Sunday, September 20, 2015

THE COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY AND THE KEY PLAYERS: OPERATION RECTANGLE: PRELUDE

FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE, GRAHAM POWER QPM STATES OF JERSEY POLICE

FORMER DCO LENNY HARPER STATES OF JERSEY POLICE



THE JERSEY CHILD ABUSE  ENQUIRY 

AKA


THE JERSEY CARE INQUIRY (COI)


OPERATION RECTANGLE ( Investigation into decades long child abuse)


THE KEY PLAYERS 


Over the past months the care enquiry has been hearing from victims, alleged abusers, care workers and people who were in authority of the agencies responsible for the protection of children in Jersey.  The picture that is emerging from the many testimonies and submissions that have been collated is one of failure, cover-up and collusion . There can be no doubt about this. The way that Operation Rectangle had to be closed down, the denigration of former DCO & Senior Lead  officer Lenny Harper and the quite absurdly bonkers triple suspension of then former Police Chief Graham Power QPM lies at the heart of the Jersey culture (The Jersey Way) and who holds the real power in the Island.


Bloggers have been reporting and exposing these cover - ups since the now infamous liberation day speech of then Bailiff Philip Bailhache.  Team Voice has almost exclusively reported on the facts behind one of the most notorious, blatant child abuse cover ups that the British Isles has ever seen or witnessed to this present day. We have been able to report these facts after gaining the trust and confidence of high ranking whistle blowers who have trusted us with official documentation knowing that we would publish these documents and invite readers and viewers to form their own opinions on the official documented evidence.


Readers are invited to form an opinion why Team Voice were able to gain the trust and confidence of the whistle blowers and the local mainstream media were not afforded this trust or confidence. Unfortunately the Child Abuse Inquiries  terms of reference do not extend to role played by the local mainstream media. 


FORMER CHIEF MINISTER FRANK WALKER AND FORMER HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW LEWIS

If we are to really find out the truth of the jersey child abuse cover-up then the jersey "COI" must look closely at the multiple suspensions possibly (illegal) suspension of Graham Power QPM and the subsequent denigration of himself, his Deputy Chief Officer and Operation Rectangle as a whole. The "COI" needs to discover who on this Island has the power to pressurise the then Chief Minister Frank Walker who then set in chain the events that led to the  allegedly illegal suspension of Chief of Police initiated by the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis. Could it be that Frank Walker wanted to do the right thing regarding the whole Child Abuse Investigation but was powerless to do so. 


Who on this Island wields such power and influence over one of the most powerful men on the island? We, at Team Voice, believe it can only be the unelected, unaccountable Jersey Law Office.  The Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff the Attorney General and their minions.  If the "COI" is to do its job and is able to get to the truth (bearing in mind they are being hindered by the Jersey Law Office) it can only conclude that the politicised Judiciary is the reason that children in the  jersey care system have not been,not now or never will be safe. The Jersey Law Office will always protect the reputation of Jersey before that of vulnerable children and victims of abuse as demonstrated by the then Bailiffs Philip Bailhache infamous 2008 Liberation day speech.

FORMER BAILIFF - SIR PHILIP BAILHACHE

"All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal".


Over the coming weeks we will be revisiting Operation Rectangle and the key players who supported it and attacked it. Why and how did the former Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis get it so badly wrong. This has been  evidenced,documented, and will be looked at over the coming weeks on the Team Voice Blogs. 


The suspension of Police Chief Power is an albatross around Andrew Lewis's neck. The "COI" could offer the opportunity to Andrew Lewis to finally  relieve himself of his albatross.  Make no mistake the one thing Andrew Lewis will be remembered for is his role in suspending a Police Chief who's only crime was to investigate decades long child abuse. 


We will be looking at all the key players in the next posting 


Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Team Voice 

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fair comment regarding Deputy Lewis.

rico sorda said...

Frank Walker needed Andrew Lewis to suspend Graham Power as only the Minister has the power to do so. Who was leaning on Frank Walker and former Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley to do this?

Answer lies in the Law Office.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Lewis will forever be remembered as the man who shut down the legitimate child abuse investigation by doing what he did to the chief of police.

Anonymous said...

Well done team voice for sticking with the victims and bravely publishing the leaked documents you were trusted with because the state media wasn't trusted with them. Andrew Lewis will go down in history as the man who made sure the cover up could go ahead.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico

There are even deeper questions to be asked. It was, and is, plain from those days of 2007 and 2008 that immense pressure was placed on the Home Affairs Minister for most of that period - then Senator Wendy Kinnard - to unlawfully interfere with and sabotage in some way, Operation Rectangle. The interferences the powers-that-be sought being the illegal suspensions of Lenny Harper or Graham Power. She resisted such pressure, and refused to engage in such a conspiracy.

But she was placed under pressure to resign and step aside so that she'd be replaced by a Home Affairs Minister who would be a useful idiot and undertake the illegal suspension the Jersey oligarchy required. As history records, the Establishment found that useful idiot in the form of Andrew Lewis.

The questions which must also be addressed are 'who pressured Kinnard to resign?' - 'what kinds of pressure was she put under?' - 'what compound motivations were held by those applying the pressure?' - 'and what conflicts-of-interest contaminated those individuals?'

I'm in a position to know the CoI already holds damning and apocalyptic evidence which lays at the heart of those questions.

The unavoidable consequences of those matters are profound; seismic - and go to the question of whether the British state is, in fact, actually capable of seriously and competently embracing the fundamentals of the very rule-of-law; the most basic rights to protection for the vulnerable, and the safe & lawful functioning of high public offices & institutions. Events are such that what we are now spectators of is an acid-test of the Cabinet Office and its role - as much as any institution could have be said to have such a role - in controlling mystical & toxic fog-bank at the heart of the British "constitution" - the Privy Council.

Now - it's just case of waiting - and watching. And they know it. Or perhaps they don't? Well - if that's the case, they need to wake up to the fact that we the plebs have assembled the pieces of the jigsaw - and seen what it depicts - and understood its gravity - even if they haven't yet done so

History will judge.

Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

Its understandable that ex Senator Wendy Kinnard would be reluctant to give evidence to the coi. But does anyone know if she intends to?

Anonymous said...

Wendy Kinnard should come through at the COI and do the right thing by Lenny Harper and Graham Power because she left them out to dry in 2008. At least she walked away when she was being pressured into getting rid of them but Andrew Lewis was a willing Frank Walker b:tch.

rico sorda said...

Senator Kinnard had good reason to resign. Im not prepared to say why on here as it's not my place. Deputy Lewis was the right person at the right time to be totally manipulated into suspending the Chief of Police. A suspension so bad that even the the Jersey courts said so.

So bad that Senator Le Marquand had to do away with it as Home Affairs Minister and add two ridiculous suspensions of his own that will be looked at shortly.

Rico

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

"Its understandable that ex Senator Wendy Kinnard would be reluctant to give evidence to the coi. But does anyone know if she intends to?"

That's an interesting observation, and question.

And I'm not sure why either should be matters of uncertainty.

Is it "understandable that ex Senator Wendy Kinnard would be reluctant to give evidence"?

Maybe it is understandable - maybe it isn't?

I am - like her - a core, fundamental witness to the matters at hand. I am reluctant to give evidence to this supposed "public inquiry" - but have from its outset had no difficulty stating in published, documented form a significant number of the reasons and justifications for the reluctance on my part. So far as I'm aware, former Senator Kinnard has not publicly stated any reason or reasons for a reluctance on her part. She may well have such reasons, of course. If so she needs to be on-the-public-record somewhere in describing at least some of any such reasons she may have.

Likewise, in respect of whether she intends to give evidence to the Jersey, supposed, "public inquiry"? I've had no difficulty in stating on-the-public-record that I have no such intention. I've also explained many of the reasons why. I can see no reason as to why former Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard should fail to make her position equally plain.

It's useful to note that - if Jersey possessed a functioning media - as opposed to our mafia's heritage media - they'd be strongly seeking answers to the above questions from Ms Kinnard.

But, perhaps, there's a mutually convergent reason as to why that isn't happening?

Certainly, insofar as my position is concerned, I'm perfectly prepared to explain my reasons to the Jersey MSM - if only any of them were interested in addressing these public-interest matters.

Of course, the former Home Affairs Minister could be planning to give evidence?

But if she is not - just as with the case of me as a core witness to the years of child-protection failure and the illegal sabotage of Operation Rectangle - the legal burden to bring about the engagement of key witnesses - one way or another - lays upon the CoI. Should the body not intend to engage in - what are on the face of things - all reasonable and proportionate attempts to lawfully fulfil its 'legislative purpose' by questioning practicably available witnesses - it's going to have to have some deeply reasoned and robust grounds for failing to take any such reasonable steps.

Stuart Syvret

rico sorda said...

The decades of child abuse cover ups should come before any decision not to give testimony.

Anonymous said...

Do you mean therefore that it is the duty of the COI to subpoena core witnesses who don't wish to give evidence.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Lewis is an evidenced liar so don't hold your breath expecting him to tell the truth at the Committee Of Enquiry. If Stuart Syvret doesn't give evidence I'll be putting him in the same bracket as Lewis. A liar.

Anonymous said...

I was under the impression that the COI could subpoena reluctant witnesses, am I right or wrong?

Anonymous said...

"decades of child abuse and cover ups" should not happen at all.

Decades of child abuse and cover ups should not happen after the CoI ......but they probably will if the CoI proves not to be fit for purpose and leaves in place the conditions which allow the abuse and cover ups to continue.

Hijacked police force and dysfunctional judiciary.

There is sense in the Ex Health Minister keeping his powder dry.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Leader of Jersey's only (opposition) political party, Deputy Sam Mezec, discusses propaganda and RELATED ISSUES.

Anonymous said...

Stuart won't have any vires if he doesn't give evidence to the COE nor will he have any credibility. It will be catastrophic if the enquiry doesn't get all the evidence available especially about the Law Office.

Manga Carta!

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

"Stuart won't have any vires if he doesn't give evidence to the COE nor will he have any credibility. It will be catastrophic if the enquiry doesn't get all the evidence available especially about the Law Office."

Don't use words you don't understand - especially in the context of a complex set of interlocking issues you plainly haven't thought about.

It isn't big and it isn't clever.

Stuart

Why is the COI treating the people of Jersey like idiots said...

To add to the question about whether former Senator Wendy Kinnard has been invited to give evidence...

Has former Chief Officer of Health and Social Services, Mr Mike Pollard, been invited to give evidence? If not, why not? His former deputy Richard Jouault kept mentioning him in his evidence. Why can't we hear from Mr Pollard himself?

Likewise, will former Senator Ian Le Marquand give evidence, both about his youth sentencing policy when magistrate and the suspension of Graham Power?

Questions, questions, dear readers....

rico sorda said...

We are now getting to the business end of the COI and the culture that persists in Jersey that allowed such abuse to happen.

We can find fault with anything in life but to look for the positives is what keeps me moving forward. I believe this enquiry is the best we will ever get and is already looking like something the UK could only wish for.. Stuarts testimony is nothing without others. The others have stepped forward. No one is more important than someone else. Its all the evidence collated together that makes this powerful. Stuart has told us everything on his blog so I can't see why he cant repeat it at the COI. Its all the evidence and testimony together that's important. Stuarts will be a missing part and always will be because once this enquiry is over that is probably it in the big game of things.

Anonymous said...

Stuart Syvret is selling the abuse victims up the river by not giving evidence to the Coe. I hope you are proud of yourself Stuart because I have supported you 100% in everything you have said and done up until now. If you don't give evidence to the Coe you can cross me and my family off your list of supporters.

Anonymous said...

Just a question for Rico, Stuart, or anyone in the know : People who have given or are going to give evidence to the COI. Do they volunteer to give evidence? Get invited to give evidence? Or can they be forced to give evidence? Also are they allowed to refuse to give evidence?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

One of the hardships involved in fighting this war - a burden I long ago came to terms with - was the inevitably narrow perspective, the lack of an understanding of the complex political & legal machinations underpinning the child-abuse cover-ups - on the part of fellow campaigners.

C'est la Guerre.

It's a difficult and solitary burden - one I'm long since resigned to taking to the grave.

And I will do so - because that is my duty to the public interest - and no power on Earth is going to make me resile from that.

The Jersey child-abuse atrocities occurred - and persisted, and were covered-up for as long as they were - because of a collapse in the rule-of-law. Therefore the war we must fight, is for the restoration of the proper, effective, rule-of-law.

Quite plainly - engaging with an overtly fake "public inquiry" - which has been so contemptuously engineered against the rule-of-law to as involve such jaw-dropping corruptions as ignoring a key part of the legislative decision - and to have involved in its secretariat expressly conflicted officers of the Royal Household - and to have abdicated core evidence-gathering functions to expressly involved culpable parties - and to have breached the requirements of the ECHR - and to have defied settled administrative-law case-law - and to be run out of the same office-block as that which houses the law-firm financially involved in actual, evidenced, judicial corruption against the former Police Chief and against me - is not compatible with the rule-of-law.

Whilst the primacy of the child-abuse cover-ups to so many people will always be understandable - it needs to be remembered that the breakdown in the very rule-of-law in the Crown Dependency of Jersey which facilitated and enabled those child-abuse cover-ups didn't stop there. Some of us have to shoulder a deeper, broader public-interest burden by ensuring that the cover-up of other profound crimes - corruption, battery, coercion, manslaughter, misconduct in a public office, attempted murder, conspiracy to pervert justice, perjury, murder - are also confronted and stopped. When viewed from the broader perspective of those crimes - of that fundamental need to secure the basic protection of the public-interest - caving-in to a "public inquiry" which is such a corrupt insult to the intelligence it hasn't even attempted to disguise it's multitude of defects - would be worse than mere "failure". It would be to actually put a stamp-of-approval on the systemic and endemic ultra vires of the Potemkin jurisdiction that is Jersey.

It has been plain for several years now that I am never - ever - going to do that.

The Jersey mafia - and in particular their corrupted protectors in London - decided, when they embarked upon all this, that they wanted "total-war". So "total-war" is what they've got. Public authorities - at least not in the 21st century - at least not in the democratic, law-abiding West - cannot blithely embark upon undisguised prosecution and judicial corruptions - the illegal cover-up of child-abuse - and of rape, attempted murders and of murders - complaisant in some vague thought to the effect "well, if the worst comes to the worst we can always mug the public off with an 'inquiry' of some kind" without consequences.

One of the "consequences" of attempting such dramatic state-corruption in the 21st century is the rendering of the obsolescence of the customary "insurance-policy" of money, lawyers & Potemkin "public inquiries".

The Jersey child-abuse "public inquiry" is no-more & no-less than the overt continuance of a criminal enterprise.

For that there are consequences - and a reckoning. There is only one outstanding question: does the rule-of-law in reality mean anything in modern Britain - or is the machinery of the state gripped by a metastasised decadence?

Stuart Syvret.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico,

I would urge all readers to read former Deputy and Senator Paul Le Claire's testimony to the Committee of Inquiry, dated 10 September 2015, Day 100, at http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/hearings/transcripts

It will take an hour or two to read his testimony and the supporting documents. He pulls no punches. Essential reading.

(cross-posted on VFC blog too)

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Just a question for Rico, Stuart, or anyone in the know : People who have given or are going to give evidence to the COI. Do they volunteer to give evidence? Get invited to give evidence? Or can they be forced to give evidence? Also are they allowed to refuse to give evidence?"

People can volunteer to give evidence. And it would be a strange - ultra vires - "public inquiry" which declined evidence from voluntary witnesses if those witnesses had a demonstrable involvement in the subject matter the public inquiry was examining. But, of course, we live in strange, unlawful times; for example, just take a look at the ToR's of the England / Wales child-abuse public inquiry, the Goddard Review - which not only states at the get-go it will refuse relevant witnesses if they're based in any of the Crown Dependencies - but even goes so far as to actually engage in witness-intimidation by asserting any testimony / evidence from such witnesses will simply be "sent back" to the "law-enforcement" authorities of the festering, hick-town gangster regimes of the Crown Dependencies.

Rather than deterring potentially relevant witnesses as Goddard has done overtly - and as the Jersey "public inquiry" has done effectively - yes, a public inquiry should in fact be taking pro-active steps to seek-out witnesses and be inviting them to give evidence. Any failure to do so amounts to a plain failure to fulfil the legislative purpose of "inquiring" into things.

A statutory public inquiry does posses the powers to compel witnesses to give evidence. But - such power does not exist in, or operate in, a vacuum. The potential witness in question has rights - the "public inquiry" is bound by various statute law and common-law authority - and the potential witness has a right to access an effective and impartial tribunal to adjudicate upon any such questions.

Take my case, for example; would this "public inquiry" - the Jersey child-abuse "public inquiry" - have the lawful standing to compel me to give evidence? No. It wold not. Not even faintly. The issues are not even complex. This "public inquiry" body destroyed its own vires from the get-go. It's not even on the radar-screen of lawful. I mean, come along, this is a body that has abdicated it's core function of impartially gathering evidence, by agreeing to surrender that function to a centrally and profoundly conflicted party - instrumentally & directly involved in the child-abuse cover-ups! QED. No vires. End of.

But - of course - what the real, established law says - and what Jersey's gangster, Potemkin courts say - are frequently, and on the evidence, two different things. So we may well be in-line for another fascinating round of overt, 21st century judicial corruption.

But why - why - are we even pre-occupied with a "public inquiry"?

Do we want a "public inquiry" - or do we want the rue-of-law?

The take-home lesson we as civil-society have to learn in these times is to begin to recognise that the entire concept - the very notion - of "Public Inquiries" - is redundant, obsolete, corrupted; merely the "miracle-cure" white-wash device trotted out by failed, corrupted public authorities as an excuse for - and PR diversionary substitute for - the real rule-of-law.

For example - we don't need a "public enquiry" to spoon-out a few bits of embarrassment on the Bailhache Brothers. Instead we need - we have a right to - the effective rule-of-law - which requires that those two prima facie criminals (perverting justice, misappropriation of public funds, conspiracy to pervert justice, misconduct in a public office) be impartially investigated, charged, prosecuted and tried.

I for one am never going to entertain anything other than that effective, objective - real- rule-of-law.

Stuart Syvret

Anonymous said...

When is "the rule of law" public inquiry coming to town then Stuart?

Anonymous said...

I'm dog tired of reading your justifications for not giving evidence to this Inquiry. An Inquiry costing tens of Millions and took a lot of effort to get initiated. Your stance is puzzling to many victims but to critics elsewhere, ironically predictable.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

"When is "the rule of law" public inquiry coming to town then Stuart?"

That's an interesting question. I can't give an accurate answer - other than to say, (a)- we don't need a "public inquiry" into the collapse of the rule of law in Jersey, because that collapse is already plain - already evidenced - already obvious and unanswerable; and (b) what we DO need is - quite simply - the effective, objective rule of law to be made to work by those who are responsible for it and who owe us that duty - in Whitehall, and the apparatus of the Monarchy.

Perhaps that will happen when we - when civil society - get our act together, and stop messing around - and instead require our rightful protections in law - protections from a coterie of undisguised gangsters.

Yes - that most probably will be a long time - as "The Jersey Situation" - in and of itself - shows the very highest parts of the British power apparatus to be decadent to the point of dangerous incompetence, devoid of high, guiding principle, and mired with cliques of corruption and dopy class-war.

But if it helps, I can point out the obvious first step: getting rid of the office of Jersey Lieutenant Governor; a more captured, compromised & corrupted office exists nowhere else in the British Isles. The power in London - which power the Jersey spivs and grifters depend upon for their racket - must be made to replace that obsolete sinecure with, instead, an effective, objective means of carrying out their lawful duties of oversight - rather then the present system in which the Monarch's Lieutenant Governors - rather than protecting democracy and civil society from the local oligarchy, sell themselves to it - and then become instrumental in oppressing powerless islanders and sabotaging their democracy and policing functions.

That's when the rule of law will start to come to town; when enough of us say we want rid of ignorant clowns in fancy dress - and we want objective standards of oversight instead.

Stuart

SPECIAL OFFER *Eversheds Whitewash* ...TWO cans for the price of THREE !!! said...


Q. @2:12pm, "When is "the rule of law" public inquiry coming to town then Stuart?"


A. Possibly NEVER.

.....and in that case Jersey children will ....NEVER.... be safe.


Think about it.

Isn't a "remote of the rule of law" public inquiry is just 'window dressing' to make gullible people accept non-investigation and non-prosecution???

Prosecutions followed by a proper CoI could bring closure and protect future generations ...and at a fraction of the cost of the F-O-Lawyer-Fest.


*Please read the label.
NOTE: No responsibility will be accepted by eversheds or their partners for injury or injustice, however caused
This product is not suitable for children.
Brought to you by Eversheds, experienced manufacturers of consent (yup, paedophiles do that too!)

The back orifice operation said...

"This product is not suitable for children.
Brought to you by Eversheds, experienced manufacturers of consent (yup, paedophiles do that too!)"

I guess that's "horizontal integration". Clever!
(a business term for capturing a market from both sides)

Seriously though. Parents think they are too smart to be groomed. But for those kids who are lucky enough to have parents the abusers and abusive systems usually put a lot of work into grooming the parents.

http://chosen.org.uk/watch_film/

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

“I'm dog tired of reading your justifications for not giving evidence to this Inquiry. An Inquiry costing tens of Millions and took a lot of effort to get initiated. Your stance is puzzling to many victims but to critics elsewhere, ironically predictable.”

Note to British oligarchy: you need to employ better spin-doctors.

Remember – this is the internet. None of this is ever going away.

And, hey, people can think; a strange & difficult concept for decadent power to come to terms with, but worth, I would suggest, bearing in mind.

Any thinking person who has observed these atrocities will only be “tired” of the remarkable, intransigent decadence on the part of British power. Only a cretin would raise complaint at the “tens of millions of £” being spent – and then blame the various victims of the crimes and corruptions now repeatedly evidenced over many years – rather than blame the gangsters who are embezzling and spending those public funds in an effort to conceal their own misfeasances and criminality.

And I’m very confident that those plain facts are well understood, because so many of the victims of the corruptions at hand (not only child-abuse victims, let us always remember) tell me so. Scarcely a week goes by without a victim of the many gross corruptions of “The Jersey Way” telling me their views are identical to mine: “we want no cover-ups – no sole focus on child-abuse - no excuses – no ‘public-inquiry’ diversion: we want these powerful criminals held to account by the rule of law.”

In fact, it’s remarkable just how clear and strong that understanding is on the part of so many people in Jersey – even older people who you might expect to be more conservative and deferential to customary power. For exmaple this Monday evening a retired, traditional Jersey couple, out walking their dog at St.Ouen's bay, came up to me, introduced themselves, and without any prompting from me embarked upon a discourse as to how inadequate, corrupt, useless and damaging to this community the entrenched political establishment of the island has become.

Those opinions are common – but one could be forgiven for not knowing it, because such views are suppressed, intimidated, oppressed and marginalised out of public discourse because of the climate of fear the Jersey oligarchy have been permitted by London to establish in the island, through such acts as the illegal, anti-democratic suppression of a Police Chief and of an opposition Senator.

The “irony” in “The Jersey Situation” is that I was right - so many times over – even down to how predictably rigged, politicised and cosmetic any Establishment” led & designed “public inquiries” were inevitable going to be.

Stuart Syvret.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the coi will find that there has been a break down in the rule of law if the evidence demonstrates as much.
Despite all its alleged failings this coi is not a cover up - just read the transcripts of those who have given such damning evidence - and it will form the inevitable conclusions that will be damning of the lawless behaviour of the individuals and structures that allowed decades of abuse to remain unchecked. This may not be enough for Mr Syvret but it is a Great Leap Forward from where we were at before the inquiry started. If we want jersey to be forced to clean up its act then we should support this coi. Just bite the bullet and give it the evidence it needs to draw the right conclusions.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the coi will find that there has been a break down in the rule of law if the evidence demonstrates as much.
Despite all its alleged failings this coi is not a cover up - just read the transcripts of those who have given such damning evidence - and it will form the inevitable conclusions that will be damning of the lawless behaviour of the individuals and structures that allowed decades of abuse to remain unchecked. This may not be enough for Mr Syvret but it is a Great Leap Forward from where we were at before the inquiry started. If we want jersey to be forced to clean up its act then we should support this coi. Just bite the bullet and give it the evidence it needs to draw the right conclusions.

Anonymous said...

Teacher suspended for alleged indecent assault - http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/10/01/beaulieu-parents-werent-notified-of-teacher-arrest-for-almost-two-weeks/

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says: -

"I believe that the coi will find that there has been a break down in the rule of law if the evidence demonstrates as much. ....etc, etc."

Why do we need a "public inquiry" - to show what is already shown? What is already plain - evidenced - and reported, on Jersey's blogs?

There is no need for a public inquiry to establish the break-down the rule of law.

The clear break-down in the most basic elements in the rule-of-law in the British Crown Dependency of Jersey has been undeniably plain - in the public domain - from at least the summer of 2007. It was clear then that the most senior figures in Jersey's "law-enforcement" system had had a prior - profound - and most direct - involvement in past child-abuse cover-ups / child-protection failures. Those individuals being the head of the judiciary and legislature Philip Bailhache (and in his past roles as Solicitor General & Attorney General) - the deputy head of the legislature, Michael Birt (and in his past roles as Attorney General) - the Attorney General William Bailhache (who has been promoted by those predecessors to the be deputy head, then head of the Jersey legislature & judiciary).

The child-abuse cover-ups in question? Just take for example the Blanche Pierre case - and the atrocities carried out by the psychopathic Maguires. One need not even cite the other many cases - such as Victoria College; the Blanche Pierre case - alone - is irredeemably damning.

But this is the point the commenter - and the Crown - and the oligarchy - and their FACAWS - and their spivs such as Eversheds - still seem to hope we proles "haven't noticed": the point is this - it would not change the situation even if (and there isn't - but even if) there were grounds for concluding the prior acts & omissions of Bailhache, Birt, & Bailhache over the many years were "innocent", as opposed to deliberate politically motivated - malfeasant - cover-ups. Even if those three individuals - and the public offices they held / hold - could adduce some kind of "mitigation" - or some form of "justification" - even then - even still - their subsequent acts, omissions - involvement - in all the relevant matters & decisions and official acts after July 2007 were - and are - ultra vires.

End of.

That is all we needed to know.

The settled case-law of English law alone - let alone ECtHR case-law - on the question of objectivity and impartiality - and the crucial appearance thereof - is unanswerable.

There you go.

Given the prior involvement of those three individuals - any subsequent acts & omissions relevant to the child-abuse controversy involving them did not meet the test of objectivity.

QED.

Even if - in some kind of fevered imaginings - it was possible to presume no culpability on the part of Bailhache, Birt, Bailhache - they are - on the evidence and from the get-go - sufficiently entangled in the matters at hand - plainly "interested parties" - to not be capable of lawfully forming a part of any "discretionary decision making process" of any "public authority" which then made decisions relevant to the controversies.

Game over.

Every state - "public authority" - act, decision or omission - relevant to the Jersey child-abuse controversies participated in by those three individuals (& others) - at least from the moment in July 2007 when it was made public knowledge that the apparatus of the sate appeared to have engaged in systemic child-protection failure - was and is unlawful.

And in the Crown Dependency of Jersey there has been - and is - equally - and for the same reasons - no lawfully objective means of challenging that ultra vires.

Thus - a break-down in the rule of law - in every conceivable sense - in Britain - in the 21st century.

.....and it continues.....

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

….the break-down in the rule of law continues….

This community does not possess a policing function - a prosecution function - a judicial function - that has been - or is - capable of challenging that unanswerably stark break-down in the rule of law - thus the breakdown in the rule of law is compounded - and circular - and self-re-enforcing.

Jersey's so-called "public-inquiry" into the decades of illegal child-abuse cover-ups was their last-gasp - "emergency" - "insurance policy"; the Establishment's last possible hope of a "fire-extinguisher" to put out the flames they ignited. I always - always - strongly expected it to be a fake; to be merely another method of cover-up & pacifying us plebs.

Their wholly extraordinary refusal to provide me with unconditional legal representation was the proof I expected.

Sure enough, they delivered.

Was anymore proof of the collapse in the rule of law in Jersey – in the 21st century - needed?

A “public inquiry” – which we’re supposed to swallow as a “replacement” for the rule-of-law – and which demonstrates its role as the latest phase of the cover-ups - by actually breaching settled law – by refusing to give the most oppressed whistle-blower legal-representation – unless he signs away his rights first – but which then confers fully resourced, state-funded protection upon the culpable – upon child-abusers – and abdicates a core –evidence-gathering function to directly involved, conflicted individuals?

It is demonstrated.

The Eversheds / City of London Corporation / Crown "public inquiry is - in and of itself - the seal on the established, case-closed, break-down in the rule of law in the British Crown Dependency of Jersey.

Stuart Syvret

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.


Press Release on behalf of deputy MONTFORT TADIER.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

William Bailhache, Montfort Tadier and RONNIE PICKERING.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry carries on "THE JERSEY WAY"