to us. Let us know the Jersey Politician that was leaking you doctored emails. I don't hide. I fight for Truth, Honesty and Integrity. 

Look at the headlines below written by Mr Rose for the Daily Mail concerning the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation. Why, when something needs trashing, concerning Child Abuse, do we get David Rose and the Mail on Sunday? Coincidence?I think not.

The Internet is changing the face of the game.  Information is being shared. People like Rose are finding it harder by the day to peddle their lies and half truths. 

This is about the Victims of Horrific Abuse

The 3 headiness below say it all for me Mr Rose


Rico Sorda

Part time Investigative Journalist - Citizen Blogger 



18th May 2008

15th November 2008

4th October 2009

MoS reporter is a secret paedophile in the pay of MI5! Just one of the lies peddled about me on the web

In this newspaper last week, I brazenly became a 'cheerleader for paedophiles'. Indeed, I attempted a 'cover-up' on behalf of Britain's paedophile elite. This should come as no surprise because for years I have been part of a 'wretched, toxic cancer' that affects all corners of the Government and the judiciary, and I have spent decades 'smearing abused children'.

But even that only hints at deeper truths about me. I am not a journalist at all. I am 'a former MI5 agent' who 'specialises in fixing tricky problems which are inconveniencing the more conservative parts of the Establishment – by using spin, disinformation and pure lies'.

In fact, even more worryingly, I do not exist at all. I am merely a cipher, a fictitious individual concocted by this newspaper in order to pump out propaganda.

Mail on Sunday reporter David Rose (pictured right) says he has always believed that journalists should sue only as a last resort

Mail on Sunday reporter David Rose (pictured right) says he has always believed that journalists should sue only as a last resort

Of course, dear reader, I must now make clear none of the above is true. All of it is libellous and highly defamatory. For an investigative journalist who works hard to expose hidden facts, it is also potentially very damaging.

But it is only a small sample of allegations about me posted on blogs and Twitter after the article I wrote in last week's Mail on Sunday with my colleague Bob Woffinden on the dubious source of the BBC's false claim that Lord McAlpine was a pedophile.

If you Google my name with the term 'Mail on Sunday', you will find such material in substantial quantities, recycled and spread by Facebook 'sharing' and retweeted thousands of times.
Like Lord McAlpine, who is suing those who used Twitter to spread the lie that he was an abuser, if I resorted to law I would have an unanswerable case. I'm put off by the fact that most bloggers and tweeters who spread this putrid rubbish cloak themselves with anonymity and the likelihood is they would not be able to pay me any damages.

Moreover, in my 31 years as a reporter, I've always believed that journalists should sue only as a last resort: in general, I believe, our libel laws are too restrictive and act as a brake on serious journalistic inquiry. But I'm getting close to suing, and the reason is simple. The idea that the internet is 'like the Wild West' has become a cliche. In practice, it means anyone can write whatever they like about anyone else and expect to get away with it.

The consequences for journalists in established print and broadcasting media for getting a serious accusation wrong are, as the BBC has just discovered, potentially catastrophic. Never mind damages: legal costs in libel cases can run into millions, a situation made far worse by the arrival of 'no win, no fee' lawyers who represent libel claimants without any payment up-front.

Lord McAlpine was falsely accused of child abuse on the internet
Lord McAlpine was falsely accused of child abuse on the internet

It is simply inconceivable that The Mail on Sunday's Editor or the lawyers who advise him would allow publication of an item that accused a living person of being a paedophile, or even a cheerleader for paedophiles, without the strongest possible evidence. He would regard it as essential to make sure the claim had been put to the individual, and his response was published.

The Press Complaints Commission has, in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal and the Leveson Inquiry, come to be portrayed as toothless and feeble. The reality is that any journalist who takes their work seriously will go to great lengths to avoid an adverse Commission finding. We know we may have to spend hours preparing and submitting documents to defend our work.

But on the internet no such sanctions apply. If, like me, you happen to be a reporter who reveals inconvenient truths, not just about false allegations of paedophilia but issues such as climate change, it's open season. I've always believed that if the media pack is headed in one direction, the real story may well lie in the other. Over the years, this principle has helped me land some memorable scoops. It has also made me some vicious enemies, and they now have a ready means of striking back.

It's interesting to note that some of the nastiest internet claims about me were first made on the website run by David Icke, who thinks the world is controlled by a 'brotherhood' elite descended from reptiles from the planet Draco.

Reasoned debate and careful evaluation of the facts do not belong in Twitterland. In their place are hatred, hyperbole, and demonstrably baseless personal attacks.

Does it matter? I used to think not. Surely, I mused, everyone knows you can't believe much of what  you read on the internet. But as the Arab Spring demonstrated, social media have become a powerful, all-pervasive force, capable of triggering far-reaching change.

At the same time, the derided 'mainstream' media are under huge commercial pressure, the product of recession and deeper technological shifts. There is a real risk that many bona fide news organisations that have the resources and will to invest in real reporting will ultimately cease to exist.
If so, what will fill the gap? Who will have time and money to dig out awkward facts? We hear a lot about 'citizen journalists'. Their emergence has, in some cases, been positive: the brutal attack by a police officer which killed Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests would never have come to light without the bystander who filmed it on his mobile phone.
But the bloggers who called me a lying protector of paedophiles are citizen journalists too, while at least one supposedly 'respectable' news and comment website also published a highly misleading attack. Is this the new norm of debate?

Meanwhile, Lord Justice Leveson is about to produce his long-awaited report on newspaper ethics, amid leaks and warnings that he will recommend a range of new  press restrictions backed by legal statute. But not, it seems, for the internet, as The Mail on Sunday disclosed last week.
It is just possible that the BBC McAlpine fiasco and Twitter's role in it may make m'lud think again. But as things stand, he is apparently about to propose draconian curbs on those who struggle to investigate professionally, while giving a free pass to those who undermine their efforts with lies and slander.
This will have consequences. Some form of licensing for reporters and newspapers, ultimately controlled by the State, would amount to a profound setback to freedom of speech, of the kind that matters most – the freedom to champion unpopular causes and challenge established orthodoxies. Yet the digital detractors who play to the bloggers' gallery, casually spreading their own fabricated universe to anyone who wants to 'follow' them, would be free to continue as before.

This doesn't amount merely to a further coarsening of the tenor of public discourse, or the ultimate repudiation of the dictum 'facts are sacred, comment is free'. It means we are heading for a situation in which bogus claims that fit a certain view will simply take precedence over reality.
It's interesting to note that some of the nastiest internet claims about me were first made on the website run by David Icke, who thinks the world is controlled by a 'brotherhood' elite descended from reptiles from the planet Draco.
If you want to believe that, then you're free to believe what you like about me. But please allow me a riposte. The stuff put out by Icke and others isn't just vile – it's bonkers.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sunday, March 24, 2013




The Right Reverend Tim Dakin will now face the Jersey Way. He will have his report trashed - He will be called into Question. If this all pans out the right way  "The Jersey Way"  the Bishop of Winchester will be suspended and the Dean will have his job. The Victim in all this just doesn't come into it. Victims of abuse have never meant much to people in authority in Jersey






Much has been written about the suspension of the Dean of Jersey. The links below make for compelling reading. This suspension could have a huge constitutional implications for Jersey.

What about the alleged victim in all this? This is what really concerns me. There seems to be a closing of ranks within the Jersey Church community and a rallying call to come out in support of the Dean. We must also remember that suspension is a neutral act. I can't help but notice some similarities  between the suspension of the Dean of Jersey and the suspension of the former Chief of Police, Graham Power. These will be highlighted in future postings.But remember this. Graham Power was suspended for the heinous crime of exposing decades long child abuse in the Jersey care system. The Dean was suspended for not following the Church of England protocol in relation to care and safeguarding within the church. 

Former Deputy, Bob Hill, has asked for a statement to be made by the Chief Minister of Jersey, Senator, Ian Gorst. I will quote from Mr Hill's blog:

On page 41 the author records, “The decision and manner of H.G.’s deportation requires further investigation. It is clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought to her imminent care needs. It seems surprising that the complainant against H.G., in this case the Dean of Jersey on behalf of the Church, was not consulted or informed about the decisions taken, or action planned, concerning H.G.’s future. There are no records of communication from R.K. with the Diocese at this time and Bishop Michael later expressed shock and distress that the deportation had occurred.”

This is a statement I entirely endorse the need for further investigation and to this end I shall forward details of this Blog to our Chief Minister. I believe  this is an Island matter and should be addressed via an Inquiry/investigation. I will request the Chief Minister to take immediate steps to address the matter and make his intentions known via a Statement before or at the next States Sitting which because of the Easter holidays is not until Tuesday 16th April. 

The author records “the Church let H.G. down. Despite the difficulties of her background and disablement, and struggle with some everyday practicalities, H.G. was none-the-less in employment, pursuing hobbies, socializing and wanting to be accepted in the church community. Over the next three years H.G.’s life changed from having no history of being in trouble with the law, to having a police record and being a displaced person, homeless on the streets of the mainland.”

As a responsible and caring community how could the above happen, are our Health, Social Services, Police, Courts, Legal Advisors and other relevant agencies fully trained and resourced to respond to people like HG? Given her experience one is left to wonder."End

It raises serious questions regarding the legal advise received by the alleged victim. The matter of deportation and what happened after must be seriously looked at. Was Jersey just washing their hands of what they saw as a nuisance?

Let us now look at the template letter that has been sent out:

The Bishop of Winchester 
The Rt Revd Timothy Dakin
SO23 9ND 

Dear Bishop,

I am writing to express my shock and concern at the recent suspension of the Dean of Jersey. The Dean is well known in the island as a man of integrity, wisdom, and compassion who has a real concern to preach the gospel of Jesus and support the Christian community in Jersey. He is very well loved and respected and an important leader in our society here and this suspension has been very damaging both to the Christian community and to the cause of the gospel in Jersey.

I fully recognise the importance of taking issues of safeguarding seriously and am distressed to learn that a vulnerable member of our community has been damaged through the course of these events. My prayers are for healing and restoration for her and I am sure that all Christians in Jersey would affirm the importance of appropriate and effective procedures to ensure that these things do not occur, and are properly dealt with if they do.

Nonetheless I have a number of significant concerns about how this matter has been handled by the Diocese of Winchester. The suspension of the Dean appears to be very heavy handed in the circumstances – there is no evidence of an attempt to balance the perceived procedural failures against the very many years of faithful ministry in Jersey and elsewhere. Publishing the review on the internet and issuing press releases containing strong accusations against the Dean does not seem to be a biblical or brotherly way to handle the matter. No space has been given in the review or the press releases to the long service the Dean has rendered to the gospel and the church throughout his career and in recent years his dedicated service to Jersey. 

The review and subsequent press releases appear to be unfairly biased against the Dean – the review appears to be very concerned with the failings of the Dean as an individual rather than the overall adequacy or otherwise of the procedures and the responsibilities of all parties involved to handle these matters. Indeed the review seems to be very personal – which has very significantly and unhelpfully undermined our trust in the Bishop and the Diocese. Further the press releases by the Diocese, while nominally asserting that the action taken is a neutral measure, contain a number of allegations about the Dean’s behaviour in relation to the review which are clearly not neutral. 

The way the review has been approached is a matter for grave concern – there are repeated and heavy references to the ‘Interim Report on the Visitation of the Diocese of Chichester 2012’ and the ‘Review of the Diocese of Chichester 2012’ which were published some four years after these events. The layout of the review regularly implies that the Dean failed to implement these recommendations. This appears unreasonable given the disparity in dates between the reports (published 2012) and the events being investigated (2008) and would therefore seem to undermine the credibility and reliability of the review itself. 

The Dean of Jersey is the voice of all Christians in Jersey – his role in the States of Jersey and the respect and attention given to his views mean that he is able to express the Christian viewpoint in many areas of our civic life. The suspension of the Dean means that this key ministry has been summarily cut off and all Christians, from across the denominations, have been disenfranchised in Jersey.

I would like to see all parties in this affair treated with justice, including the Dean, which does not at present appear to be the case. I hope that you will take my concerns seriously and that we will see the Dean’s suspension revoked imminently and steps taken to repair and restore relationships between the island churches and the Diocese of Winchester.

Yours sincerely,

Copied to:

The Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace

____________________________ Minister of__________________ Church
             (Minister’s Name) (Name of Church)

I could spend some time telling you, the readers, what I believe to be wrong with the above letter. I will leave this for the comments section. 

Let us not forget what the Dean of Jersey said in the States of Jersey when speaking on the "Committee of Inquiry"  debate. This debate was for the States of Jersey to finally agree to a Committee of inquiry into decades long child abuse in the Jersey Care system. This speech was given on March 6th 2013.

  • 2.3.11 The Dean of Jersey:
I rise very briefly to endorse what Members have said about the welcome that should be given from all areas of society to this proposal and I am particularly glad that it has been enlarged to include the third sector, so that we are not simply saying this is about government-run institutions or government-run child care but is about all those who in any way provide things in which children and young people participate.  Of course it is right that there must be justice for those who have suffered.  There must also be justice for any who consider themselves to have been falsely accused or tried by innuendo and rumour.  I rose some years ago when Haut de la Garenne first broke and asked the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, for 3 assurances.  One was that there would not be any financial limits on the investigation.  The second was that there would be no place to hide no matter what connections or influence anybody involved in this should have, and the third was that looking to the future Jersey would develop 5-star gold standard ways of dealing with children and young people.  It seems to me that this proposition is where the answer to that finally lies.  Of course when the report is made we will then have to think about how we implement recommendations and indeed how we evaluate those recommendations.  But as somebody who did take an interest those years ago and indeed where we arranged the first service at St. Martin de Gouray for those who had been involved in any way and for the police who were conducting the investigation, it seems right that I should welcome, in the name of the charitable and third sector, this particular proposition and also to undertake on behalf of my colleagues who have any leadership responsibility in that charitable and third sector our utmost wish to co-operate and encourage others to co-operate in whatever ways seem appropriate not only with the inquiry, but also to make sure that we genuinely achieve that 5-star gold standard for the future.  We are not necessarily, in this Chamber now, responsible for what may have happened 20 or 30 years ago, but we are most certainly responsible for what happens in the next 20 and 30 years.

Two days later, on the 8th March ,The Dean was suspended. 

Was the Dean as good as his own words when he states:

"But as somebody who did take an interest those years ago and indeed where we arranged the first service at St. Martin de Gouray for those who had been involved in any way and for the police who were conducting the investigation, it seems right that I should welcome, in the name of the charitable and third sector, this particular proposition and also to undertake on behalf of my colleagues who have any leadership responsibility in that charitable and third sector our utmost wish to co-operate and encourage others to co-operate in whatever ways seem appropriate not only with the inquiry, but also to make sure that we genuinely achieve that 5-star gold standard for the future"

Did the Dean fully co-operate with the investigation concerning his own actions? This is from the Winchester Report  regarding the Dean and his apparent lack of of co-operation:

Page 33.

There seems to be no spirit of willingness or inquiry in this matter. I found that some of the Island clergy had been actively discouraged by the Dean of Jersey from fully engaging with me and therefore complying with the Bishop’s request.

Page 37

However, as a result of the absence, or withholding, of records on Jersey and Dean R.K.’s resistance to co-operate with my requests, against the expressed desire of his Bishop, I have had to look more deeply into the possible reasons for this and comment upon whether there are disciplinary matters involved

Have we not learnt any lessons from the past? Look at how this victim of alleged abuse has been treated and is still being treated by some in the Church community. The Jersey Way is still alive and kicking - make no mistake about it.

Check this VFC Posting on the latest:

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist