Sunday, October 6, 2013

DATA PROTECTION JERSEY - CAPTURED BY THE STATE - EMMA MARTINS MUST GO.


JOHN NETTLES - AKA 'BERGERAC'

EMMA MARTINS - DAUGHTER OF JOHN NETTELS - DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER







JOHN  "BERGERAC" NETTLES 



'TELLING TRUTH ABOUT NAZIS COST ME MY FRIENDS'



BERGERAC STAR OSTRACISED  ON JERSEY AFTER COLLABORATION STUDY 



SHOULD JOHN NETTLES  BE LOOKING AT THE COLLABORATION OF HIS DAUGHTER - DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER - EMMA MARTINS?



This is an interesting interview I stumbled across from the Daily Mail 




 Bergerac star John Nettles seemed the perfect choice to present a documentary on the history of Jersey after spending many years filming scenes for the hit TV series on the idyllic island.
But the actor, who is still well remembered for playing the TV detective for a decade from 1981, has revealed how he was outcast by his friends for being involved in the three-part expose about the Nazi occupation of Jersey during the Second World War.

At the time Nettles had no idea that the show would receive such a hostile reception from the islanders and thought it would be an interesting chance to learn more about the island he had spent so much time in.

But shortly after the show was aired he found himself being ostracised by former friends on the island and the recipient of threatening letters and hate mail. 

He told the Daily Express: 'The islanders didn't like the way we talked about the resistance, didn't like the way we talked about the collaboration or allegations of it and they didn't like the way we talked about the treatment of the Jews by the administration of the islands.'

Despite the animosity caused by the Channel Islands at War documentary, it inspired Nettles to continue researching the subject and he is now releasing a book that goes into the Nazi occupation of Jersey in more detail.

Nettles, now 69, knew that many would be unhappy about the project, but decided the story needed to be told.





Collaboration and Oppression



Jersey an Island of Secrets 



From the  German Occupation to Child Abuse only the brave will speak out. 


Perhaps John Nettles should take a good hard look at the role his daughter is playing in our modern day occupation by the feudal elite of Jersey. The spotlight must  now be shone in the direction of the data commissioner and her role in the secret court case conducted against Stuart Syvret.  What are the real motives of the commissioner? Has the office of data protection been compromised? Has she become a pawn to the real power in jersey? Clearly she is being manipulated into a decision making process that doesn't make sense. When you observe her actions one cannot rule out the possibility that somewhere along the line she has compromised her position. From that moment on Emma Martins was owned.  Compromising your position can easily be done.  It could be as simple as pulling in some favours to obtain the job in the first place. You will remember the trouble the establishment had in finding dirt on Lenny Harper and Graham Power. They found none. The simple reason being they never compromised their position. The similarities of what Nettles explains in the above piece and what we have faced in exposing the child abuse cover up are uncanny. The culture still exists. His daughter might as well set up office in the old German secret police HQ at Silvertide Harve des Pas.


Again let us look at some of the strange goings on regarding this secret court case


On the 24/9/2013 this question was asked by Deputy T Pitman of the Chief Minister


7.7 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the full and complete costs arising from the secret court proceedings against former Senator Stuart Syvret:
Further to his answer of 10th September 2013 and his subsequent media release, will the Chief Minister clarify for the Assembly the full and complete costs arising from the secret court proceedings against the former Senator Stuart Syvret?  Will he clarify what percentage of the costs, if any, were paid for by the 4 individuals themselves?
Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):
As explained at the last States sitting, the costs of bringing the case incurred by the Data Protection Office amounted to just over £387,000 for a 6-year period from 2008 to September 2013.  The additional costs to the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office were met by court and case costs.  The 4 individuals did not fund the court costs.  The only additional costs to the Court Service were £14,010 to the Bailiff’s Chamber.  There were no additional costs incurred by the Judicial Greffe.
7.7.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
I must ask, is the Chief Minister happy to stand by that figure?  Because I think I can come back to the Assembly with a rather different one very soon.
Senator I.J. Gorst:
I have no reason to doubt the figures which I have quoted.  They have been provided to me respectively by the Court Service.  As I said, they are additional costs.  They do not include the sunk-costs of the normal running of the Court Service.
7.7.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
That is quite clear that it should be highlighted in the costs in their entirety and really the answer is not good enough.  Could the Chief Minister not go away and come back with a proper answer?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
It is a proper answer.  The budget for the Court Service is approved as part of what is now the M.T.F.P. (Medium-Term Financial Plan) process and is in the public domain.  The Court Service runs within those budgets, albeit, of course, there are court and case costs, and I have discussed what funds came out of court and case costs for this particular case.
7.7.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Personally, I do not think it is good enough, the answer that the Chief Minister has given.  This case was held in secret.  There have been all sorts of fudges, non-answers given by Assistant Ministers and all-sorts about what has gone on here.  How many other cases have taken place?  We know that there have been other breaches of the Data Protection Law.  Can the Chief Minister give us an assurance that there have been no other cases funded in this way or done secretly in the past?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Of course, hopefully one would not expect me to be aware of all the cases going before the courts.  That is not within my remit and, therefore, I have had no reason to ask that question and be aware of any other such case.  I have been asked in this instance.  I have taken the exceptional step of releasing the costs incurred by the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office because of public interest, and I do not think I need to go any further.
7.7.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
You say in the public interest, but was it not the Data Protection Commissioner who invited these people to come to her department and to discuss with lawyers about bringing a case in this particular instance?  Why was the Data Protection Commissioner inviting people to come in and form an action and then the public pick up the bill for it when other people, where there has been data protection breaches, have not been given any financial assistance whatsoever?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
It is my understanding that the judgment made it perfectly clear that the Data Protection Commissioner acted within her remit and in accordance with the law and Members of this Assembly should be satisfied with that.  It appears to me that some Members are not satisfied with the law.  If Members wish to see changes to any piece of legislation, that is perfectly within the remit of a Legislative Assembly, which we are.
7.7.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:
How much money was taken from the court and case costs funds to pay for this case?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
I have answered that on a previous occasion and I have just answered it again this morning.
The Deputy Bailiff:
I understood the Chief Minister to say what he said earlier, that he had answered the question earlier this morning.
7.7.6 Deputy M. Tadier:
The Chief Minister has asked whether Members are happy and they can bring their own amendment, but is the Chief Minister happy that a precedent now seems to have been set that in the past, a case which seems to be a libel case of defamation, has used data protection instead?  Because the test, of course, is that some content on a website is found to be harassing.  Should the test not be whether it is factual or not?  Because something can be harassing and it can also be true.  Is the Minister concerned that, again, public money is being used and we have created a precedent here that anybody on any site who does not like what is being written about them can now have their court cases funded and their names removed by the taxpayer?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
I would have thought the Members of this Assembly were fully acquainted with the Data Protection Law because they have licences as individuals to handle data.  The way that we handle data is very important in the way that other individuals, reporters and media, et cetera, who handle data should abide by the Data Protection legislation.  If they are not doing so, then they should expect to suffer the consequences of not complying with that piece of legislation.  The court, as I understand it, made it quite clear in its findings that damage had been caused to those individuals in the way that the data had been handled.
7.7.7 Deputy M. Tadier:
Is not the only issue here that nobody had heard about this Data Protection Law being used in what would otherwise be a libel case, apart from the first time it is used that we know about when it is used against a very high profile figure who is an enemy of the establishment?  That is how it is perceived.  Will the Minister speak on that issue and talk about whether that recourse will be available to anybody else who wants to take action about defamation?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
It was a data protection case and it was connected with data handling, and that is very different from libel.
The Deputy Bailiff:
Can I remind Members that this is a question about the costs which have been incurred?
7.7.8 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
It is still about costs, but it is also about principle.  We have in this House at the present time a Member who broke the Data Protection Law and was not prosecuted.  Why is it that there is one rule for one person and not for another?  I cannot see how the Data Protection Commissioner did not bring a prosecution in that case when it was a cut and dried breach of Data Protection Law.
The Deputy Bailiff:
Well, that is not a question.
Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Does the Chief Minister agree there should be a consistent standard across the board?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
Let me say I have no reason to doubt whatsoever that the Data Protection Commissioner nor our Prosecution Service act in any way other than consistent and in line with what we would expect around making appropriate prosecution decisions.
[12:30]
7.7.9 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
I have a nice big file here for next time about yet another data protection breach not prosecuted.  Given the Chief Minister’s answer and his press release, I believe he expressed his contentment with the way the process has been unfolded against former Senator Syvret.  Could he tell us is he also content that other individuals are denied by the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office to bring the same sanctions, processes, against one of the individuals involved in the case?  Indeed, a gentleman who has numerous complaints against the police and was found guilty of making death threats to the family Stuart Syvret lived with.  Where is the consistency in that?  Is the Minister content and can he please give us a proper answer instead of saying that he is quite happy to accept anything the Data Protection Commissioner says?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
It is not me saying that, it is the court that has said that.  I stand by the court’s decision in this regard and I believe that this Assembly should too.  We will shortly be coming today on to a proposition, very appropriately on the back of a proposition from Senator Farnham, to make sure that judicial policy and budgets have appropriate executive oversight.  Part of that proposition rightly should mean that Members of this Assembly do not involve themselves in individual cases and get involved in operational matters.  The court quite clearly said that the Data Protection Commissioner had acted appropriately and within the bounds of the law that she administers.  The Members of this Assembly should be satisfied with that, not try and second-guess every single decision made by either the Data Protection Commissioner or the Prosecution Service.
7.7.10 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
A final supplementary because the Minister has not really answered my question.  I can say for a fact that this is what happened because I am that individual who requested support against an individual who runs hate sites.  Indeed, he was one of those behind the hate site that the email stolen by Deputy Power from the Deputy of Grouville ended up on, a pro-child abuse cover-up website.  Where is the consistency?  Why is the Chief Minister content, as it is his responsibility so he tells us?
Senator I.J. Gorst:
I am not sure that it is appropriate for individual Members to be referring to their own individual cases and trying to use this Assembly to get a hearing about decisions that have been made by appropriate authorities.
The Deputy Bailiff:
Very well, we come ...
Deputy T.M. Pitman:
A principle.
The Deputy Bailiff:
I understood you to be talking about your own case, Deputy.

I find this part quite fascinating:


7.7.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
You say in the public interest, but was it not the Data Protection Commissioner who invited these people to come to her department and to discuss with lawyers about bringing a case in this particular instance?  Why was the Data Protection Commissioner inviting people to come in and form an action and then the public pick up the bill for it when other people, where there has been data protection breaches, have not been given any financial assistance whatsoever? END

Is the Deputy saying that the Data Protection Commissioner instigated this whole shambolic process? If so, who was pulling her strings? One of the four who she coerced into this bizarre data protection ritual is a serving Policeman.


A serving Policeman goes into a secret court case with a convicted internet/ toxic phone calling troll - an alleged murdering nurse who would have been investigated whilst the Policeman is working for the States of Jersey Police - an alleged child rapist who was investigated at the same time as this Policeman is working  for the States of Jersey Police and no one bats a bloody eyelid. Is this the norm? The banter in the police tea room must be fierce. 


"Hi Dave, how was the alleged murderer, toxic phone pest and alleged child rapist doing today in court? Are they bearing up well?" "Lets hope we don't have to open the case on the child rapist anytime soon might look a little embarrassing for you"


This is simply bonkers. These four people were used by the Establishment and their poodle Martins to nail Syvret and nothing more. They lost. Stuart Syvret, love him or loath him, showed pure guts, strength and down right stubbornness in facing this whole shambolic secret court case down.


And before I finsh - what about the judge Sir Charles Gray and his Judgement? He stated 

The breaches and failures on the part of Mr Syvret are set out in Mr Robertson’s skeleton argument at paragraph 17 from (a) to (u). It appears to me to be clear that Mr Syvret has deliberately adopted a policy of obstruction: he has failed to comply with numerous orders of the court; he has put the Representors to unnecessary expense and has failed to engage with the litigation and he has repeatedly breached the order. The consequence of this conduct has been that the Representors have been put to unnecessary expense.


What expense?This is what Chief Minister Gorst said in the States:

"Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

As explained at the last States sitting, the costs of bringing the case incurred by the Data Protection Office amounted to just over £387,000 for a 6-year period from 2008 to September 2013.  The additional costs to the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office were met by court and case costs.  The 4 individuals did not fund the court costs.  The only additional costs to the Court Service were £14,010 to the Bailiff’s Chamber.  There were no additional costs incurred by the Judicial Greffe.

What expense did these four individuals incur?



In summing this court case was complete B********S


Rico Sorda


Part Time Investigative Journalist








32 comments:

Anonymous said...

welcome back Rico

Anonymous said...

John Nettles who was filming at Haut DE La Garrenne while victims were still living there.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Deputy Mike Higgins said;

"but was it not the Data Protection Commissioner who invited these people to come to her department and to discuss with lawyers about bringing a case in this particular instance?"

It is truly a wonder who brought these four very unlikely bedfellows together, and if it was indeed the Data Protection Commissioner, then one really should question her motives, and ability to spend taxpayers money without being held to account.

There has been only one winner in this toxic (not so) secret court case and in my opinion it is the establishment.

It now has the JUDGE MADE LAW it was looking for in order to shut down the only independent media on the island......Blogs.

Anonymous said...

A very interesting point about the serving policeman. Strange company for an officer of the law to be keeping.

Anonymous said...

Emma Martin has abused her position for the elite so as to silence Syvret and bloggers. Why didn't she prosecute the email thief Sean Power?

rico sorda said...

I find it extraordinary that a serving officer of the states of jersey police agreed to be a part of this secret data protection court case when one looks at the company he was keeping. Surely he would have said I can't be a part of this. Nothing remains a secret especially when the person you are challenging is good friends with John Hemming MP. Like I said in the main posting this is simply bonkers.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Audio for you published HANSARD

Anonymous said...

Has the Data Protection officer not broken the department's own DP rules by discussing the case with her father when asking for his advice?

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

Deputy T. Pitman written question for next states session.

The Chief Minister will table an answer to the following question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of
St. Helier –
“Further to his answer on 24th September 2013 will the Chief Minister provide an estimate of the full court and case costs arising from the secret court proceedings against former Senator Stuart Syvret and show this in relation to the annual court budget for the period concerned?”

Anonymous said...

Why isn't there more states members and media speaking out against these abuses to our civil liberties?

rico sorda said...

Deputy Pitman explains it here.

"No, for those of us who talk about justice, it is because we care about our Island. The rest, and I am sorry, that is 95 per cent of the States Assembly, fall into 2 categories: people who just keep their head down, they are too scared; to protect the status quo they will say nothing. Or, it has to be said, people who perhaps do not care about justice at all, which is even worse. Some of those people who we were debating earlier said to me yesterday: “For too many people, it is only when an injustice happens to them that they realise what is going on in this Island.” That is because in the mainstream media they do not report on the true facts. Again, they have got a huge responsibility, they have more power than we have but they do not talk about the real issues: “Let us just keep attacking the 4 or 5 loony lefties who keep going on about child abuse and the dual role.”

Full speech can be read here.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/09/deputy-trevor-pitman-speaks-on-jersey.html

rs

Anonymous said...

Wow, this goes on and on and no-one from the UK steps in and liberates Jersey.
Jersey is indeed still under occupation.
It is incredible both how Trevor goes on fighting for justice and how easily the dictators are able to go on blocking him.
would anyone like to start a secret court case against Senator Philip Bailhache?

Anonymous said...

''The court quite clearly said that the Data Protection Commissioner had acted appropriately and within the bounds of the law that she administers.''

The above quote from Chief Minister Gorst answers perfectly the question Rico seeks the answer to.

The court instigated the not so secret court case.

Anonymous said...

I have a number of relatives that have stated that they find the publications, television interviews and subsequent statements from John Nettles very 'harassing' indeed, as they suffered during the occupation and in no way collaborated, but had no option but to submit to a military power.
I can gather at least ten such surviving members of both my parents families to generate a class action under the new precedent.
Who should I ask to act on our behalf? Can you help here Rico with suggestions?

Anonymous said...

"Has the Data Protection officer not broken the department's own DP rules by discussing the case with her father when asking for his advice?"
-The Beano is not the Rag

Hmm, this looks like a very good question to me. Who was involved in deciding what "Protected Data" was leaked, and with whom was that discussed? Was each person who consulted on this a Data Protector, who had a legal obligation to protect said data?

If it was discussed with John Nettles, was he aware of the nature of that data? Did he know, for example, the veracity of the information published on Stuart Syvret's blog? In any case, why would a family member of the Commissioner allegedly instigating this action be consulted, and have access to information which he had no legally protective status to?

This was a man, after all, who has written a "controversial" book exposing alleged collaboration of Islander families with Nazis. And as another commented pointed out, Nettles and Bergerac's BBC crew did film at Haut de la Garenne when it was still a Care institution for children, something he has not been exactly forthcoming about. This points to a man who is known for telling (or not telling) whatever suits his own best interest at the time. Did the alleged criminals who made up the infamous four Representers even know if their data and related legal matters were subject to advice from a BBC star and book author?

Elle

rico sorda said...

You could ask Emma Martins. Just drop her an email and i'm sure she will jump at the chance. Let us know how you get on.

rs

Anonymous said...

Still confused - Data Protection - the meaning is surely in those two words:-

ie: I am a doctor, I hold someones date of birth, their address, their medical record - I would have to register with the DP - if I allowed any of that information to be relaesed publicly, I would be in breach of the DPL.

ie: If I hold private data that I have obtained from an individual I could be in breach of the DPL if I allowed anyone of the public to view it.

How does that equate to a journalist, being leaked a report, which provides significant evidence that someone has comitted a crime and that it has been secretly "brushed under the carpet" and the person is allowed to continue working in a postion, where the activity could be continued, how is that a Data Protection issue, Stuart, never gave out any private personal data on that person.

In Jersey, it appears, that if Stuart, had, before J Saville died, reported on allegations that J Saville was a child abuser, he would have had Emma Martins taking Stuart to a secret court, at the public expense.

Quite clearly the DPL law has been misinterpreted and the whole issue should have been a Libel case.
----
Incidentally, what is happening with the COI into HDLG?

rico sorda said...

I should be posting a Committee of Enquiry update into decades long child abuse next week.

Frankly It should have started a very long time ago. It got passed in the States on the 11th March 2011 and then it's just been stalling and the like plus the very unfortunate illness to Sally Bradley QC.

Update next week

rs

Anonymous said...

Re Comment @ 10:45: There's the perfect analogy - Savile and the recent court representers, or complainants.

If Stuart had abundant evidence of Jimmy Savile's child abuse, and had posted it when Savile was still alive, all would have agreed it was in the public interest ONLY when the full level of that abuse and its concealment was inescapable public knowledge.

In the meantime, who can believe now that Emma Martin would NOT have taken bogus legal action against Stuart to protect Jimmy Savile. Not much difference, is there?

Elle

Heidi's Herpes said...

Great Post Rico.

Ian Evans said...

The Justice Select Committee, MY TESTIMONY....And by the way, congrats on finding a fine woman to share your topsy turvy life with....Much respect old man :)

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, a reader says:

"How does that equate to a journalist, being leaked a report, which provides significant evidence that someone has committed a crime and that it has been secretly "brushed under the carpet" and the person is allowed to continue working in a position, where the activity could be continued, how is that a Data Protection issue, Stuart, never gave out any private personal data on that person.

In Jersey, it appears, that if Stuart, had, before J Savile died, reported on allegations that J Savile was a child abuser, he would have had Emma Martins taking Stuart to a secret court, at the public expense.

Quite clearly the DPL law has been misinterpreted and the whole issue should have been a Libel case."

The general point made by the reader is correct, but there are some more fundamental points.

What the reader may not understand, is that even if you did publish actual - personal - data of an individual - provided there was a public-interest justifications in so doing - for example, to the end of detecting or preventing crime - or investigative journalism - then that too is permissible.

Of course, it's true that the "interpretation" of the data protection law by the Jersey oligarchy - by their own admission - has zero equivalent anywhere else in the world. Not even in corrupt, un-democratic regimes. In those type of countries, they won't disguise the suppression under "data protection law", rather they'll just have a "criminal offence" - such as "criticising the government" - or "denigrating the Glorious Leader".

In Jersey the public authorities are so corrupt, they "interpret" the data protection law to cover anything at all - and ignore the public interest exemptions - and then apply the resultant judge-made-law in ways that are wholly discriminatory.

For example, as covered in questions in the States today, the oligarchy being perfectly happy for Deputy Sean Power to simply thieve - then publish - private data of no public interest merit - but I publish information of plain and dramatic relevance to the actual physical welfare of my then constituents - and I get subjected to massed police-raids and kangaroo-courts.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Can anyone answer this, my neighbour received her Daily Liar,JEP, at 12.30 lunch time she lives in the country, she showed it to me and it had a full report on the budget, how does this work? when Ozouf had just run it past states members in the states 30min prior to this time , are the press being given this information before states members???

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

A commenter asks;

"are the press being given this information before states members???"

Well States Members were lucky to get it at all!

Long time readers might remember THIS?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Or THIS?

Anonymous said...

Ah yes. Thanks, VFC. That was a shocking reminder of what Lenny Harper is quoted as saying, "this stuff wouldn’t make for a credible fictitious story.”

The mere fact that denying to a States Member a copy of an official report already released "For The Media Only," is yet another example of unacceptable government behavior which all by itself should have been an outrage. There are just so many outrages like this - too many to remember them all. People must feel almost numb from the sheer weight of
these ongoing assaults on the pretense of modern democracy.

Emma Martins is just a cog in an intricate, yet fragile wheel.

Elle

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

An alarming update on the school SHOOTING

Ian Evans said...

Justice Select Committee, my evidence finally GETS PUBLISHED

Daniel said...

Rico

I do not think the point is the epwenses incurred by the four. It is the refusal of Gorst to answer the question fully and the support he gets from the Deputy Bailiff in the chair as he does so.

A first reply to an Oral Question is of course prepared. And this is what the Chief Minister said (from Hansard, as quoted by you) :

"Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

As explained at the last States sitting, the costs of bringing the case incurred by the Data Protection Office amounted to just over £387,000 for a 6-year period from 2008 to September 2013. The additional costs to the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office were met by court and case costs. The 4 individuals did not fund the court costs. The only additional costs to the Court Service were £14,010 to the Bailiff’s Chamber. There were no additional costs incurred by the Judicial Greffe.”

It appears that the same old tricks of half-answers and obfuscation are still going on in the States as when I was there. Can I suggest that Pitman and Southern try again??

Gorst says:
a) that “the costs . . . . incurred by the Data Protection Office amounted to just over £387,000 . . ..

b) that there were “additional costs to the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office” which were “met by court and case costs”

and c) that there were “additional costs to the Court Service” of £14,010 to the Bailiff’s Chamber”.

Notice that he HAS NOT TOLD MEMBERS what the “court and case costs” actually were. Such costs can run into millions. Why has he not said – it cannot be that hard? After all, we are told that our intrepid Treasury Minister knows what is spent on anything down to the last farthing. When I was in the States we learnt that He has a special torch for this sort of thing.

Your extract shows that Geoff Southern spotted the omission, and asked:

"7.7.5 Deputy G.P. Southern:

How much money was taken from the court and case costs funds to pay for this case?

Senator I.J. Gorst:
I have answered that on a previous occasion and I have just answered it again this morning.

The Deputy Bailiff:
I understood the Chief Minister to say what he said earlier, that he had answered the question earlier this morning

But did he? I have just checked the Hansard for that day. A search on the word “court” and the word “costs” reveals no such answer. So what was the Deputy Bailiff playing at?

So a Written Question methinks from someone . Along the lines of “What were the sums allocated from “court and case costs” to the DP office for this case?”
keywsng 26

Daniel said...

Oh oh

Have just read otrher people's comments . . . .

And I see Trevor's question fits the bill nicely

Will the answer be a) a brush-off b) false or c) the trutrh? And how would we know?

Trevor has done the best he can to avoid b) by putting the question the way he has.

Anonymous said...


They never will or can shut down the blogs.

They will try, because they have feudal mentality, they will try because they do not like freedom of expression,

They will try, because parts of Jersey's Government are corrupt. Just follow the money honey.

There are several little problems, as the Nazis found out.

Humans are clever, and blog servers are situated all over the world ignoring Emma Martins. Islanders want to be informed. The local msm are servants to the States therefore the blogs are truly the only source of real information, and of course some off the wall comment.

Forget it Bailhache, Gorst, Ozouf and Martin, you have lost thanks to the internet, resign if you have a conscience, more truth will come out, and as Jersey gets poorer so will the people.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anonymous, if you would like to submit a guest posting then I will publish it.

It is my blog and I choose my subjects. The Child Abuse Scandal is something I care deeply about so it gets top priority. Simple as that. We can't do it all. So write something up and I will publish it.

rs