|THIS IS NOT THE ALLEGED VICTIM NOR IS THE DEAN OF JERSEY A VICTIM. HE SIMPLY FAILED AN ALLEGED VICTIM. THIS WAS APPLAUDED BY OUR GOVERNMENT. NOTHING HAS CHANGED|
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
"APRIL 30TH 2013"
"THE DAY THE CIRCUS COMES TO TOWN"
"YOU GUESSED IT - "STATES OF JERSEY"
"THE DEAN HAS RETURNED"
The Dean of Jersey, The Rev Bob Key, returned to his unelected position in the States of Jersey today.
At 9.40am the Dean read the prayer in the States of Jersey and his incredible journey was complete. A day when the majority of States members completely lost the plot and gave him a very lengthy foot stamping welcome. The Bailiff, Michael Birt, was welcoming the Dean back to his rightfully held unelected post when the States members went foot-stamping crazy. The Bailiff then had to jump back in. He explained that his glowing tribute was not yet done and hoped that these imbeciles would let him finish it.
You would have thought our Dean was Terry Waite returning from Beirut. You would have been mistaken into believing that he had been kidnapped by 13 Illuminati who had held him in some dark place in St Ouen under constant threat of having to marry his own cousin. Or, that he had been locked away in Gorey Castle by some crazy zealots? You simply could not make up what was coming out of the States Chamber today. I was expecting the lights to go down, curtain to be pulled back and 'The Dean' to come out bobbing and weaving like bloody Rocky Bilbao screaming "BAILHACHE - WE DID IT"
What were the imbeciles that govern us on? Are they so brain dead that they didn't even know that the Dean of Jersey had failed an alleged victim of abuse. That he has admitted failing a victim of alleged abuse. He has not personally apologised to said alleged victim of abuse and yet the imbecile clowns that govern us applauded this. Yes, they thought this was great. "OUR DEAN IS BACK AMONGST HIS FLOCK"
The Majority of the Idiots that govern us Applauded it.
We have learnt not a jolt over these past 4 years.
What is it? Groupthink? - A Cultural Problem? - Just plain thick? It can't be. We have one or two intelligent people in the states. Where does the lobotomy happen? In the tea-room?
Im being very serious here. It must be a worry when people who are elected to represent you don't know right from wrong. The Dean should have returned today with zero fanfare. There is a lady homeless and penniless. There is a lady that got booted of the Island of jersey.
When Deputy T Pitman stood up and spoke of the alleged victim it was met with silence
THE RULING ELITE AND IT'S STATES OF JERSEY CANNON FODDER IS SOCIALLY AND MORALLY CORRUPT.
TODAY PROVED IT BEYOND DOUBT
WE NEED THE METEORITE
Part Time Investigative Journalist
Sunday, April 28, 2013
|THE DEAN OF JERSEY - THE VERY REVEREND BOB DEAN|
|SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE DEAN OF JERSEY SIR, PHILIP BAILHACHE|
"THE CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT"
"THE JERSEY WAY"
"THE DEAN OF JERSEY - THE REVEREND BOB KEY - REINSTATED"
"APRIL 28TH 2013"
"WHAT MESSAGE DOES THIS SEND OUT TO VICTIMS OF ABUSE?
THE DEAN HAS APOLOGISED. THE NEXT QUESTION IS A SIMPLE ONE. WHAT IS THE REDRESS TO THE ALLEGED VICTIM HG? WHAT ARE THEY DOING ABOUT THE WELFARE OF HG?
HE NEEDS TO MAKE GOOD ON HIS WORDS. WILL THE JERSEY MEDIA ASK THIS QUESTION?
Having listened to the Reverend Bob Key on the radio today you could be forgiven in to believing that he was the actual victim in all this. The Bishop of Winchester, the right reverend Tim Dakin, has in my opinion succumbed to the pressure applied by the Jersey Elite led by Senator, Bailhache.
What message does this send out to victims of abuse. Again we can see how the investigation into decades long child abuse in the Jersey care system "Operation Rectangle" was closed down. Jersey, and it's ruling elite, are simply devoid of any social and moral standing. How is Bob Key re-instated before the visitation is even complete?
Remember, former Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM was suspended from November 12th 2008 until May 2010 without any due process being followed. His force under the leadership of Lenny Harper was exposing the toxic underbelly of Jersey and it's decades of child abuse. But where was the concern for Mr Power and his family during this traumatic time? Where was the ruling elite fighting his corner? they were simply nowhere to be seen.
The Dean of Jersey is one of their own. How dare the Church of England and the Diocese of Winchester suspend one of their own. He will now receive the foot stamping seal of approval when he returns to the States. How many times are we to hear " We have learned from our mistakes and must move forward" We have learnt nothing. The Dean, in his statement, has basically said he made all the mistakes that he was suspended for yet back he comes as the victim.
Let this be a lesson to everyone that nothing has changed in Jersey
The Culture of Concealment is still very much in place.
The Dean said: “I regret mistakes that I made in the safeguarding processes and I understand that, upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if I had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review. I now add my own apology to that of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury to the vulnerable person at the heart of this matter. I will be cooperating with the Visitation and Investigation announced by the Bishop on 26 March. Together, the Bishop and I are committed to the importance of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults in Jersey and to working to ensure the safeguarding procedures of the Diocese achieve this as part of the whole Church’s mission.”
HE FAILED THE ALLEGED VICTIM HG
So what is he and the Church going to do as way of redress to the alleged victim in all this? She is now living on the streets homeless,penniless and in need of help. Will the Dean and the church give her some form of financial help and stability. If this happens the apology will be complete. Anything less will just be hollow words.
Another sad event in Jersey's History lets hope they now make good their apology and make sure HG is cared for.
Part Time Investigative Journalist
Thursday, April 25, 2013
"THE JERSEY REFERENDUM"
"LET'S CHUCK THE SPIN IN THE BIN"
"26% VOTER TURNOUT IS A DISGRACE - A COMPLETE AND UTTER DISGRACE"
"63,945 REGISTERED VOTERS AND ONLY 16,624 TURNOUT"
"HOW CAN ANYONE SAY THEY HAVE A MANDATE"
"APATHY WINS THE REFERENDUM BY A VAST MAJORITY"
There are many reasons for such a low turnout. Some would have used it as a protest vote against the options on offer but I believe the main reason is Apathy.
Apathy must be challenged in Jersey. It is beyond doubt the only clear winner in this shambolic referendum.
I seriously didn't want to vote as I wasn't happy with any of the options. I forced myself. I went with A even though I think that option is flawed with the 42 members. It was the only option I had. There simply wasn't a second option on the ballot paper for me. Anyone wanting to keep the Constables had two options. That isn't a conspiracy as some are saying it was on my ballot paper.
A 26% VOTER TURNOUT.
How can anyone be happy about this? The Spin Machine has started. In a previous posting I pointed out the fact that Senator Bailhache would not be drawn on what was a reasonable turnout in the referendum. This is what I said:
"The reason I'm voting 'A' is that I want option 'A' to stand a chance in the debate that will follow the referendum. Option 'A' must win at the polls to stand a slight chance of being implemented. During the BBC Jersey Breakfast show this morning the most crucial part was when the presenter Mathew Price asked Senator Bailhache about what he thought was a reasonable number regarding voter turnout. Senator Bailhache refused to be drawn on this issue. He said "If a reasonable percentage of the island turnout for one or other of the options he is sure the states will implement it." Mathew Price asked him a number of times just what he thought was a reasonable number but the Senator refused to give one. I thought Mathew Price should have been harder with Senator Bailhache on this point. He should have told him that his listeners deserved to know what the Chairman of the Electoral Commission thought was a reasonable number."
It is a disgraceful turnout.
There are 63,945 registered voters in Jersey
16,624 People turned out to vote. And after the first round of counting just look at how close it really was.
Option B. 6,804
Option A. 6,581
Option C. 3,239
The difference between A & B is simply 223 votes. The first count was the truest reflection of this referendum because A voters simply had nowhere else to go.
What will happen will happen regarding the States of Jersey and implementing this referendum. There will be many amendments to the main proposition.
BUT LET US NOT FORGET THAT ONLY 16,624 PEOPLE TURNED OUT TO VOTE
IT IS DISGRACEFUL
Option B on the first Count had 6,804 votes. This is to change the makeup of Government and to affect everyone of us. There are more people at Jersey Live on a Saturday afternoon than that total.
Do not rejoice, do not beat the drum, do not walk about with puffed out chests Jersey has a serious problem and it must be addressed.
I listen to the youth assembly. There are green shoots out there. Why is the Island so disengaged with politics? We must get into the schools, have debating forums in school. We lack a University which is a huge problem. We must engage the youth.
Part Time Investigative Journalist
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
|SAM MÉZEC - A YOUNG ARTICULATE MAN WITH A BRIGHT FUTURE|
"THE JERSEY REFERENDUM"
I HAVE VOTED "A"
THE REASON I VOTED "A"
I would like to congratulate everybody on the campaign team of option A. You have done a first class job. I personally don't believe you could have done anymore. It has been refreshing to see the group being spearheaded by a young man called Sam Mézec. I don't know if this was intentional or not but it has worked. Yes, some of the old names have been there, but it has been Sam that has got the message across in a very articulate way. Holding his own with some seasoned campaigners is a credit to himself and what he believes in. That is Jersey's real future. The new generation.
To be honest there are points on option A I'm not happy with but I'm willing to give my support to the option A campaign.
I thank you all for your work over this past month. Option A wins the debate but can it win the vote?
Democracy must be the only winner.
This just about sums up option B
This just about sums up option B
Part Time Investigative Journalist
Friday, April 19, 2013
|THE JERSEY WRECKING BALL, HIJACKER OF ELECTORAL COMMISSION, SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE "SUSPENDED" DEAN, CASUAL WITH SENSITIVE DATA AND ALL ROUND FEUDAL KING - SENATOR BAILHACHE|
"THE JERSEY REFERENDUM"
"THE NUMBERS GAME"
"THIS REFERENDUM STINKS LIKE HELL"
"I WILL BEGRUDGINGLY BE VOTING 'A' IN THIS REFERENDUM"
Let me run this little scenario past my readers. It is about "The Numbers Game". It is about "Head Counting" this is how the vast majority of legislation is passed in the states. It doesn't matter if the argument is lost on a proposition, it's solely about having enough members to pass it. The majority lies in the right wing, establishment, executive.
The reason I'm voting 'A' is that I want option 'A' to stand a chance in the debate that will follow the referendum. Option 'A' must win at the polls to stand a slight chance of being implemented. During the BBC Jersey Breakfast show this morning the most crucial part was when the presenter Mathew Price asked Senator Bailhache about what he thought was a reasonable number regarding voter turnout. Senator Bailhache refused to be drawn on this issue. He said "If a reasonable percentage of the island turnout for one or other of the options he is sure the states will implement it." Mathew Price asked him a number of times just what he thought was a reasonable number but the Senator refused to give one. I thought Mathew Price should have been harder with Senator Bailhache on this point. He should have told him that his listeners deserved to know what the Chairman of the Electoral Commission thought was a reasonable number.
The reason that Senator Bailhache won't be drawn on this issue is simple. It is to do with the States of Jersey and the "Numbers Game." The Senator is not worried if it is a 15% or 20% turnout. This is about getting option 'B' voted through the States if it wins on Wednesday. Now the likely hood of Option B winning is vastly higher than A. It is the country parishes that will decide it. We will then believe that it will get rejected in the States because of a multiple of reasons: Low voter turnout, No option getting a clear majority, spoilt papers etc etc. This, I believe, is simply not the case.
"THE NUMBERS GAME"
How do they get Option B passed in the states even if it is a low turnout and no clear majority?
You simply "Head Count"
You tell everyone how the public are sick to death of hearing about reform when there are so many other pressing issues concerning the Island. You say that the public have spoken and we must respect their wishes - even though there are some glaring issues concerning the result - and then you simply "HEADCOUNT."
They need 27 Votes to get B through the States . Do they have them? I say yes.
This is my list:
I'm going for 11 Connétables - I'm giving Constable Crowcroft the benefit of the doubt on this one.
11 - Constables
Senator, Bailhache - Ozouf - Gorst - Routier
Deputies, Power, Pinel, Noel, Bryons, Luce, Pryke, Baker, Moore, Le Bailley, Lewis, Green and Ryan.
Members will be under pressure to go with the result. The Constables give it a good kick start to the magic number of 27.
This is just my opinion.
The real fun will start if Option A wins at the polls.
For this reason alone I'm giving Option 'A' my vote. Having 42 States Members will be disastrous in my opinion. Feel free to have your own say on this.
The Battle is getting it passed in the States.
Time to start the "Headcount"
Part Time Investigative Journalist
Sunday, April 14, 2013
|FORMER MAGISTRATE DESIGNATE IAN CHRISTMAS|
"A CHRISTMAS SPECIAL"
"THE CASE OF FORMER MAGISTRATE DESIGNATE IAN CHRISTMAS."
The case of jailed former Magistrate, Ian Christmas, has bugged me for some time now. On 5th October 2012 Ian Christmas was jailed for 15 months for defrauding an elderly woman out of £100,000. He was originally arrested in June 2008. It has taken 4 long years to come to court.
He received his full pay during this time, which came to about £500,000. He never resigned from his post and could only be removed by order of the Queen after a disciplinary investigation by a UK judge. This man never had a problem receiving his pay whilst suspended from duty awaiting trial. Even after he was found guilty he never resigned from post , so why did he suddenly resign from his post on the 18th January 2013? Was it because his salary was stopped on the 16th October 2012. Lets have a little look at his timeline. I find his Appeal process a little puzzling. Why resign if you are on Appeal and believe yourself to be innocent? Like I say, this case just bugs me.
Former Magistrate Designate Ian Christmas has his court chambers raided by the Police. He is suspended from duty on full pay.
26th July 2012
Former Magistrate Ian Christmas is found guilty of one case of fraud. He has been on full pay during this period. This amounts to £500,000. He has not resigned from office during this time. Even now, after being found guilty, Ian Christmas does not resign from his position as magistrate.
25th September 2012
The JEP report that Ian Christmas could now face a disciplinary investigation to see if he should remain in office. I take it that they are referring to an investigation carried out by a UK Judge
5th October 2012
Former Magistrate Ian Christmas is sentenced to 15 months for defrauding an elderly women out of £100.000 pounds. He still does not resign from his position as magistrate. He lodges an Appeal straight away. He proclaims he is innocent.
16th October 2012
The Bailiff, Michael Birt, states that the salary of Ian Christmas was stopped on the 16th October 2012
18th January 2013
Just as his Appeal for conviction gets under way Ian Christmas finally resigns as Magistrate Designate. "WHY?" Why has he resigned now? What if he gets off on Appeal? Would he not be able to take up his old post as Magistrate as an innocent man? Why resign at the beginning of an Appeal process when he has not bothered doing so in the past 4 years? Has a deal been struck?
Even his Appeal is bugging me. He has been ordered that he must repay the £100,000 back to the elderly women he defrauded, but that is only if his Appeal is unsuccessful. Ok, he would be innocent, then no need to pay the women back. Why did he resign his post? Then we have the three judges who are sitting on his Appeal come out with a "Don't rush us on this" statement on the 27th February 2013:
This is from Channelonline:
"Three judges have retired to consider whether or not a disgraced former Jersey judge should have been jailed for fraud."
Ian Christmas and three others were found guilty last year for the parts they played in a property con.
The Court of Appeal hearing has now come to an end after weeks of legal arguments.
It is not known when the verdict will be handed down, but the court has taken the unusual step of announcing it does not want to rush its decision.
A statement on behalf of Sir John Nutting QC, Christopher Nugee QC and Richard Collas - the three judges who have been hearing the appeal - says they wish to ensure all matters are fully deliberated.
Christmas was jailed for 15 months.
Three others, John Lewis, James Cameron and Russell Foot were each sent down for four and a half years.
Central to the case was whether islanders were conned out of their life savings by a property investment business they operated." End
How long does it take? "Don't Rush Us." We are into April now and still no sign of a verdict. It is bugging me. Is he going to walk with some time served nonsense. By resigning his post did he make life a little easier for the Jersey Judiciary by not having to involve the Queen and a UK judge? Just what is going on here? He made £500,000 out of this. He was still working during those 4 years only not as a magistrate. Is he going to win his Appeal? He must think so.
Here are some links to some good pieces on the subject by Channel ITV and Gary Burgess.
This is also a very good posting on the subject.
Ian Christmas: The Legal Background Tony's Musings
I have asked Senator Ian Le Marquand for background information on the legal situation regarding Ian Christmas, the Magistrate jailed for fraud.
He has been happy to give permission for me to make his reply public, with the proviso (that I am happy to place here) as follows:
"you can make my response public provided that you make it clear that I am not a Justice Minister but have need dealing with responses on behalf of the Chief Minister because of my knowledge of the legal and constitutional issues."
I would like to thank him for making this information public.
To put our exchange in context, this was my email asking for clarification of what he had said on BBC Radio Jersey, as I had missed the interview:
I missed hearing you on the radio the other day about arrangements over the Crown Officers, and wonder if you could fill me in on what you said, and what you are proposing.
Obviously this has to do with Mr Christmas, and while I think that it is proper he should receive a salary while suspended before sentencing, it seems inequitable if he receives one after he has been found guilty. After all, a pensioner who is sent to prison will (as I understand it) cease to receive his pension once sent there.
I understand Mr Christmas is appealing, but if the appeal fails, then he will have been paid for the interim period with, apparently, no means for redeeming that back by the States of Jersey. This again does not seem equitable. It would surely be fairer for him to not be paid until his appeal is heard, or paid into a kind of escrow account, and paid a backlog if successful. That way, he does not lose out, but if still guilty as charged, the State does not lose either.
The mechanisms for removing Mr Christmas from office also seem exceedingly protracted. At what point - when sentenced to prison - when failing on appeal - is he removed from office? It seems that there should a point, certainly if his appeal fails, where removal from office becomes automatic. I'm taking the appeal as the end point, because I think it is important that justice is also given to Mr Christmas as fairly as possible (unlike, perhaps, the media); on the other hand, if the appeal fails, given the time he has already been paid - including time in prison, there is surely no justice in him being continued to be paid from that point on.
Lastly, should there be a code of conduct and/or register of interests for magistrates? It appears that Mr Christmas was in effect using his office as magistrate to engender trust in a private business venture, and surely magistrates should not use their office as a kind of marketing endorsement? A magistrate is a position (I hope) of respect in the community, and I'm not sure they should engage in private schemes of the kind cited in Mr Christmas case, or if they do, shouldn't that be transparent with a register of judiciary interests?
This was his reply, which makes the situation very clear:
Tony, Mr. Christmas is a public office holder and the terms of his tenure of office are set out in the 1864 law on the Juge d'Instruction. There is no provision for his suspension from office and he can only be dismissed by the Privy Council upon petition by the Superior Number of the Royal Court. The Superior Number is the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff and all 12 Jurats who are usually assisted by the Attorney General, the Judicial Greffier and the Viscount.
There was a Press Release dated 25th September which explained the procedure which was being followed on behalf of the Royal Court, namely, a disciplinary investigation by a UK judge.
In my view, Mr. Christmas ought to have resigned at the point at which it became clear that he could not return to his former role. In my view that was when he was formally charged although some may think that he should have resigned earlier and you appear to think that he should have resigned when convicted.
In an ideal world, we would have in place a procedure by virtue of which a judge could be removed from office once there was such a public loss of confidence in the judge as to render it impossible for the judge to return. However, that is not without its difficulties. It is an important constitutional principle in a democracy that we have an independent judiciary. That is partly because the Government itself will be a party to court cases and partly as a safeguard against corruption. That therefore requires that a judge cannot be removed for political reasons. That in turn make the loss of public confidence test a difficult one to determine objectively.
It is my view that there now needs to be a review of the disciplinary arrangements for judges
SO WHY DID HE RESIGN AS MAGISTRATE DESIGNATE?
HAS A DEAL BEEN STRUCK?
Part Time Investigative Journalist
Thursday, April 4, 2013
|FORMER BAILIFF AND SENATOR, PHILIP BAILHACHE|
"SENATOR, SIR PHILIP BALIHACE"
"A CONCERNED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CONTACTS DEPUTY, T PITMAN"
Below is an email sent to Deputy, T Pitman from a concerned member of the public that shared a flight between London and Jersey with Senator, Philip Bailhache. The person has asked to remain anonymous out of fear of repercussions.
This is the email that has been redacted by myself.
From: **** ****
To: Trevor Pitman
Subject: Private Information
I am writing to you just to welcome your thoughts on a specific matter that arose yesterday afternoon on a flight back from Gatwick.
On taking my seat on the plane I noticed that seated in the aisle seat on the opposite aisle to me was Sir Philip Bailhache to which I certainly commend him being seated in an economy class seat!
What disturbed me greatly was on taking off he produced a large amount of documentation to read regarding the recent issues with the Dean of Jersey. Now not wanting to be nosey of course when you are open to read such information I spent 35 minutes glancing at the various Police Statements, pages of mobile phone text messages (which has now confirmed for me that the police can in fact trace logs of all text messages), letters to the Bishop and letters from a …… ……(Name Redacted) (signed I will always Love you like a daughter, love …. (Name Redacted) ) just for clarification that I have seen this information!! Not only was I privy to this information but at one stage an Air Hostess was also glancing at such information while she was waiting for a new pot of tea to be brought to her, she smirked when she noticed I had been watching her read! At one point he was actually holding parts of the documentation up in full view to the person sat next to him while he reviewed paperwork from his knee!
Obviously certain facts and names are kept strictly confidential from these types of cases but now I for one can name the woman in question and others that have involvement because of this lack of discretion of information being reviewed in a public place.
Correct me if I am wrong but I do strongly think that this is extremely inappropriate? I wasn’t sure how was best to convey this information over so as I know you personally I thought you would be a good point of contact or should I write a letter to the JEP?
I welcome your response.
……. ……. (Name Redacted) End
Firstly, Deputy, Pitman advised the email author that the JEP will almost certainly ask for a name and address. Seeing as the JEP Is the the establishment mouthpiece the author's identity could then be forwarded onto the very people the author is in fear of.
Deputy, Pitman sought permission of the author to share this information with Jersey only trusted news source (Bloggers). Not only does the above email demonstrate the climate of fear that is still prevalent, it also highlight a very serious data beach concerning Senator, Balihache and those who provided him with this very serious data. It is abundantly clear that the emails author, as a result of Senator, Bailhache's carelessness and possible arrogance, now knows the name of the churchwarden and alleged victim HG.
The question that keeps arising from this serious data breach is simple. How, or why, is Senator Bailhache in possession of such sensitive material?
Who gave it to him, under what authority is he entitled to have this information. It looks like, and this is unconfirmed as going to press, that Bailhache has in his possession, Police Reports relating to the case between the alleged victim HG and the churchwarden (EY)
Are Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) going to have a look at this?
Did the Police give this documentation to Senator, Bailhache and was it by legitimate means? One could ask "What are the legitimate means"
|DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER, EMMA MARTINS|
Will the Date Protection Commissioner, Emma Martins, be investigating this apparent breach in data protection? I won't be holding my breath on this one.
The "Culture of Concealment" is very much still alive and kicking in Jersey where the victim is seen as less important (by the powers that be & state media) than the welfare of the Dean of Jersey. In my opinion, I only have to look at the actions of Senator, Bailhache to see how the investigation into decades long child abuse in the Jersey Care System (Operation Rectangle) was discredited and trashed by the powers that be and the state media. The Victims are always forgotten.
The below quote is taken from the now infamous day that Senator, Bailhache politically hijacked Liberation day. This is from his speech. It says it all.
May 9th 2008:
"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".