Sunday, August 16, 2015

RICHARD JOUAULT AND THE NON DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS



RICHARD JOUAULT  



JERSEY CHILD ABUSE INQURY



STATEMENT BY THE INQUIRY CHAIR, FRANCES OLDHAM QC


"However, we have been hampered by the late and non-disclosure of important documents, largely by the various States’ Departments, but also from the Law Officers Department. These include HR records, disciplinary and other investigations, policies, procedures, reports and emails, which have either failed to be disclosed, or have been disclosed after the relevant witness has given their evidence. Over the coming weeks, the Inquiry will review the recent disclosure and any documents which are forthcoming and will consider whether witnesses need to be recalled as a result."




THE ROLE OF RICHARD JOUAULT AND TONY LE SUEUR - AND WHAT EXACTLY ARE THEY DOING????


Two senior Health and Social Services managers were appointed by the Chief Ministers office to assist the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry in gathering and obtaining crucial documents for the Inquiry. 

Let us now read the full statement from  Francis Oldham QC:

FRANCIS OLDHAM QC


3 August 2015

"The Chair of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, Mrs Frances Oldham QC, on Thursday (13/8/15) made the following statement at the end of Phase 1b of Public Hearings:
“During this phase of evidence, the Inquiry has received excellent cooperation from the vast majority of witnesses, who have assisted the work of the Inquiry. 
“However, we have been hampered by the late and non-disclosure of important documents, largely by the various States’ Departments, but also from the Law Officers Department. These include HR records, disciplinary and other investigations, policies, procedures, reports and emails, which have either failed to be disclosed, or have been disclosed after the relevant witness has given their evidence. Over the coming weeks, the Inquiry will review the recent disclosure and any documents which are forthcoming and will consider whether witnesses need to be recalled as a result. 
“Furthermore, in relation to specific disclosure requests that have been outstanding for a number of months, the Inquiry will consider setting a final date for the provision of these documents or written confirmation that the documents do not exist.  Failure to provide documents may lead to adverse inferences being drawn by the Inquiry in its final report.”
Public hearings will resume on Tuesday 8 September with four days of hearings to hear evidence from various members of committees of the States of Jersey.
A detailed timetable will be made available at the beginning of September.
In the meantime the Inquiry team will continue their intense preparation for the next phase of the Inquiry.
Hearings will recommence in earnest the week beginning 12 October with the Panel hearing any outstanding evidence relating to Phase 1b of the Inquiry. They will also hear evidence relating to Phase 2 where they will look at the decisions taken in relation to the timing of the police investigation and prosecutions of alleged abusers."

The statement by the Chair of the Inquiry is carefully worded in lawyers language but its message seems to be clear enough. States departments and the Law Officers are not co-operating with the Inquiry and appear to be withholding essential documents.What have they to hide? Could it be that more uncomfortable truths have been blatantly buried by the Jersey Establishment? No wonder why Senator Philip Bailhache and his followers wanted to bring the Inquiry to a halt.

In the disciplinary hearing arising from the Warren case the panel made similar criticism saying that Home Affairs and the Law Officers, having commissioned an investigation, had not co-operated with it.

It seems that they would rather be criticised for not co-operating than give the COI the information and documents they are asking for which invites speculation as to just what the documents may contain and why they are so desperate to withhold them?  

Ironic that even in the midst of a Committee of Inquiry investigating cover-ups they engage in further cover-ups right under the noses of the Inquiry and defy anyone to do anything about it. Only this time the world is watching.

Questions now need to be asked of Richard Jouault who's position was solely created at tax payers expense to assist the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry with obtaining crucial documents from States Departments. 

For some unknown reason Richard Jouault is present almost every day at every hearing of this Inquiry.  Thus far he has failed (according to the care inquiry) to fulfil the one purpose he has been charged to do and that is to obtain documents to assist the inquiry in its work.  One must remember that Richard Jouault is Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Health and Social Services. A department that is under investigation by this inquiry for serious failure, over decades, in the protection of vulnerable children. So, it is reasonable to argue that he is wholly conflicted and shouldn't be allowed in a country mile of this inquiry except for the sole purpose of giving evidence.  Another legitimate question to ask, due to the apparent conflict of Mr Jouault, is it he who is hampering the production of these crucial documents. 

Is it better to be criticised for not handing over crucial/critical documents than allowing the truth to be revealed. 

If you have nothing to Fear then you have nothing to Hide.

The States of Jersey have asked for this Child Abuse Inquiry and a pattern seems to be developing as in where the BARTON REPORT  States Departments refuses to co-operate with said inquiry they themselves have asked for.


Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist

46 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

You are right to point out the pattern of The States commissioning inquiries and then not cooperating with them as in the Barton Report (link on your Blog Posting).

The Law Office Department STILL need investigating for that fiasco after it attempted to hide its "failings" and hang the cops out to dry.

In February 2013 you published THIS BLOG which will be helpful to those with an interest in the tactics of the Law Offices Department.

Anonymous said...

Another great post Rico asking the questions on everybody's lips what the hell is Jouault playing at? He's got one job to do and isn't doing it! Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Jouault should not be within a country mile of the inquiry unless he is stood there as the accused and what on earth is the inquiry thinking by putting him in charge of gathering documents? No wonder documents are getting withheld when you are putting the fox in charge of the hen house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Póló said...

Just look at the Jersey authorities involvement with outside elements.

Graham Power: got in to police the place properly but got rid of when tried to do so.

Lenny Harper: similarly, but smeared on retirement.

McKay: in the Warren case. Commissioned for advice which when inconvenient was suppressed. The money probably to pay him anyway. He did give the advice.

Chief Constable of Durham: got to run a dicey disciplinary hearing. He ripped the authorities apart and suggested recommendations for the accused.

Wiltshire Constabulary: got to malign Graham Power. Couldn't find anything. Submitted cobbled together "report" to meet deadline. "Report extensively quoted in a prejudicial manner and then attempted to be buried.

Napier: blasted the authorities. Tried to suppress.

and so on.

Then there is the Established Church. Korris & Steel: highly prejudiced and/or Church won't cooperate with its own commissioned investigations.

They're only off the top of my head. Enough left to fill a book.

Who would buy a dog licence from these people?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Polo, all fair observations.

It's ironic, though, that you raise the question "Who would buy a dog licence from these people?"

Actually - when I wrote the following posting - "Of Abuse Survivors and Dog Licences" - and for a long time afterwards, the Jersey polity and its legislature had, in fact, spent a lot more time discussing dog licences than victims of child-abuse: -

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/of-abuse-survivors-and-dog-licences/

Couldn't make it up.

Perhaps someone could submit the above URL as a clickable link? Having just re-read the posting, it remains very topical and important - as is so much of the material the Jersey bloggers have published, putting to shame Jersey's MSM / State media.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Was Richard Jouault working for Mike Pollard when he wrote that disgusting letter about Syvret's removal in 2008 ?

This must be a bad joke surely ? A States health department under investigation then appoints a senior health manager to become the bridge to supply ( or obviously not ) important evidence ( redacted ) to the child abuse enquiry panel.

Then the panel is disappointed that information is not provided or provided late.

Hello UK look at this shambles, unfortunately the information you require from Jersey will be late, heavily redacted, incomplete or missing completely.

Not to worry eh my luv it's the Jersey way of trying to keep control.

And failing.

Anonymous said...

This might sound like a stupid questions but I hope somebody will answer it.

If Richard Jouault is Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Health and Social Services how can he be the one put in charge of gathering the documents required by the COI? Health and Social Services are being investigated by the inquiry, the same H&SS Richard Jouault is the Deputy CEO of. Am I misunderstanding something here and asking a stupid question or is there not a huge conflict of interest here?

Póló said...

Here is the dog licence clickable link


And, Stuart, it's about time you learned how to insert clickable links. It's simplicity itself.

Here's an RTFM I had in the oven.

Anonymous said...

And they wonder why no one wants to be a centenier in st saviour who would want an AG for their boss!!!

Anonymous said...

If I got this right..... Richard Jouault claims Stuart Syvret knew about the Maguires some time previously because SS had attended the relevant H+SS Dept.Committee meeting. Well, just suppose SS had been at that meeting. Do you think SS would be sleeping when the story was raised at the table? I think the chances of that are fairly slim myself. Or did the official recanting the information some how play it down- minimize it to the 'enth degree and claimed everything was above board and hunky dorey. Maybe. Or how about this...... RJ re-writes the minutes of the meeting and includes SS's name. Possible too. Anyway, in the scheme of things it's irrelevant and RJ knows he's been clutching at straws.

rico sorda said...

That is up to Stuart Syvret to comment on. The fact he doesn't recognize this COI or want to give his testimony is his decision.

Everyone else is coming forward. The greatest shame is this is the one and only chance. Stuart is beings proved right already and there is still so much more to come.

This Inquiry isn't about Stuart Syvret and nor do they need him or bother subpoena him. He would agree with that. He could have added more. They can say what they like about Stuart because they know he won't bother giving his side. Win win for them on that issue.

Anonymous said...



It is my understanding Rico that Syvret at first was very interested in putting his detailed information as the ex minister for health to the enquiry.

The CoI have provided lawyers representing Danny Wherry, Mario Lundy, Anton Skinner and a small army of civil servants but refuse to provide a lawyer for Stuart Syvret.

He can speak for himself, but just pointing out this appears a very lopsided and unprofessional way to conduct an enquiry. It would be interesting to know exactly what would be done to him should he decide to appear without a lawyer. Another secret trial using dodgy unstable internet trolls, or men accused of crimes against children maybe as witnesses all paid for taxpayers ? They have done this before.

As you have pointed out, there is some good coming from this enquiry. There are also further questions including those by Daniel Wimberely which have not been answered - lest we forget and again why no lawyer for Syvret ?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico

In response to the comment at 10:25, and your follow-up comment I'd make the following observations.

It's at moments like this world has demonstrated to it again the profound importance of the blogs, and how the blogs have left no-where to hide for the oligarchy, and why the establishment was so desperate to shut down my blog - before - and after - the public inquiry process began. The blogs demonstrate and record an evidenced, contemporaneous - and real - narrative; an historic, grass-roots narrative - which stands in terminal competition to the fake, manufactured narrative the British Establishment still think they're able to produce through these "public inquiries".

I haven't yet read the transcript of Jouault's "testimony", so I don't know at the moment what meeting he's referring to. But I'm only aware of one meeting at which the Maguires were raised. That was a meeting of the old Health & Social Services Committee, of which at that time I was a member and had not yet become its President. The meeting in question took place on 5th May 1999.

And I've already published that evidence and written about it - on 6th May 2008.

The posting in question - and the relevant facts - were explained here: -

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/jersey-child-abuse-disaster/

It remains a deeply important part of the historic, evidenced narrative - and very topical too.

You're absolutely right, Rico, that the Jersey "public inquiry" isn't about me. In fact what we're dealing with here - our fundamental cause - isn't even focused on the Jersey "public inquiry" which is simply a mere incidental occurrence on this long unfolding narrative; a narrative that will still be on-going long after the multi-million pound failed spin-doctoring exercise of the Special Branch / Eversheds CoI has packed its bags and gone and "its report" is stuffed onto the dusty shelves to join the Napier Report, the Sharp Report, and the Howard League Report - etc.

What we're fighting for is nothing less than the real rule of law.

And as this "public inquiry" is acting in many ultra vires ways - I don't see co-operating with it to be compatible with the core aim of securing the rule of law in Jersey.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

I can understand what Stuart is saying but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Stuart's narrative of the narrative is only a narrative. It's equally important to remember that the COI will have its own narrative which is only a narrative. I have my own narrative but won't bore you with it because its only a narrative. QED Mens Rea.

rico sorda said...

As far as I know, and I stand corrected. If Stuart was to give testimony he would get a lawyer of his choice straight away and from the UK if he so wish.

If he wanted a lawyer as an (IP) interested party he would have to be given IP status first.

Rs

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

"I can understand what Stuart is saying but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Stuart's narrative of the narrative is only a narrative. It's equally important to remember that the COI will have its own narrative which is only a narrative. I have my own narrative but won't bore you with it because its only a narrative. QED Mens Rea."

Everyone has a narrative, to be sure. But some of our narratives are compatible with the law - and more significantly, are evidence-based.

Stuart

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, you say: -

"As far as I know, and I stand corrected. If Stuart was to give testimony he would get a lawyer of his choice straight away and from the UK if he so wish.

If he wanted a lawyer as an (IP) interested party he would have to be given IP status first."

To be clear, the CoI will NOT provide legal representation funding to a person merely "giving evidence". They will only provide legal representation funding to those who first sign-up to "interested party" status.

The explanation you give mistakenly implies there are two ways of getting legal representation - through being a witness and giving testimony - and, alternatively, as being an "interested party". That isn't the case. The CoI will only provide legal representation funding IF a person signs-up to "Interested Party" status first. And if you sign-up to "Interested Party" status you immediately become legally bound by the CoI's extensive, complex and deeply restraining "protocols". Protocols which the CoI generated and imposed without consultation with stake-holders - in direct contravention of Paragraph (e) of the States decision.

I wrote to the CoI when they started and explained there were a number of very serious issues which arose from their "Protocols", and that I would need to take legal advice on them first, before I could sign-up to those conditions. Which is reasonable enough; who but a fool signs a binding contract without taking legal advice on it first?

The CoI flatly refused to provide me with legal representation funding - unless I signed-up to "Interested Party" status first - signed-up to be bound by all their "Protocols" - without being able to take legal advice on the implications of signing away my rights in that way.

So, the reality is that the CoI has refused to give me legal representation. To demand of a person that they sign some kind of "contract" to surrender their rights - before they get a lawyer - is to de facto refuse to give that person legal representation.

It was an insult to the intelligence - in addition to being the moment in which the CoI self-destroyed its vires.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

But Stuart , you've got nothing to loose so where is the problem here
At least your evidence would be documented

Anonymous said...

Stuart the abuse victims gave you evidence when you asked for it why can't you now do the same for them? The inquiry has the ability to vindicate every one of the victims but you are putting your needs before theirs and are denying them their day of reckoning. This isn't about you Stuart it's about the victims.

rico sorda said...

I'm not sure insulting peoples intelligence about signing up to IP status is the way forward. This is about the Abuse Victims having their harrowing experiences listened to, letting the truth be told and know that in the end they are believed. Anything else after that will be a bonus. All evidence must be submitted. We can all find a thousand excuses not to do anything. Nothing in life is perfect. Nothing.

Give the truth a chance to breathe. I personally believe Stuart should go down there and just get on with it. Stuart knows that's how I feel but its his choice.

Unless Stuart has some new evidence it will be what he has been proved to be right over all these years. Except this time it will be documented at the COI.

Rico

Some narratives are more equal (with the truth) said...

@August 19, 10:22am "I can understand what Stuart is saying but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Stuart's narrative of the narrative is only a narrative. ....."

Indeed they are all "narratives", and many in Jersey and elsewhere have clung to the MSA/establishment narrative and now are (or should be) feeling rather sick and stupid.

The establishment narrative has changed with the wind, month on month, year on year:
...we will prosecute the abuse perpetrators and publicly name those who cannot be prosecuted
...we promise a Public Inquiry
...there is no need for a Public Inquiry
...there is "insufficient evidence" to prosecute ## suspects [lie]
...we will not name them (and will spend shedloads of public money on super-injunctions against whistle-blowers)
...there was no real abuse, this was normal' in the 60's,70's,80's,90's
...there were no cellars and no concrete bath
...the victims have been 'genreously' compensated
...if we have a Public Inquiry, members will be shocked by what is revealed
...the States issues an apology to victims of decades of abuse
...Senior civil servants from the departments under investigation are "assisting" the CoI and this is A-okay

That's just off the top of my head

That establishment "narrative" assisted by, or even downplayed by the JEPaedo, KrichefskyTV and the BBSavile


So which "narrative" does the smart money follow?

...the ever changing establishment narrative of denial
...or the narrative of the bloggers which has proven stable and robust ...for nearly a decade in the case of Ex-Health Minister Syvret

There are many narratives, but all narratives are not equal. Some are proven to be predominantly true and some are proven to be predominantly false (and sometimes shameless lies & lawyer-lies)

Mr. Syvret has a remarkable track record of being proven right in challenging the narrative of the time, often at great personal cost.

But not as great as the cost to the island of realising he was right, but 5 or 10 years too late.

History says that only stupid people dismiss Mr Syvret's 'narrative' without giving it the consideration it deserves. QED?


Rico@9:59 Perhaps you could print his (Syvret's) blog and present it to the CoI yourself?
The CoI has already had a massive impact locally, but long term it may turn out to be just a sideshow.

Anonymous said...

RE "The ever changing establishment narrative"

Let's not forget the 2007 narrative "....Jersey Children's Services are good and the Health Minister's concerns and statements are 'erroneous

Anonymous said...


'So, the reality is that the CoI has refused to give me legal representation. To demand of a person that they sign some kind of "contract" to surrender their rights - before they get a lawyer - is to de facto refuse to give that person legal representation.

It was an insult to the intelligence - in addition to being the moment in which the CoI self-destroyed its vires'.

So Stuart - by implication you are questioning the 'intelligence' of those like Graham Power, Lenny Harper and the JCLA and its legal representative who have all applied and gotten IP status? A step too far methinks!

Vires, QED or whatever you care to call it, not everybody is blessed with the brain you feel you have, and rather than working along the lines that b/shit baffles brains, let people make up their own minds. You have made it quite clear what you think of the CoI, of that there is no doubt, but some witnesses will give overwhelmingly strong evidence, so maybe yours is not really needed at all.

End of.

Anonymous said...

Instead of trying to construct reasons not to give evidence to the COI why try to construct reasons to support it.

phil said...


If the final objective is to establish the proper rule of law in Jersey then the COI should be given all of the evidence that is available in order for it to be able to conclude that the government of Jersey and all its agencies not only have failed for decades to prevent the criminal abuse of children in its care but also has sought to cover up these crimes. What better way of showing that the proper rule of law in Jersey has indeed broken down. Please support the COI despite its imperfections. The final report from the COI will be a mighty weapon in the fight for fairness and justice. Do not abandon it. Give it the evidence that it needs to draw the right conclusions.

Anonymous said...


phil, What makes you think that the COI's final objective is to establish the proper rule of law in Jersey? Do you have proof of this? Why shouldn't the COI's objective be to carry on with the cover up?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Comment at 10:10 p.m. says: -

"But Stuart , you've got nothing to loose so where is the problem here
At least your evidence would be documented."

Wrong.

Comment at 90:07 a.m. says: -

"Stuart the abuse victims gave you evidence when you asked for it why can't you now do the same for them? The inquiry has the ability to vindicate every one of the victims but you are putting your needs before theirs and are denying them their day of reckoning. This isn't about you Stuart it's about the victims."

Wrong.

And I've explained many times - on many forums - why those arguments are wrong.

No one - but no-one - has yet produced a factual, rational explanation of why my analyses is wrong. Instead all we ever get are those type of comments - trolling, basically - a main characteristic of which is the repetition - over - and over - and over - and over - again - of wrong assertions which have already been refuted on many previous occasions.

We all know the best advice for dealing with trolling: 'don't feed the troll'.

So I won't bother repeating the facts all over again. Instead I'll state one - fundamental - point: Jersey's abuse victims were betrayed - just as vulnerable children in Jersey into the future will be betrayed - by the Crown functions in Jersey: policing, prosecution, judiciary.

Anything which does not - at first base - tackle the overt and undisguisable corruption of Crown power in Jersey - fails to clean-up the system responsible for child-abuse cover-ups.

The issue is very simple: "would the act of me "legitimating" this biased, ultra vires inquiry be to oppose Jersey's judicial corruption - or would it be to support Jersey's judicial corruption?"

For me to engage with processes which are plainly unlawful - as this CoI is - would be to support the unlawful "judicial" system within which these unlawful processes are able to operate.

And I'm never going to do that.

Instead, I'm going to fight the battle that needs fighting to protect vulnerable children into the future: the fight for a depoliticised, non-corrupt judicial system.

No amount of repetitive trolling is going to turn me aside from that path.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Don't feed the Troll?
Judging by your definitions of trolling, judicial matters and ultra vires I'd say nobody understands what the heck you are going on about anymore.

Anonymous said...

Stuart @12:40
I have no doubt that some of it is trolling, but please bear in mind that not everybody is necessarily that well informed and that 50% of people are not of above average intelligence.

Some people will genuinely believe that this CoI is the be all and end all and the endless repetition is annoying

The CoI is marketed as the "only show in town".
It is not, it is purely the "show" that TPTB currently have on. The CoI has already produced important benefits and some broadcast of what was on the blogs years ago (troll-rubbished at the time LOL)

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that toleration of child abuse and cover up are a symptom of corruption and dysfunction in the Crown, Judicial and Policing functions.

Do people not understand this?
Or are they really content to see the symptoms treated with an improved bedside manner & a belated sticking plaster -and leave the main underlying cancer growing?

The CoI COULD do an adequate job on the evidence it has before it.
The flawed CoI may not have to be repeated here or elsewhere IF it is hard hitting enough and identifies those underlying causes strongly enough to guarantee change.

If it does then fair-do's.
Time will tell, but I expect a few strong words, a lot of hand-wringing and an assurance that "lessons have been learnt"

Oh, ...and a big bill :-/

A far smaller bill could have paid for proper job.
This circus is run by clowns.

rico sorda said...

How can any "COI" be affective if you starve it of testimony.

The evidence coming to light at the COI has been on the blogs for years. There is also plenty of new evidence coming forward. Decades of abuse went un-challenged, not investigated, damage limitation, covered up on that there can be no doubt.

Stuart has been proved correct. Some who read this blog are foolishly confusing Stuart not giving testimony with him being wrong. That is no correct.

Let the COI Do there job. Have some faith. And for the first time all the evidence from everyone is being collated in one place.

If we didn't trust anything then nothing can change.

If this inquiry can help save one single child from abuse in the future then its worth it. That is the most important part. The rest is a bonus.

Gillian Gracia said...

Rico - well said, and totally behind you on your comment.

Just because people may not agree with you with your 'take' on the CoI Stuart certainly does NOT make them trolls. I am not a troll, but I do not support you on your stance and will now say so quite openly and under my own name.

As has been evidenced at the CoI a lot of people live in fear in this Island, hence the reason they probably post anonymously.

The 'Jersey Way'.

Anonymous said...

The COI is changing things, bringing in new checks, shining light into areas that historically were dark so why so much obsession with Stuart Syvret who has not been in the States for over 5 years?

There are hundreds of witnesses to this COI.

Anonymous said...

Gillian, Rico,

I hope that you are right and that this CoI can be "trusted".

Trusting would be a whole lot easier if we forget a few things

Daniel Wimberley's unanswered concerns over the CoI's "Protocols"
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/jersey-child-abuse-committee-of-inquiry.html

Citizen's media banned from using the facilities in the Media Room
http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/independent-jersey-care-inquiry-4.html

Jaw dropping incompetence and security breech
http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-serious.html

And innumerable other instances of apparent incompetence and bias by the CoI/Chair . e.g. THIS BLOG
http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/richard-jouault-and-non-disclosure-of.html

Children will not be made safe by a half baked CoI with the most bizarre set up

They will have to do a good job on the final report or they will look utterly incompetent when the rest of Mr.Syvret's evidence comes out .......as it surely will.

This CoI will produce some results without Mr.Syvret
That Mr.Syvret holds out is probably a win-win situation. Isn't blowing all your cards in a bent game utter madness?

There is no need to fight. We can agree to differ?

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, I'll go with Stuart. It's ridiculous to think that an inquiry that is wholly selected and managed by the Jersey elite will ever conclude it must change the Jersey system by incorporating the rule of law. A few slapped wrists and "lessons learned" maybe but at the end of the day, nothing will change. All UK inquiries have been the same.

Póló said...

There is a real problem here. In the past it might have been reasonable to think of keeping your powder dry for a UK inquiry. But now it appears that the UK system is almost, if not every bit, as corrupt as that of Jersey.

There is clearly a need for a coherent alternative (Plan B), but I'm damned if I know what that might be.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Polo is failing to see what it is we're fighting against.

Consequently he maintains the false dichotomy that the Jersey child-abuse cover-ups and investigation - and the UK child-abuse cover-ups and investigation - are two different things.

They are not.

This scandal - these atrocities - are one scandal - one set of atrocities.

The UK inquiry - for the moment at least - is obviously as corrupted as the Jersey inquiry. It could well be the case that attempting to furnish evidence and testimony to the "UK" (England / Wales) inquiry is futile. But as the Jersey "public inquiry" is corrupt and futile too, the question is "which forum - which arena - may one as well be futile in?"

"A hick-town white-wash - which is so incompetent even by the standards of British white-washes - it's run by UK cops - and they're so thick they agreed to the "evidence gathering" response of the conflicted local authorities being run by prime cover-up suspects - or - the national white-wash - where at least the real crooks are 'in-the-frame' - and the whole world is watching?"

The situation we face is such a proverbial 'no-brainer' we have to wonder why we're even wasting time discussing it.

Stuart

Póló said...

Stuart @ 10:57

So what's the plan?

Anonymous said...

You are a clever chap Póló

Stuart may give an answer of sorts but you would not expect him to divulge his entire hand in a public forum.

When looking to the future it is worth learning from international experience.
The Jersey situation is just a microcosm of the UK and international situation.

see BBC2 programme on the Belgian non prosecution
Part 1: https://youtu.be/0uCoqldzLJs?t=31
Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfzQiJMrIbc
Part 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiSnCRVP1zI

Paedophilia is not just a British problem, it is a truly international problem.


The law is the right starting point.

But if the law fails?
Or rather, WHEN the law fails (as in Belgium), because these people ARE THE LAW, is it then game over?

Stuart would probably not share the view but if the law fails than why should people operate within the law?

This is not just a philosophical question but also a practical one. People regularly act outside the law for both good and bad reasons. Outside the law could include anything from civil disobedience to hanging offenders and obstructors from proverbial lamp-posts. A scary thought, and we will hopefully stay a long way from that point, but to work .

The alternative of course is obediently accept blatant non-prosecution of well connected offenders and to consequently accept the continued abuse of children the past industrial-scale.

When is enough enough?

The CoI's need to be beyond convincing. So far they have fallen far short, as demonstrated in this blog many times over.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Polo, you obviously haven't read the comment if you need to ask such a question.

Stuart

Póló said...

I am simply wondering, if both Jersey and UK are equally corrupt, who is going to sort all this out. A reasonable thought in the circumstances.

Anonymous said...

@Póló
Rico was a little slow publishing comment 26Aug 11:56am

The idiom is that "the law is an Ass", but Suvret and others are also finding that the law is a locked box and that the keys are held by oily shysters who grin like gargoyles to their media-on-a-leash and gleefully cr@p on the rest of humanity from their lofty perches and think it is their birthright.

Serial failures like Bailhache, like I-L-M and like Jack Straw-man

From the end of part one of above BBC "Correspondent -An Olenka Frenkiel investigation"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uCoqldzLJs&feature=youtu.be&t=790


The mobilisation of the Belgian public was prompted by the emotive sight of live coverage the rescued girls (who in the clip take the microphone and thank the 300,000 people of the "White March")

Jersey and the UK have so far been spared these emotive scenes (or have they? Fred West's paedophile brothel was allegedly frequented by local policeman -and who else?? ....Special Branch taking such a keen interest in non-investigation)
But all child abuse disasters and cover ups are invariably littered with bodies even if there are no murders to dispose of victims. Abuse survivors show a shockingly high rate of 'self medication' and suicide. This is certainly the case in jersey and the notion of "no murders" is far from proven.

The 300,000 Belgians vented a little anger and then accepted a fobbing off and relentless character assassinations in Belgian state media.

Are there "lessons to be learnt" from the Belgian experience and innumerable other places where the same-cover up protocols have been used so successfully?

Sure!
Think outside the 'box'. Start with low level civil disobedience, ramp up "occupy" type movements.

Ask politely.
Give the law and CoI's one last chance

Then ask less politely.

If civil disobedience remains unanswered and this culminates in a few judges and ex judges etc. being hung up by the wizened genitalia .......then (to flip a phrase) "so be it"?

Póló, Is there anything to learn from the Irish experience?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Probably no-one is going to sort it out. We are - after all - dealing with the most resilient, corrupt oligarchy on the face of the planet, the British Establishment. And in the interface between London & Jersey we see a kind of "mystical" apparatus - a magical quasi-realm by which that Establishment has always laundered and invested its wealth. That's why the Jersey oligarchy and their corrupted protectors in Whitehall have the Janus-faced policy by which power and responsibility for Jersey lays with the Crown - when it suits them - and with Jersey's ruling gangsters - when it suits them.

It's almost a certainty we'll never win.

But there is one thing some of us can be certain of - one thing some of us - me for example - do have power in. That is the power to withhold "legitimation" from their corrupt, make-believe "public inquiry". For as long as a key party such as me withholds voluntary endorsement from the Jersey "public inquiry" - it will never have - it will never gain - lawful legitimacy. Which means that the Jersey and London Establishments can never achieve their objective of "drawing a line under this episode". It will remain an unsettled controversy for decades.

For their "public inquiry" to have been able to fully settle these matters - un-challengeably, and with full legal robustness and finality - every single part of the process and the way it has operated would have to have been legally immaculate. It would have had to have carefully foreseen, and carefully maintained every issue of vires. Had they done that, non-co-operation from key parties would have been surmountable - one way or another; if the CoI's processes had had full legal legitimacy - then their final reports and findings would have, likewise, held full legal legitimacy.

However - instead of such legal legitimacy this "public inquiry" has heaped error, upon blunder, upon incompetence in a catalogue of ultra vires acts and omissions and farcical human rights abuses in a manner as to be without parallel in the entire modern history of public inquiries in the British Isles.

Seriously - they haven't even tried to be faintly "clever" about it.

The Eversheds F Team fell on their arses at the starting-line.

I'm certainly never going to help them salvage their failed cover-up.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Stuart,
It will be interesting to see/hear how they (the COI team), explain/justify the suspension of Power as Chief of Police, and the removal of you as Health and Social Services Minister, without exposing the "staring them in the face" cover-up.
Interesting months ahead. Do you agree?

Anonymous said...

"For as long as a key party such as me withholds voluntary endorsement from the Jersey "public inquiry" - it will never have - it will never gain - lawful legitimacy"

No one person is important. It's the collective that will get the truth out.

Why do you see yourself as such a Key Party?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

"It will be interesting to see/hear how they (the COI team), explain/justify the suspension of Power as Chief of Police, and the removal of you as Health and Social Services Minister, without exposing the "staring them in the face" cover-up."

"Interesting", certainly. Of decisive relevance to "The Big Picture"? No.

Not even if they exposed the "staring-them-in-the-face-cover-up".

The oppressions visited on Mr Power and on me are of importance. But only as incidental - symptomatic - similar-fact - issues. Of more significance are the oppressions thus indirectly inflicted on the many members of the public for who we had public office responsibilities.

This purported "public inquiry" could theoretically "hang-medals" on people like Graham Power and me - and could, metaphorically, stick the "heads-on-spikes" of the Bailhache Brothers, Le Cocq, Birt, Shaw, Le Marquand, Martins, Clyde-Smith, Ridgeway, Ogley, Wilkins, Jouault - etc - etc - etc.

But even if the CoI acted in that most unlikely of ways, given it's those people it's working for - would that be "it"?

Would that be "mission-accomplished"?

Would that be the "win" for our campaign?

Would that guarantee justice for presently betrayed abuse-survivors - and guarantee protection into the future for vulnerable children to come?

No. It would not.

The "win-lose" perspective of the various individual players in this war are, frankly, irrelevant.

There's only one factor that matters - and it's one factor that no amount of empty spin & PR - in either direction - from this fake "public inquiry" can divert us from, which is this: vulnerable people - ordinary powerless people - must be protected by the proper, objective rule of law.

That can only happen with British constitutional reform.

All the rest of it - all this trivia - is diversionary time-wasting - mere distractions from securing those proper protections.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

I bet Phil B must be mad about the fact that "States departments and the Law Officers are not co-operating with the Inquiry and appear to be withholding essential documents." as they are obviously increasing the cost of the whole inquiry. Surely he should be stepping in to speed up the process, unless of course he is the problem!!!