Saturday, January 4, 2014

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH STUART SYVRET ON HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON




EX SENATOR AND HEALTH MINISTER - STUART SYVRET





"EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH STUART SYVRET ON HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON"




Former Senator Stuart Syvret was released from prison Friday the 4th of January 2014 and was briefly interviewed outside the prison gates by fellow Team Voice Member VFC and published HERE

Stuart subsequently gave an exclusive interview to Team Voice where he spoke more in-depth on the circumstances surrounding his imprisonment and brought us back to where this whole charade first began and that is child abuse and its concealment on the Island.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that at the heart of all these shenanigans are real victims who have been betrayed by a succession of conflicted authorities with very questionable actions and omissions they need to answer for and in this interview Stuart tells us how this is all intertwined.

Although the abuse at Haut de la Garenne has been widely publicised there are many other institutions in Jersey where the abuse and cover up were just as prevalent but seldom reported on and indeed the conflicted individuals involved remain in positions of authority to this day with complete impunity.

Readers would do well to look at this Panorama programme screened back in March 2008 where one of these institutions does get some attention and will bring into perspective what Stuart is explaining in the interview. The Institution is Blanche Pierre and just a couple of the conflicted individuals are brothers and BOTH former Attorney Generals.






Here are the links to Blog Postings concerning the abuse conducted at the Blanche Pierre Children's Home. This is a stand alone case that has it all. I will leave it to the readers to read the links supplied. 














THE PANORAMA PROGRAMME CAN BE VIEWD BELOW:






Rico Sorda 


Part Time Investigative Journalist 

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well done Team Voice and Stuart Syvret for making the whole mess easy to understand along with the panorama video which substantiates everything Stuart was saying. I'll be emailing this link to all in my address book.

Anonymous said...

That is the first time I have seen the Panorama programme so thank you for publishing it alongside the fantastic interview with Stuart. The Panorama programme leaves me thinking this Anton Skinner bloke has some answering to do is he still living in Jersey and will he be called before the child abuse committee of enquiry?

Anonymous said...

Top interview team voice putting the msm to shame again. Good to see Stuart looking so well and fighting fit.

Anonymous said...

With the sad corrupt loss of Deputy shona and trevor pitman this video reminds us why we need stuart in the states goverment do you think he would put himsrlf up for election again?

Anonymous said...

Anton Skinner was a bully himself so fits in with the Mario Lundy syndrome.Yes he is still in Island & works for a charity plus a nice fat pension paid for by all of us!!

Anonymous said...

After everything Mr Syvret has been through he looks remarkably well. Good luck with it all. The truth will win in the end.

Anonymous said...

There are some that question Stuarts mental state. From what I have listened to he is of sound mind. Nice hearing the issues explaining in layman terms.

No Paxman, the suited spiv said SHAFT Jersey, not SHOW IT OFF said...

@10:08am
Questioning Stuart's mental state was all a part of the orchestrated and highly expensive campaign to discredit, publicly humiliate and even imprison Ex Health Minister Syvret.

Mr. Syvret's now largely proven allegations were so difficult to believe in a well governed jurisdiction that the authorities took the opportunity to label him as mad at every opportunity.
The authorities had nothing to counter his evidenced allegations so they resorted to incessant ad hominem attacks in the media and JEP. State TV even broadcast a pre-election clip of candidate Philip Bailhache stating that Syvret had "lost it"!

Philip Bailhache. The Blanche Pierre AG?
Philip Bailhache. Of HDLG?
Philip Bailhache. Of Victoria College sex abuse scandal?
Philip Bailhache. Of the liberation day speech "real scandal"?
Philip Bailhache. Legal adviser / rabid supporter of Jersey's suspended Dean?
Philip Bailhache. Of the family firm "Jersey Ltd."?
Philip Bailhache. Of the Roger Holland paedophile policeman appointer?
Philip Bailhache. Of the ... where do you stop?

Why does the smell follow him around despite perhaps about £10 million+ of taxpayer funded legal air-freshener?

Anonymous said...

This interview shows exactly why the oligarchs fear Stuart. His words are compelling, and the solid way he articulates his message must intimidate them. Brilliant.

Elle

Anonymous said...

Thanks for publishing this interview with Stuart because if we had to rely on the state media we would not even know he had been released or the important information he so eloquently describes in the video.

Anonymous said...

The Bailhache brothers have got just as much to answer for as Anton Skinner. Will they have to give evidence and be cross examined by the committee of enquiry?

Anonymous said...

By the sounds of it Stuart doesn't have a lot of faith in the Committee of enquiry does he?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Mick Gradwell (if he hasn't been arrested as part of "Operation Yewtree") will have some serious questions to answer as part of the Committee Of Inquiry.

Ian Le Marquand should also have to answer THIS

rico sorda said...

Thank you for the comments. As we enter 2014 the issues are still there. The Islands Judiciary and Parliament is in need of good root and branch inspection.

The Blanche Pierre case is so well documented. It is one that will have many former Civil Servants and States Members worried let alone the huge conflict of interest from the Bailhache Brothers.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

BLANCHE PIERRE

Jill Gracia said...

As ever Stuart a balanced and articulate interview. It seems that the more they try and knock you down the stronger you bounce back.

It is people like Stuart, honest bloggers who bring us the truth, and my dear friend Carrie Modral who give a mere pleb like me the strength to keep going.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Is Stuart correct in saying the actions taken against him are by the State, given the state have paid for the 4 named individuals case? Fact or fiction?

Is there hard evidence the States of Jersey allowed abuse to continue at Blanche Pierre and one of the abusers allowed to contine working in the family development centre? Fact or fiction?

Was there criminal activity by the education department in covering up? Fact or fiction?

Evidence for the attorney General at the time Philip Bailhache colluding with the education department to keep matters secret? Fact or fiction?

Evidence for Philip Bailhache failing to notify the police? Fact or fiction?

Will Philip Bailhache answer the claims made? Very serious points have been raised that need answers.

Thousands can be spent advertising Jersey as a holiday destination but reputations are earnt not purchased.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be great if Stuart did put his name forward for the soon to be bi-election.
Even if it was just to see if they have enough power left to disqualify him.

Even if he put his name forward, but had no intention of taking his seat....

It would rattle a few well deserved cages, and let them, and the public that don't know, know that this man is still well and truly alive and kicking!?

Anonymous said...

At least we have a right of reply on citizens media
Unlike the bias State media
Funny how you can't reply on the Pitmans article

Daniel said...

Philip Bailhache. The Blanche Pierre AG?
Philip Bailhache. Of HDLG?
Philip Bailhache. Of Victoria College sex abuse scandal?
Philip Bailhache. Of the liberation day speech "real scandal"?
Philip Bailhache. Legal adviser / rabid supporter of Jersey's suspended Dean?
Philip Bailhache. Of the family firm "Jersey Ltd."?
Philip Bailhache. Of the Roger Holland paedophile policeman appointer?
Philip Bailhache. Of the ... where do you stop?

Answer - not before you have added to the list:
Philip bailhache who stole the "independent" Electoral Commission from the people
Philip bailhache who then put to the referendum the electoral system (Option B) which he had himself had said was the "obvious" solution, before even taking over the Commission
Philip bailhache, whose Option b was even less democratic than the totally flawed system which it was supposed to replace.

Anonymous said...

Philip Bailhache. The Blanche Pierre AG?
Philip Bailhache. Of HDLG?
Philip Bailhache. Of Victoria College sex abuse scandal?
Philip Bailhache. Of the liberation day speech "real scandal"?
Philip Bailhache. Legal adviser / rabid supporter of Jersey's suspended Dean?
Philip Bailhache. Of the family firm "Jersey Ltd."?
Philip Bailhache. Of the Roger Holland paedophile policeman appointer?
Philip bailhache who stole the "independent" Electoral Commission from the people
Philip bailhache who then put to the referendum the electoral system (Option B) which he had himself had said was the "obvious" solution, before even taking over the Commission
Philip bailhache, whose Option b was even less democratic than the totally flawed system which it was supposed to replace.
Philip Bailhache who helped shaft Reg's Skips

rico sorda said...

From Syvret Blog.


During the latter half of the 1980's, as the McGuires' conduct changed, and became more and more crazed, complaints and expressions of concern by conscientious members of staff accumulated – until – the senior managers of the then Childrens' Service – people such as Anton Skinner and Geoff Spencer – could ignore them no longer.

In 1990, an "internal" investigation is conducted.

In this investigation, Skinner is forced to conclude that, yes, the conduct of the McGuires has been "unacceptable" – and not of the kind that can be tolerated "in this day and age". "However, by way of mitigation, it's a stressful job".

"But never mind. Mrs. McGuire has agreed to voluntarily "retire" from running the Blanche Pierre Group Home."

"She will now come and work in our 'Family Development Centre' instead."

Even on the plain and known face of the facts at this time – 1990 – the conduct of the McGuires has been monstrously unlawful. That is even assuming Skinner and Spencer were not aware of the sexual abuse.

The gross physical and psychological cruelty and abuse – the violence – should have seen the McGuires reported to the police – without hesitation.

Instead – leaving a number of wrecked and tortured little lives in their wake – the McGuires 'retired' from running Blanche Pierre – and were written a fulsome letter of gratitude and thanks by the then responsible politician, Iris Le Feuvre – President of the Education Committee.

Skinner, Spencer, Le Fevre and her Committee committed a criminal offence; conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – in failing to ensure that the crimes of the McGuires were reported to the police.

rico sorda said...

The police did not discover the atrocities committed by the McGuires – until eight years later.

And even then – the Jersey authorities collectively – and most of the people involved as individuals – failed – once again.

Failed – to bring justice to these young victims; failed to make the system work – failed to hold people accountable.

And in such failure – enabled the continuation of the Culture of Concealment.

Enabled the continuing protection and support of child abusers.

The 1998 prosecution of the McGuires was corruptly and unlawfully abandoned – an episode we will examine in greater detail when we consider further evidence in Part 2 of 'Blanche Pierre – The Anatomy of an on-going atrocity.'

Before then – I reproduce below a document which was yet another 'internal investigation' – produced in 1999 – in the aftermath of the abandonment of the prosecution of the McGuires.

rico sorda said...

This is the report by the then Manager of Mental Health Services, Dylan Southern.

Mr. Southern was another example of a good, conscientious and professional member of staff. Sadly – all too often, the many decent individuals who work for the services, are thwarted and obstructed in their efforts to do what is right by entrenched and self-protecting senior managers.

The covering letter and report reproduced below, is limited in its scope and scale. The terms of reference for Mr. Southern's investigation were strictly limited to a disciplinary case against Jane McGuire – and, at that, an investigation in which significant facts were not known to him, and in which certain evidence was not available.

For those reasons, the report does not fully convey the real and gross range of horrors suffered by the children resident at Blanche Pierre. But even so – the regime depicted here – is brutalising, appalling and barbaric.

It was also plainly not compatible with States of Jersey policy.

It was also manifestly criminal in nature.

So – why – when certain aspects of the conduct of the McGuires had been complained of by decent staff members back in the late 1980's – and why – when even Skinner, Spencer and Le Fevre had been forced, finally, to acknowledge the utter unacceptability of such conduct – were the police not informed in 1990?

Why – did they feel it acceptable to continue to employ the obviously deranged and dangerous Jane McGuire in a social environment where she would still be working with vulnerable people?

Why – did it take a further eight years – for the police to become aware of the crimes, and, even then, only by happenstance?

Were the 'mistakes' of the 1980's recognised and faced up to in 1990?

Were the 'mistakes' of 1990 recognised and faced up to in 1998?

Were the 'mistakes' of 1998 recognised and faced up to in 2008?

The answer to those last three questions is, crushingly, no.

As our forthcoming examination of further evidence will show.

The question I confront us all with is this:

Will the 'mistakes' of 2008 be recognised and faced up to?

Unless we all – each and every one of us – recognise the dangers of such phenomena as 'diffusion of responsibility' – until people recognise that simply by not doing the right thing – they actually become "the bad guys" – the terrible lessons – with their awful and real consequences – will remain unlearnt.

Stuart.

rico sorda said...

Today – we are going to consider two exhibits.

The first of these is a letter.

The second is a States of Jersey Police 'time-line' – prepared during the recent investigations in 2008 – in an effort to help the police try and understand just how on Earth the 1998 prosecutions could have been abandoned.

Before turning to those two items of evidence – I want to explain why the Blanche Pierre case in particular – is so fundamental – so pivotal – and why what happened to those little children – and the continuing efforts of the Jersey oligarchy - 22 years later - to conceal it – is so central to any understanding of the entire Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

The Blanche Pierre case can be seen as a kind of Rosetta Stone – a means of enabling us to read and understand the language of failure, of cowardice and of concealment – that underpins the entire, catastrophic failure of Jersey towards its vulnerable children.

The Blanche Pierre case straddles two eras. The very old fashioned approaches – and frequently reprehensible conduct – seen in the 1960's and 1970's – as carried over into the 1980's – and the more modern – supposedly enlightened and responsible era – of the late 1980's and the 1990's.

Of fundamental importance – many of the key facts – the evidence – relevant to the Blanche Pierre abuses – and consequent cover-ups – was far more recent than Haute de la Garenne. It was, and is – there – documented; and - in many ways – beyond all credible dispute.

Further – the case shows – all too graphically and powerfully – that when the authorities – in rare moments of frank remorse – acknowledge that things were foul and unacceptable at HDLG – they aren't being honest when they then go on to claim, "but that was all back in the 1960's – there haven't been such crimes for many decades."

rico sorda said...

Also – virtually all of the key individuals involved are still living.

The case also goes further than demonstrating sustained child abuse. Crucially – it also demonstrates – on an evidenced basis – the Culture of Concealment. The routine deployment of 'the cover-up' – by the Jersey authorities.

Even more testingly – many of the individuals responsible for the original failures to protect the children in the first place – and who then went on to engage – in one way or another – in the cover-ups – are still 'around', as it were; still prominent in Jersey society.

And – possibly most inescapably and unutterably damming of all – the Blanche Pierre case was a test.

For all the wish to project a civilised face to the world – for all the desperate claims by the Jersey oligarchy that, "things are different these days" – "it couldn't happen again" – "there will be no hiding place" - and – "there will be no cover-up" – all and any such words were going to be worse than meaningless – were going to be actually wicked – and actually be evidence of profound continuing danger to the island's vulnerable children – unless the nettle of the crimes of the Maguires – and the repeated cover-ups – was finally grasped. Unless that test was passed.

rico sorda said...

Turning now to the first item of evidence in this posting.

The letter was written – back in 1990 - by the then responsible politician, President of the Education Committee, Iris Le Fevre. In those days, that Committee was responsible for child "protection" in Jersey, so people like Jane Maguire, Anton Skinner, Geoff Spencer and Richard Davenport were their employees.

So with all the customary moral turpitude and cowardice that so defines public administration in Jersey – the big, metaphorical brush came out – and the even larger carpet was lifted – and the whole, messy and terribly inconvenient nightmare – was simply brushed away. Along with the futures of those little children.

Just as has happened to so many other cases in the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

And - in Jersey – where the lawyers are bad – even by the standards of their dark trade – where the politicians are thick, possessed of no moral fortitude – and are without organised opposition – and where being a disgraceful moral coward appears to be written at the top of the job application form for all of the island's 'journalists' – all such cover-ups not only succeed, but are pro-actively participated in.

So – on the 26th July, 1990 – rather than the Maguires being reported to the police – for the years of gross torture they were – even then – known to have inflicted on little children – torture those children still suffer from today, in their adulthood – the Maguires had the following letter penned to them by Iris Le Fevre:

Iris Le Feuvre
President, Education Committee

Our Ref: ILEF/SJR/G.H

26th July 1990

Mr. & Mrs A. Maguire
Flat [Address Excised] Road
St. Helier
Jersey

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.

rico sorda said...

Remember this.


From Syvret Blog.


During the latter half of the 1980's, as the McGuires' conduct changed, and became more and more crazed, complaints and expressions of concern by conscientious members of staff accumulated – until – the senior managers of the then Childrens' Service – people such as Anton Skinner and Geoff Spencer – could ignore them no longer.

In 1990, an "internal" investigation is conducted.

In this investigation, Skinner is forced to conclude that, yes, the conduct of the McGuires has been "unacceptable" – and not of the kind that can be tolerated "in this day and age". "However, by way of mitigation, it's a stressful job".

"But never mind. Mrs. McGuire has agreed to voluntarily "retire" from running the Blanche Pierre Group Home."

"She will now come and work in our 'Family Development Centre' instead." End

Can you imagine the panic when this was going to court in 1998

rs

Anonymous said...

Is there hard evidence the States of Jersey allowed abuse to continue at Blanche Pierre and one of the abusers allowed to continue working in the family development centre? Fact or fiction?

The letter published from Iris Le Feuvre is, hard evidence that several members of the committee were impressed with the excellent work and the Maguires commitment to the children in their charge

In the context of Stuart Syvrets claims no doubt the above letter is evidence.

Anonymous said...

Rico

I don't see where panic came from?

Everything is manipulated to suit the manipulators , hearings internal investigations enquiries questions suspensions etc etc.

Why panic when the situation is in your control?

rico sorda said...

"
"Why panic when the situation is in your control?"

We haven't got to the 1998 court case yet. Allan Maguire took a dive. I kid you not.

rs

Anonymous said...

Can I just ask the owner of this a blog hypothetical question?
If you have no faith in the data protection law then how would you deal with a blog set up just to destroy your family?
It's only a reverse scenario question but I think a very valid one because people on here seem to think it will never happen to them and this can happen to anybody new at anytime. But if you have no faith in data protection law what would you do?

Anonymous said...

Rico.

Is it true or rumour, that Iris Le Feuvre is related to Anne Pryke?

rico sorda said...

"Can I just ask the owner of this a blog hypothetical question?
If you have no faith in the data protection law then how would you deal with a blog set up just to destroy your family?
It's only a reverse scenario question but I think a very valid one because people on here seem to think it will never happen to them and this can happen to anybody new at anytime. But if you have no faith in data protection law what would you do?"

I would have to go to the Police. The scenario you describe is so far beyond a Data Protection issue. That borders on stalking and worse.

rs

Anonymous said...

But the police have very little power to do anything over the blogs. At the moment if people think the data protection is worthless and the police have no powers then posts like this just invites more blogs to be set up for wrecking other people or reversing it on others doesn't it? We could end up with tit for tat blogs being set up like crazy.

Anonymous said...

These are only scenario questions RS.

I just fear that this attitude towards data protection law could start a flurry of toxic blogs starting and if so, nobody on here can complain.

rico sorda said...

Last comment on the matter. If you want to start a toxic blog then just do it as no can stop you. Can't be bothered talking about it.

rs

rico sorda said...

Stuart Syvret:

Aside from being manifestly unlawful in several regards – for example, the letter being an attempt to intimidate a witness – me - in a criminal case, and, most of the people cited as complainants, possessing precisely zero locus against me under any aspect of the data protection law – the letter is unremarkable.

It is all-of-a-piece with the continuous unlawful harassments Ms Martins has subjected me - and other whistle-blowers to, at the behest of William Bailhache - for around two and a half years now.

The only thing that compensates the tedium of showing it, is the illustration of the banality of evil.

The letter is very brief. It didn't need to be long. All it had to do was fulfil a certain pseudo-legal function – and, more significantly, intimidate and harass me.

What can be drawn from this letter which is more significant – are the identities, the statuses – and the shared objectives – of the seven complainants and Ms. Martins.

If you are resident in Jersey – bear in mind – as you read these few – fragmentary lines – two things:

1: This letter – and, in particular, all of the underlying legal "work" – has cost you many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

2: All seven of the individuals named in the letter as complainants have acted both criminally – and with gross professional incompetence. You have either employed, or still are employing them; you are still paying for their pensions. And the letter represents them and their corrupt allies oppressing and thwarting you – through the oppression and harassment of your elected representatives. You are funding this:

"THE OFFICE OF THE
Data Protection Commissioner

Strictly private & confidential
By email only:
st.syvret@gmail.com; st.syvret@gov.je

Senator Stuart Syvret

26th March 2010

Dear Senator Syvret

Application for assistance under Art.53 of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 (“the Law”)

I have received applications from the following individuals seeking assistance from mc under Art.53 of the Law;

1. Mrs Linda Dodds

2. Mr Richard Jouault

3. Mrs Rose Naylor

4. Mr David Minty

5. Nurse M

6. Mr Piers Baker

7. Mrs Marnie Baudains

In each case I have determined to provide assistance.

I write therefore in accordance with my statutory obligations to inform you of that decision.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Emma Martins

Data Protection Commissioner."

Anonymous said...

Same issue seems to have been raised on Politics Jersey with free speech at the same time, how weird.

rico sorda said...

Did you enjoy that?

Did you appreciate Ms Martins undertaking so enthusiastically the instructions of her Jersey oligarchy Boss – William Bailhache?

Do you consider that to be a fine and worthwhile use of your hard-earned taxes?

If you do – let me council you to reserve your judgment; for in three or four weeks – I will microscopically itemise the crimes and/or gross malfeasances of those seven individuals.

That's just in case you haven't been paying attention – and can't yet see for yourself the utter atrocity taking place.

But – for today – let us focus upon the even broader question; greater than those seven individuals using and abusing your resources to shelter themselves from accountability.

Instead – let us consider the democratic implications – of people like Ms Martins – her puppet-masters in the Crown Officers' department – and lots and lots of very, very expensive lawyers – the whole crew, paid for by you – using your money, to criminally harass and oppress your chosen elected representatives.

I suppose I could recount just how such monstrous threats are gross breaches of the hard-won rights of parliamentary democracy – of your right to be freely represented – for which our forefathers have laid down their lives.

I could also belabour the point that, to receive such a letter from Ms. Martins – especially in the name of her and certain those complainants – is a straightforward criminal act of witness intimidation during the course of a criminal trial; but that much is too obvious already – so brazen is it.

However – what is worth focusing upon – because it is a genuinely mystifying question – one that I have striven – unsuccessfully – to obtain an answer to from Whitehall mandarins on behalf of my constituents, is – just who do we complain to?

In Jersey – as already adumbrated above and before – we are – undeniably and starkly confronted with nothing less than a complete breakdown in the rule of law – the proper administration of justice.

But – given the Police under David Warcup – the Attorney General's office under these Crown Officers – and the Judiciary under Michael Birt and William Bailhache – are all the very corrupt and criminal entities we wish to complain about – to who or what – do my constituents make their criminal complaints?

rico sorda said...

ou begin to see the problem?

And it's not as though there is any reasoning with these Jersey authorities.

On the contrary.

For example – I responded by e-mail to the manifestly anti-democratic, intimidatory and unlawful letter from Ms. Martins – stating the obvious objections to what she was attempting – and warning her that she was threatening me even though I am the primary witness in an on-going criminal trial.

What occurred next – well – you just couldn't make it up.

I received a reply – not from Ms Martins – not even from the Crown Officers' department – but from a private sector legal firm.

And, no – not 7 Bedford Row.

But, rather - from a Jersey legal outfit – that, today at least, goes under the name of Appleby Global.

Now, let me tell you something absolutely fascinating about Applebys; they've evolved over the years – as legal firms are wont to do. But not evolved – in this case – from any old legal firm.

Oh no.

Appleby's evolved from a legal firm – regular readers will be there ahead of us – called Bailhache Labesse.

Now – where have we heard that name before?

Bailhache Labesse was, of course, the law firm that so catastrophically failed the young victims of the Blanche Pierre Atrocity – back during 1998/99.

Back when THE Senior Partner of the firm was one Advocate William Bailhache.

That being THE William – Barking Bill – Bailhache who has not only been instructing and directing Emma Martins in her various oppressions of me and other whistle-blowers during the last two and a half years – but who has also been evidentially instrumental in pro-actively obstructing and thwarting the Police in their efforts to extradite and charge and prosecute Jane and Allan Maguire – for the criminal offences they so obviously committed against their young victims.

Young victims who were utterly betrayed and failed – by Bailhache Labesse – back in 1998/99.

Is it not remarkable – how those young victims were not able to take a civil case forward?

Is it not amazing – that what atrocious "advice" – such as they received – concerned the "possibility" of suing the Maguires – rather than the far more obvious – culpable - and legally guaranteed defendant – the States of Jersey?

rico sorda said...

Is it not sickening – that so disengaged and morally dysfunctional were Bailhache Labesse/Applebys - that the only note-worthy thing they ever did in respect of the young victims of the Blanche Pierre Atrocity – was to send them a bill?

I did – of course – attempt to point out to William Bailhache – during 2008 – when matters concerning the Blanche Pierre atrocity and the abuses by the Maguires were due to be determined for extradition and prosecution – that he, in his capacity as Attorney General, was hopelessly conflicted in the matter – and that he should recues himself.

He – of course – would have none of it, and instead pressed on – with all of the crazed hubris that so defines the Jersey oligarchy. And to this day – he consequently remains dammed – utterly so – by his own actions and misjudgements.

But to return to Bailhache Labesse – in its 2010 incarnation - as Appleby Global – and its politically oppressive, unlawful and anti-democratic actions – as evidenced in their letter to me.

As explained above – I received the highly intimidating and prejudicing letter from Ms Martins – which I was so frightened and disquieted by, I had to respond, pointing out its manifest illegality.

In response, I received this:

"APPLEBY

E-mail:

dbenest@applebyglobal.com

dblackmor@applebyglobal.com

Direct dial:

Tel + 44 (0) 1534 818 101777

Fax + 44 (0) 1534 837 778

Your ref:
Appleby ref: 204644.0002\DVB\djb

30 March 2010

By Email Only: st.syvret@gmail.com
Senator Stuart Syvret

Dear Senator Syvret

Data Protection Commissioner

I write further to your letter dated 26th March 2010 as addressed to the Data Protection Commissioner, Mrs Martins, and which she has passed to us for reply.

Under Art.53, the Data Protection Commissioner may provide assistance if she determines that it is appropriate to do so in all the circumstances and that the relevant statutory test has been met. She has agreed to accede to the requests of certain individuals who have made applications to her, and whose names have been provided to you.

Pursuant to Art.53 of the Law, where she has made the decision to provide an individual with assistance, she is obliged to inform you, the data controller, of that decision. That she has done. Her letter does no more than that and to frame it as intimidatory is wrong.

She is not obliged to and will not provide to you the reasons for her determinations to provide assistance. This is for no other reason than that the matters contained within the individual applications for assistance, and which form the basis of any determination, are confidential. She has taken advice regarding her powers under the Law and she is satisfied that she is acting properly in acceding to the requests, which she has approached in an entirely impartial manner.

As a direct result of the requests made to her and her decision to provide assistance in relation to the applicants, she has instructed this firm and we are now in the process of considering each individual case and the appropriate way in which to take the matter forward.

It has also been noted that your letter to Mrs Martins appears littered with allegations of misconduct and criminality. Whilst not wishing at this stage to engage in litigation by correspondence, it should be noted, for the record, that each allegation in this respect is expressly denied.

Yours faithfully

David Benest"

Anonymous said...

"each allegation in this respect is expressly denied."

Well you have their answers then?!

Anonymous said...

"Well you have their answers then?!" @6:15pm ........ As the London whore famously said regarding her "respectable" client:

"Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

We have reached the point in Jersey where we should not believe anything about our authorities ..... unless they deny it.

click HERE for pv-TV report on Jersey Child Abuse government cover up said...

FROM
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-crown-judicial-function-in-jersey.html?commentPage=2

A reader says:

"Can they really jail you twice for the same 'offence'? Surely you've already done your time?"

Remember, I was jailed for supposed "contempt of court" - and contempt of court doesn't work like that.

The purported "contempt" is on-going - and will remain so until it's "purged".

But in any event - even if the state succeeded in coercing me with the extant oppression - they have to carry on doing it now - for evermore - every time I criticise the Jersey government on an evidenced basis.

Indeed - they'll be especially desperate to force censorship now, given their "public inquiry" into the child-abuse concealments is about to begin.

The senior oligarchs - such as the Crown Officers - know perfectly well that if the culpable civil-servants are not protected from public exposure & scrutiny, the said civil servants' will "sing" like the proverbial canary.

And we can't have that now - can we?

It's the ever-deepening hole the Jersey oligarchy dug itself into when buying the silence of child-abusing criminals like Jane and Alan Maguire - corruptly dropping the prosecution in 1998 so as to prevent a full airing of the savage and despicable horrors in open court - and all of the damming consequences for the civil servants of that time - and the then Attorney General, Philip Bailhache.

That's the problem with cover-ups - once embarked upon - there's no turning back. No matter how ludicrous - extreme - crazed - and tortuous the succeeding cover-ups have to become - the cover-ups of the cover-ups must amplify into chaos and anarchy.

Which is where the Jersey oligarchy and their protectors in London are now.

They begin by weaving that tangled web of deception - what seemed like a convenient brushing under the carpet, done by a few "respectable chaps" like Michael Birt - and end up having to do things like employing spin-doctors to smear police child-abuse investigations, illegally suspending a decorated nationally respected Police Chief, mounting illegal massed raids - without a search-warrant - on the most prominent opposition politician, suborning the NMC into an evidenced conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, & getting Mick Birt's friends to jail the politician - after banning him from having a defence.

Bedlam.

A collapse in the very rule of law - borne of decadence and hubris.

But the Jersey feudatory cannot now turn aside from the path of the amplifying mendacities upon corruptions upon rackets upon crimes upon suppressions upon cover-ups.

Watch out for the next madnesses: "public" inquiries which are secret? Judge-made-law which de facto bans real electoral discourse? The Queen being asked to issue "Letters Patent" to make William Bailhache Bailiff, even though there is publish sworn testimony from the former Police Chief that Bailhache attempted to illegally coerce him into dropping a corruption investigation?

It's all there - coming down the track.

Let's face it - we all know it can only end one way. Which is the way it was always going to end. That way and not some other way.

We observe that inevitability - like watching a train-wreck.

Stuart [Syvret]

Anonymous said...

"I just fear that this attitude towards data protection law could start a flurry of toxic blogs starting and if so, nobody on here can complain. "

I would argue there is a far greater risk of a culture of toxic blogs developing in Jersey if bloggers are left feeling forced to operate anonymously through fear of strict control laws.