Fortunately as I did not attend the Hearing on Thursday 14th August I did not suffer the ignominy of being ejected from the Media Room which was experienced by Neil McMurray of the Voice for Children Blog therefore I am not as upset as he understandably is.
Late on Thursday afternoon 14th August I received a communication from the COI Chairman Frances Oldham QC informing me that her Panel had reconsidered the applications received for media accreditation. She then listed the 6 applications which were to receive media accreditation and the 2 applicants which were rejected.
The 6 were; BBC National, Jersey Evening Post, ITV Channel TV, Channel 103, BBC Jersey and Bailiwick Express. Media Accreditation was not granted to Neil Mc Murray of the Voice for Children Blog and Bob Hill of the Jersey Blog Spot.
The “spurious” reasons given for accreditation was the perceived need for the 6 successful applicants to have access to electronic facilities in the Media Room so as to be able to file stories promptly. On busy days there has been considerable pressure on space.
The “spurious” reasons given for accreditation was the perceived need for the 6 successful applicants to have access to electronic facilities in the Media Room so as to be able to file stories promptly. On busy days there has been considerable pressure on space.
If space is so precious that there is only sufficient room for the Panel to grant 6 media accreditations then it must follow that should the UK or world media wish to access the room they will be out of luck because of the lack of space. They like Neil and I will not be able to access any other electronic facilities at Seaton Place because Frances Oldham has made that clear in her communication to me. However the Panel's decision does not restrict the number of journalist/reporters/camera people that the 6 accredited media may wish to have in the Media Room.
I do not believe that Frances Oldham has been informed of all the circumstances because she would not have made a decision which is not only irrational but discriminatory. That evening I wrote apprising her of the facts and asked that we could appeal against her decision. I received a response from a member of the Inquiry Team telling me of the difficulties in making contact with Ms Oldham and her Panel but I was not given a date to meet Frances Oldham.
This morning because of further information coming to hand I again emailed Frances Oldham informing her of it and that she should investigate my concerns before we meet, hopefully before the COI reconvenes next week.
As a matter of courtesy and because I am waiting to meet Frances Oldham I will not share the information which questions the integrity of members of the Inquiry Media Team until I have met Frances Oldham or have been informed that she does not want to meet Neil and me.
The decision taken about accreditation is disappointing and petty which should not have arisen in the first place and can only harm the COI’s impartiality and credibility at a time when it badly needs to establish the trust and confidence of the survivors/victims and potential witnesses.
I have devoted countless hours, not only as a States Member and since leaving the States to ensure there is a COI and encouraging witnesses to come forward.
This morning because of further information coming to hand I again emailed Frances Oldham informing her of it and that she should investigate my concerns before we meet, hopefully before the COI reconvenes next week.
As a matter of courtesy and because I am waiting to meet Frances Oldham I will not share the information which questions the integrity of members of the Inquiry Media Team until I have met Frances Oldham or have been informed that she does not want to meet Neil and me.
The decision taken about accreditation is disappointing and petty which should not have arisen in the first place and can only harm the COI’s impartiality and credibility at a time when it badly needs to establish the trust and confidence of the survivors/victims and potential witnesses.
I have devoted countless hours, not only as a States Member and since leaving the States to ensure there is a COI and encouraging witnesses to come forward.
I hope I can continue to give the COI my support therefore it is essential that the matter is dealt with more urgency than at present and before a mountain is made out of a mole hill by those who have opposed the establishment of the COI because it could not be trusted to act in an impartial manner and without fear or favour.
This inquiry is showing itself up to be another Jersey oligarchy cover up by banning the only people who the victims trust. The inquiry knows if it bans the only people who have supported the victims then the victims won't come forward. Hey presto cover up sorted.
ReplyDeleteSpurious reasons, dead right and well done for challenging the decision which is an insult to you and Voice.
ReplyDeleteThe Bailiwick Express is also a blog but no way as credible as yours so why should it be given precedence over you and Neil?.
DeleteWho runs the Bailiwick express? Anyone with the right connections?
ReplyDeleteIts a blog but has the right connections
DeleteWhat a whitewash, why do we have victims of child abuse up before a COI, why are the paedophiles who have left so many victims of child abuse not up before the courts?
ReplyDeleteWhy has our government, police and judiciary not pursued the criminals who have abused so many children of this island?
There is no Justice in a COI, real justice comes only from real courts of law!
And evidence given to the COI is invalidated as it cannot be used in a court of law if it is used in the inquiry.
Deletewhy has our government, police and judiciary not persued the criminals? Well they can't persue themselves all that easily.
DeleteWith reference to the comment at 2217 above which is similar to a comment posted in an earlier blog. For the benefit of readers I have cut and pasted the response given by a lawyer acting for the COI.
DeleteDear Mr Hill,
Thank you for your e-mail.
No evidence provided to the Inquiry can be used in a subsequent civil or criminal matter. For example, witness statements given to the Inquiry cannot be used to bring a prosecution or a civil claim. In addition, a witness has protection against self-incrimination. So, if, for example, a witness gave oral testimony which in theory incriminated them, this testimony cannot be used as evidence against that person in any civil or criminal proceedings. The role of the Inquiry is to get to the truth and it has no powers of prosecution.
However, if upon hearing evidence provided to the Inquiry, this leads the Police to carry out their own investigations based on what they have heard and they in turn collate their own evidence, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. They cannot un-hear what they have heard and if that leads them to make their own investigations as a consequence of that, that is a matter for them.
I appreciate this is a difficult area which many people find difficult to understand and / or difficult to accept. It is imperative that in order to get to the truth, the Inquiry is not fettered by individual concerns about self incrimination.
I hope that clarifies your query, but please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely,
Angharad Shurmer
Eversheds LLPSolicitors to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry
D
That is very clear. It is the same as in Ireland.
DeleteEvidence given to the inquiry cannot simply be transposed into a court, but if the police reconstruct the same evidence outside the inquiry it is perfectly admissible in court. And the police will have had the advantage of having heard the evidence at the inquiry and will know where to look.
So, far from prejudicing a court case the inquiry could end up helping it along the way.
Thanks Polo,
DeleteYes I agree and it is a question which will be asked again and that is why I asked for clarification so that it could be published in my blog.
I am grateful to Angharad Shurmer of Eversheds for clarifying the matter.
Operation Rectangle identified 151 suspects, of which 30 have since died, this leaves 121 suspects still living. Out of those 121 suspects 8 have been charged (having met “the evidential test” with prosecution being in “the public interest”). So that means 113 suspects still have not been brought before a court of law...
Delete113 out of 121, a staggering 93% of the Operation Rectangle suspected child abusers have not even been charged to appear before a court of law?
Obviously there is something very amiss here, the police have a very high detection rate of criminal suspects for these offences, yet only 7% of them have been prosecuted, with 93% of suspected offenders not even being charged?
This raises a valid question, does Jersey have a politicised judiciary preventing the police from bringing certain child abusers to justice?
Summary of Operation Rectangle cases
Delete(From the Operation Haven Report - pages 330-33)
1. Operation Rectangle commenced in September 2007. The operation was established to investigate allegations of historical child sexual abuse amid growing concerns that abuse had been prevalent in certain institutions in Jersey; primarily the former Haut de la Garenne Children’s Home and the Jersey Sea Cadets Corps. The terms of reference were to investigate serious indictable offences. Below are some headline outcomes:
To date, Operation Rectangle has recorded that a total of 210 victims have come forward and made allegations of 429 offences ranging from Common Assault to Rape. The offence dates range from 1947 to 2004.
Of the 429 allegations, 47 have an element of corroboration. 73 of the total allegations would fall into the category of serious indictable offences and 17 of those have an element of corroboration.
Of the 429 offences alleged, 214 were indecent acts, of which 53 would be classed as serious indictable offences.
The remaining 215 offences alleged were physical assaults, of which, 195 were common assaults and would not be classed as serious indictable offences. The remaining 20 allegations were of Actual Bodily Harm (18) and Grievous Bodily harm (2) and were treated as serious indictable offences.
The 429 allegations were made against 180 different individuals, 23 of whom are deceased. A further 26 individuals have not been identified.
Of the 73 allegations of serious indictable offences, 30 are alleged to have been committed by persons unknown and 11 offences by persons who are deceased.
In respect of the remaining 32 allegations, which relate to 35 suspects/persons of interest, investigation files have been submitted for charging advice.
The current position regarding these files is as follows:
Crown Advocates have recommended that 21 files failed to meet the evidential test.
10 files still await charging advice.
Four persons have been charged with offences connected to Haut de la Garenne.
§ 5.7.6 on page 265 of the Operation Haven (Wiltshire Police) report makes it quite clear that the states of Jersey police were being politically restrained by the Attorney General William Bailhache, whom is quoted as saying "There should be no further arrests without specific written advice from the Law Officers".
Delete5.7.6 He continues ‘following the meeting with the Attorney General I had a face to face discussion in my office with Lenny HARPER about the media release… I told him that nevertheless his actions had created something of a crisis which I would now have to manage. I instructed him as follows and later confirmed what I had said by e-mail. He should submit a written duty report on the incident; There should be no further arrests without specific written advice from the Law Officers; All relevant press statements will be cleared with the Law Officers before release’. If correct, this account paints a picture of more positive and intrusive supervision which had been lacking in Operation Rectangle, in our view.
Ask yourself a question Bob, "why are June and July 2008's entries missing from the 'Policy Book Entries' listed (on pages 333-375) in 'Appendix 3 – Policy Book Entries' of the Operation Haven (Wiltshire Police) report...
DeleteHint: read blog reply @ 10:51 and keep in mind the timeline!
Thank you for your informed comments. These are the very points that need answers and should be found via the COI.
DeleteIn the Operation Haven report, one may observe that page 341 ends with Policy Book Entry dated '16 May 2008' and on page 342 begins with Policy Book Entry dated '12 August 2008', in turning from one page to the next of this chronological order, June and July seem to be missing...
DeleteOnly DCO Lenny Harper can tell you if he made entries into the Police Policy Book during June and July 2008 before his retirement in August 2008.
DeleteIt seems it is very strange that these two months have been omitted from the Policy Book entries in appendix 3 of the Operation Haven report, especially knowing that this was the same time that Attorney General William Bailhache was attempting to "manage" the "crisis" using the Law Officers.
Quote:
"There should be no further arrests without specific written advice from the Law Officers; All relevant press statements will be cleared with the Law Officers before release’."
A shrewd DCO Harper would have almost certainly made Policy Book entries to protect both himself and his fellow investigating officers in response to the direct interventions of the Attorney General William Bailhache and the Law Officers during June and July shortly before he retired in August.
DeleteBailiwick Express is like an online newpaper?
ReplyDeleteYou mean a blog with adverts and people with the right connections.
DeleteDoes it really matter who is in there because I thought everything said was being typed like Hansard?
ReplyDeleteYou are correct to ask whether it really matters who is in there, unfortunately it matters to certain members of the so called accredited media who have used their influence to exclude people like Neil and me. It is purely discriminatory.
DeleteYou are also correct to say that everything is typed like Hansard but it is not published until much later.
It is published quite swiftly, I keep tabs on it http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/
ReplyDeleteThe JEP have removed comments, including those in support of Lenny Harper.
ReplyDeleteIt must be miserable to live in a place like Jersey.
I firmly believe that the Inquiry made a serious error in its handling of media room accreditations. However – and, believe me, I hate to play the ‘devil’s advocate’ - the error was not in the revocation of two bloggers’ accreditation on 14th August. The error was in giving them accreditation in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHaving spent most of my life working in national (UK) and international broadcasting I know that journalists, together with their camera and sound crews and other ‘hangers-on’, are immensely zealous in safeguarding their ‘privileged’ access to press rooms.
The decision to give accreditation to bloggers was apparently based on a simplistic and short-sighted perception that there were then only five applicants, hence space would not be a problem. But, in the presence of a body of ‘professionals’ having customary exclusivity over the use of such facilities, mere room-space is no criterion for giving accreditation to non-card-carrying ‘amateurs’.
There is no doubt in my mind that one of the MSM folk ‘had a quiet word’ with someone involved in managing COI press relations, for the principal (if not the sole) purpose of protecting his professional territory – i.e. having the bloggers thrown out of the media room. Frankly, such tactics are par for the course … worldwide. But they are tactics of the journalists, not of the COI.
The lack of tact and humanity in dealing with a disabled visitor to Seaton Place is utterly deplorable but, with all due respect, it is somewhat ‘off-topic’ in the wider context of the decades of abuse in Jersey.
You would do well, methinks, to set aside your hurt and re-focus on the declared purpose of the COI and the abuse victims who (at least, until today) have lent you their trust.
RL
DeleteThank you for your very thoughtful comment. As mentioned in my blog; as a matter of courtesy to Frances Oldham and her panel I have not published the facts which I hope Ms Oldham will permit me to present to her.
Therefore I would rather not comment at present other than to say that accreditation was never granted to anyone in the first place. I would add that you have been very perceptive and some of your comments are well made.
In reply to RL, this may well be an example of the modus operandi under which members of the media undertake to protect 'their turf' however, one would have thought that the COI team would not have bowed down to their request.
DeleteAfter all, this resultant stand off is only due to the approval of the COI, who, it could be argued, can be seen to be weak to allow their minds be changed mid-stream.
The Beano is not the Rag
OK so the 'nest' is now solely inhabited by the accredited media, this must surely mean we will be engulfed with ALL the facts about the goings on in the inquiry. If this is not the case then the so called AM are simply taking up space!! and if anyone has been unfortunate enough to see the ITV/CTV early morning news where the most important events in this Island appear to be the most banal rubbish anyone could conceive, except of course the COI and the rest of the AM are no better. So if the 'reporting' becomes non-existent then surely the COI needs to vacate these people for someone who WILL report events.
ReplyDeleteNot having use of the Media Room may cause some inconvenience but it will not stop anyone from reporting the Hearing.
DeleteWhat is of concern is the way the COI has (mis) handled the matter could cast doubt on its credibility and deter witnesses from coming forward.
And so it begins, they've revealed their true colors already. It might be good for the victims to have their say on the record, but in the end it won't count for much if it only appears in a huge document that no-one will ever read, and the the mainstream media downplay it and cover it up as usual. The average man in the street will only hear the BS that he's fed by the MSM and the whole thing will have been a tragic con trick.
ReplyDeleteThe victims should "go on strike" and refuse to play ball unless their approved media is allowed to report fairly.
Jersey is a beautiful place, its just the people that run it that have forgotten who they are supposed to be working for. They will be reminded in October come the election when a few Senators will be paying for their own parking and freebies abroad again.
ReplyDeleteThe Evening Post are in a real tizzy, probably because of this well respected and balanced blog showing their faults. They have put the Lenny Harper blog comments back up with just a tad more balance. Ahhh Bless em.
As regards the matter of MSM journalists’ eventual bias in their reporting, either of the COI’s current endeavours or of the historic handling of abuse in the Island, it’s worth bearing in mind that the press and politics have always worked hand in hand. They are mutually dependent. In a small place like Jersey, it is inevitable that there will be some bias and string-pulling.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell from the Inquiry’s TOR, it has no mandate to investigate the quality, accuracy or, indeed, the absence of reporting by the press in general, or by individual journalists, past or present. The mere fact that a journalist – or the rag (s)he works for – might have a ‘personal agenda’ is not, in itself, a valid reason for not giving that journalist media accreditation. It’s not without reason that ‘members of the Press’ are allowed certain privileges in most countries, worldwide.
In seeking to highlight eventual murky associations between certain accredited journalists and the Establishment, I wonder if perhaps there's a tendency to overlook the fact that several (indeed, perhaps the majority!) of Jersey bloggers also have historical associations with the Establishment. Several have made abuse victim support an integral part of their own ‘personal agenda’; and their bias is there for all to see on the web.
But some of those bloggers, in contrast to people from the accredited press, may also be giving evidence to the COI.
Those that do may want to think carefully before ‘trashing’ the COI over the matter of media room accreditation (or other 'side issues'), and ask themselves how their blog posts (and the associated comments) may undermine their own credibility as they stand before the Panel; how the accredited press will portray them and their testimony; and – above all – how abuse victims will perceive them if they end up diverting attention away from the common cause.
I applaud the efforts of Bob, VFC, Rico, Stuart and others to keep this matter in the public domain for as long as necessary to bring satisfactory closure for abuse victims, and I would not like to see those efforts diluted by misrepresentation of the facts by either the bloggers themselves or their commentators.
Moderation and truthfulness are the way forward. There’s no room here for exaggerated claims about people being ‘banned’ or ‘excluded’, or about (as yet unproven) ‘spurious reasons’ or ‘discrimination’ in the handling of media room accreditations; less still for inciting victims to ‘go on strike’ or calling the COI a ‘whitewash’ at this early stage in its proceedings.
If you go down that road you will end up with the accredited press looking like freshly-laundered angels.
RL
Thanks for another thoughtful comment.
DeleteMy only agenda is the hope that this COI will be even handed in all of its activities so that witnesses will feel confident to come forward thus enabling the truth to be established.
The present spat is an embarrassing distraction which would not have occurred had the Inquiry Team adhered to its published Media Protocols. The issue goes beyond the unnecessary exclusion of the 2 bloggers and had my concerns been addressed when I reported them on 14th August the publication of this blog would not have been necessary.
You make some good and interesting points RL but as you rightly point the finger at bloggers being tarnished by association and comments and personal views on their own blogs, they have also literally factually torn apart sentence by sentence the lies and ambiguities of the Jersey mainstream media.
ReplyDeleteThere is more, not just the published written words by the JEP and BBC, but in stark contrast - the actual withholding of relative, interesting and important worthy public interest information, which would have at least made an attempt at balance.
Much of this media pantomime was revealed through the good work of Trevor Pitman's scrutiny panel and forensic research by a hand full of excellent, well researched local blogs.
The accredited are the " preferred " scribes of the COI, please ask yourself this, if the MSM agenda was to mislead the reader before, why should they report the truth and nothing but the truth now.
Rather than reporting on the COI deliberations, there is a school of thought which suggests they should be sitting in front of the COI being seriously questioned about there appalling and untruthful one sided historic reporting this includes of course CTV.
Boatyboy
This comment by Boatyboy is one of the best I've read anywhere on this issue. It does not ignore the obnoxious elephant in the room, which is a dreadfully complicit mainstream media which should be, and probably will be, historically remembered for its role in countering strong evidence by ignoring it and replacing it with misleading spin, throughout this sorry episode.
DeleteThe fact is, on the topic of Haut de la Garenne and the abuse-related coverups, the Jersey mainstream media is simply willfully dishonest, and the bloggers who have been mistreated are the only functional Fourth Estate in Jersey. It's an extraordinarily fortunate thing that blogs like this one of Bob's, Stuart's, VFC's, and Rico's have risen to the challenge and remained evidence-based. They hold world class journalistic values and credibility in a small and often hostile, retaliatory place. Their courageous work will trump that of the mainstream media when reporting on this COI every time, in every way.
In a fairer world, with judgement based on merit, the untrustworthy mainstream media would not be invited to cover a real, fair COI.
Elle
Re: the media room. Isn't it a bit pathetic that they chose a location where the available room size turned out to be too small for the journalistic interest expressed? What would they have done if Sky News, Fox news or CNN had turned up?
ReplyDeleteI have raised the matter above and my concern is that as the COI has now determined that there is only sufficient room for 6 media organisations Sky, Fox and CNN and others will be out of luck
DeleteBob.
ReplyDeleteLive interview with former Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, recorded and on Youtube HERE.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteYou have described the situation as an embarrassing sprat, you are correct but it is not you that has caused it. Frances Oldham might have been poorly advised but she has signed the letter and is therefore responsible. One wonders whether she is up to the job?.
I'd be interested to hear what those giving evidence actually believe will be achieved, if the vast majority of islanders will never hear about it? The media that most people choose to inform them will cover up anything that could possibly threaten the ruling class's gravy train, so what is the point, exactly?
ReplyDelete
DeleteI can understand your pessimism but doing nothing was not an option. There are many witnesses with a tale to tell. The test will be whether the COI allows them to give their evidence.
Clearly the problem is the JEP - at the heart of island lies.
DeleteA deceitful and deceptive media is the enemy of the truth.
The way to combat this problem lies in Citizen's Media, so please don't give up. Even if independent journalists (untainted by pay checks and their employers' accredited bias) are unfairly banned from the media room, you can still get the truth out there somehow. I'm sorry my frustration spilled over into such negativity. Forgive me please.
Have you any thoughts on the JEP editorial re Blogers being banned from the Media Room?
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the Editorial there was a report by Toby Chiang who was not in the Media Room on 12th August.
DeleteI am disappointed with Toby’s report because as young reporter I would have hoped that he was capable of reporting the facts rather than giving his name to a report which was published with so little or no research. The facts were on the Inquiry website so it was not difficult to find.
The headline to the report read “Abuse Inquiry excludes citizen media after Syvret tweets.” That statement is inaccurate. He then makes another inaccurate claim by adding “Several bloggers including former States Deputy Bob Hill, Neil McMurray and former Senator Stuart Syvret have been banned from accessing the Inquiry’s media room at 11 to 15 Seaton Place.
Had Toby and his editor cared to look at the Inquiry’s website he would have been able to give an accurate account of the proceedings. They would have seen that several bloggers were not banned because only Neil and I applied. Stuart and other bloggers have not been banned because they never applied in the first case.
The Frances Oldham letter outlining who was and who was not accredited along with the reason was also on the website where there is no mention of Stuart’s tweets so why publish something which is incorrect?
Stuart is also reported to have sent a string of “live tweets” which are banned under the Inquiry’s rules. Again that is not so, had the JEP taken the trouble to read and understand the Inquiry’s Media Protocol they would have realised that filming, photography, recording and social media updates are not permitted in the hearing room, including the area of public seating.
The reason for having a Media Room is to allow for tweets and other updates to be published. I was in the Media Room and it certainly was not Frances Oldham who expressed concern about the tweeting. One must also ask why the JEP was obsessed with claiming that the ban was a result of Stuart Syvret’s tweets when in the same report it states “the Inquiry’s press team had said that the introduction of accreditation was not linked to any particular incident.”
Being mindful of Toby Chiang’s article one would have assumed the author of the Editorial would have checked the accuracy of the report before drafting his report. I may add that Toby Chiang contacted me on the morning of Tuesday 26th August and did not publish his article until 29th so both he and the Editorial’s author had ample time to checks their facts before going to print.
I've noticed Toby's bias before, I think he's a lost cause and not worth dealing with.
DeleteBob
ReplyDeleteBottom line: The mainstream media has abdicated its role of informing Jersey residents accurately on matters of concern to more powerful people. The JEP management appears not to feel even the slightest shame about 'sexing things up' to make the far better-evidenced blog journalists look bad. If they can manipulate any report to get some kind of extra stab in at Stuart Syvret, so much the better. The oldest profession is selling oneself for money and that's just what they do.
In a better world, this COI would look at the role the local media played in the cover-up, and examine why whistleblowers, abused children and good, honourable politicians such as yourself, were unable to gain media allies in pursuit of truth and justice. That's not about to happen in this COI! Even worse, the mainstream media was, and continues to act as the actual enemy of evidence-based investigating, so any greater good they pretend to do in regards to the survivors and their supporters is damn hard to detect, given their behaviour over the media room. The writing is on the Jersey wall and we aren't stupid.
However, media complicity is almost certain to be a major topic as the UK CSA Inquiry is finally being covered by wide-audience national media, and Jersey has highly suspicious links to Islington and other care homes there, as well as to Jimmy Savile. At the very least, the trafficking of children from UK to Jersey is already a well known fact UK journalists find worthy of further examination.
Day by day, the abuse scandal disclosures by @ExaroNews and an increasingly bold national mainstream media, are bringing closer attention to Jersey, attention which does not bode well for the guilty of the island, especially the state media. A day of reckoning feels quite certain now. In the UK, the media knows which side of history it must scramble to be seen on now.
For those who aren't on Twitter, @ExaroNews, leads the way nationally on reporting the exploding CSA ties to Westminster. They have been more influential with MPs who've come out in support of an overarching Hillsborough-style inquiry than any other media organisation, and their investigative reports are only published online. Just as in Jersey, the UK survivors, CSA whistleblowers and activists trust these online journalists more to actually investigate the hard issues and to tell the truth.
Elle
Thank you for the link, has Exaro any plans re the Jersey COI?
DeleteElle,
DeleteThanks for comments and I think your concerns are well made because at times I felt that some of the reporting in 2008 was not only causing hurt to the victims but also to the Island as a whole.
The information about Exaro is now above.
Do you know, if you read ex Senator Stuart Syvrtet's Blog posting "POTEMKIN VILLAGE POLICING" you will find the most shocking statement:
ReplyDelete"Sex-offenders in the Crown Offices"
This is written in the plural, that is to say that there is more than one sex offender in the Crown Offices! If ex-Senator Syvret's statement is true, these individuals are at the very heart of the paedophile beast which still beats in this island.
A heart which like a great big black spider it at the very centre of this islands feudal government pulling all the strings from the centre of its web of deceit.
"Sex-offenders in the Crown Offices" explains why we the people of Jersey have not seen real justice for the victims of child abuse.
"Sex-offenders in the Crown Offices" may also explain why we have an independent 'Committee of Enquiry" into child abuse.
DeleteA so-called 'independent' enquiry by the Crown for the Crown, the same Crown which controls the real power within our feudal government.
In 2014 the Law Offices via the States of jersey Legislation Advisory Panel of States Members have managed to capture the 1494-1495 Treason law.
ReplyDeleteThe Jersey "Crown Offices" are now able to use this law to charge and try offences of treason in the Royal Court under Bailhache's ("I simply make it up as I go along") Jersey law.
A law which now allows a politicised-judiciary in the name of the Crown to imprison those who speak out against it.