Archive for February, 2014




Fatal Consequences Reported in Mail on Sunday.


“BBC man’s Twitter campaign helped kill my boy:”



The BBC – the bloated British-state media organisation which harboured, enabled, furnished victims for, and then covered-up child-rapist and necrophiliac Jimmy Savile – for at least four decades – continues to disgrace itself.


In a tragic story concerning the death of a good & well-intentioned man, the Mail on Sunday reports that a sustained campaign of cyber-bullying by a BBC presenter in Jersey led to the death of Simon Abbot.


The blog campaigning to expose the truth of what happened to Simon Abbot can be read here:



In the Mail on Sunday it is reported that BBC presenter Murray Norton pursued a “vicious and unrelenting cyber-bullying campaign” against Mr. Abbot.


I reproduce with full acknowledgments, the Mail on Sunday article below this posting.


I’m not – very sadly – in the least surprised at the story.


Those of us who hold different views to Jersey’s entrenched oligarchy can recount volumes of examples of obstruction, lies, bias, defamations, abuse, trolling, exclusions and marginalisations by the BBC in Jersey.


The BBC complaints procedure – even at regional, national and trust level – is so extraordinarily bad – essentially non-functioning – as to be beyond parody. It is a process – a complaints-structure – of the kind which might have been created in an Eastern-Bloc state; a process which exists to (a) give a false-impression of accountability; (b) provide a large bureaucracy in which favored apparatchiks be provided with work, and – most significantly – (c) to work primarily as an actual shield for the BBC, in a kind of Orwellian Newspeak inversion of its declared purpose of delivering “accountability”.


I’m aware of extremely diligent, detailed formal complaints pursued through the BBC process – complaints which covered, amongst closely related matters, the illegal suspension of Jersey’s Police Chief Graham Power – and the jaw-dropping refusal of the BBC to report vital public-interest stories arising from a wholly damning 94 page statement by Mr. Power.


I know that the BBC were supplied with a copy of the statement – because I was their source.


I e-mailed it to BBC Jersey boss Jon Gripton – and from that day to this – the BBC has refused to report the dramatic public-interest maters revealed in the Police Chief’s statement. That failure cannot be put down to the hick-town failure of the BBC’s ‘gone-native’ Jersey operation – as I’ve also supplied the document to the BBC at a national level.


The BBC’s child-abuser, Jimmy Savile – who spent a great deal of time in Jersey – and was very closely connected to BBC staff and associates in the island – featured in the child-abuse investigation being led by Police Chief Graham Power.


Simon Abbot is a tragic victim of a wholly decadent BBC culture. And sadly, he is not the only victim of cyber-bullying and the promotion of hate-sites by the BBC and its staff in Jersey.


Deputies Trevor & Shona Pitman are Jersey politicians – amongst the very few members of the island’s legislature – who have opposed the child-abuse cover-ups in the island; cover-ups which include crimes committed by Savile.


Both Deputies have been subjected to sustained, hate-filled campaigns of anonymous abuse, attacks from web ‘sock-puppets’, and organised astro-turfing. Nothing so surprising, really; comes with the territory – especially if you are opposing the entrenched and very powerful – who have a lot to lose.


But for such hate-sites – and the trolling they contain – to be pro-actively – and approvingly – referred to – and peddled – by the BBC?




The organization was even more startlingly overtly corrupt, in joining in with – and promoting and supporting – a transparent astro-turfing campaign against a respected published USA author and investigative journalist Leah McGrath Goodman.


That was the BBC – pro-actively attacking – one of the few journalists seriously investigating decades of concealed child-abuse and the governance-failures which harbored and concealed that abuse.


BBC presenters in Jersey could scarcely move fast enough to join-in with and promote – a swarm of trolling, and organised astro-turfing plainly being co-ordinated and sock-puppeted by paid spin-doctors.


The conduct of the BBC in Jersey has long been utterly disgraceful.


Some analysis by me of the history of BBC behavior in, and towards Jersey, can be read here:



In the mean-time, I recommend the Mail on Sunday article, the original can be read here:-



Let us remember Simon Abbot – and ask just what the BBC imagines itself to be doing – down in the trolling gutter?


Stuart Syvret
‘BBC man’s Twitter campaign helped kill my boy’: Devastated father claims offensive comments contributed to son’s heart attack


By the Mail on Sunday


  • BBC presenter was allegedly involved in a ‘cyber-bullying campaign’
  • He is accused of suggesting a man siphoned-off charity donations
  • Broadcaster Murray Norton strongly denies making the comments
  • The corporation say they are investigating the claims


The BBC is investigating allegations that one of its presenters was involved in a ‘vicious and unrelenting cyber-bullying campaign’ that contributed to the death of a 47-year-old man.


Murray Norton, who has been a BBC broadcaster for nearly 30 years, strongly denies making offensive comments on social networking sites about Simon Abbott, a computer software developer who died of a heart attack earlier this year.


Mr. Norton is said to have posted messages on Facebook and Twitter suggesting Mr. Abbott was a conman, siphoning off charity donations for his own use.


The alleged abuse encouraged dozens of ‘internet trolls’ to join in the harassment, some allegedly claiming they were taking their cue from Mr. Norton because of his status as a BBC broadcaster.


Police have said they were not aware of any evidence Mr. Abbott was misappropriating funds.


His father believes the alleged bullying hastened his son’s death.


And last night The Mail on Sunday discovered that the extent to which stress may have contributed to Mr. Abbott’s heart attack will be considered at the forthcoming inquest.


In his spare time Mr. Abbott ran a charitable foundation he set up in memory of his sister Samantha, who committed suicide in 2009 while suffering from post-natal depression.


Before his death in June, he had begun libel proceedings against Mr. Norton and other people whose false allegations, he claimed, had destroyed his reputation and turned him into a recluse, unable to work and frightened to leave his house.  A defense was lodged denying all  the claims.


However, his father, Jon Abbott, believes the alleged comments were posted by Mr. Norton and others and is demanding to know why BBC bosses apparently made no attempt to stop Mr. Norton spreading unfounded rumours about his son.


The retired journalist, who lives in South Africa, said: ‘Simon’s schemes failed to raise any money, partly due to his own shortcomings as a charity organiser and partly because it was an impossible task to make a success of any project that kept being slated on the internet.


‘The takings (for the trust) appear to have been pitiful. When he died, there was little money in his  bank account and the trust was £1,400 in the red. That doesn’t make him a conman.


‘It is deplorable for the BBC to stand on the sidelines. Norton was working for a national institution funded by the British taxpayer and was very much in the public eye.’


A BBC spokesman said: ‘We offer our sincere condolences to Mr. Abbott but strongly assert the BBC has treated the complaints in question seriously. No evidence of cyber-bullying was found and the complaint was not upheld.’


One of the online messages, purportedly written by the radio host, allegedly said: ‘Simon, if you are reading this – which, my friends, he might be – give it up, come clean on the finances of the trust, put the items you claim to have from the famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some people in real need instead of false events that help no one.’


One of Mr. Abbott’s tormentors, a woman from Cornwall, was questioned by police after he complained about her behaviour in November 2011. She was ‘given advice’ by officers but not charged with any offence.


But when Mr. Abbott’s father wrote to the BBC after his son’s death, the managing editor of BBC Radio Jersey, Jon Gripton, said that since  Mr. Norton was a ‘freelance artist’, the corporation had no responsibility for his off-air activities.


Mr. Norton’s links with the BBC, however, are long-established and he hosts a three-hour show on Radio Jersey every weekday morning.


Simon Abbott said in a court statement relating to his libel action: ‘People think I am a conman, dishonest, and even that I have made up the death of my sister. Because he (Norton) works for the BBC everyone follows he (sic) and joins in.’


Jon Abbott’s complaint against Mr. Norton is now being re-examined by one of the BBC’s most senior executives, David Holdsworth.


Mr. Norton combines his broadcasting career with running two restaurants in Jersey. Our calls to him went unanswered.


Mail on Sunday

Stuart Syvret repost – THE CROWN – AND NEWSPEAK “JUSTICE” – PART 1

Tax-Payers Money – to Protect Criminals

Tax-Payers Money – to Silence Investigative Journalism

Tax-Payers Money – to Fund Cover-Ups for Corrupt Crown Officers

Tax-Payers Money – to Bank-Roll Bent Law-Firms

So – let’s have a look at the latest behaviour of what passes for a “judiciary” in the British Crown island of Jersey.


A “judiciary” – which consists of conflicted individuals, various evidenced crooks, and their friends and appointees.


A “judiciary” – which has taken to itself the power to make “laws” over and against the mechanisms of democracy.


A “judiciary” – which has decided that data protection laws can be applied to silence free-speech and cover-up crime – in a way that even they admit has no equivalent – in any other country –  on the face of the planet.


A “judiciary” which has decided I have to be oppressed – for having fought to protect my constituents from corruption, criminals, child-abusers, rapists and murderers.


And, well – where to start? There are so many extraordinary facts – so many public-interest issues to be addressed – in the latest attempt by Crown forces in Jersey to protect criminals, suppress journalism, embezzle public money, pervert justice, and attack democracy – I think we’ll have to have a series of postings.


And we will.


In the coming days we’ll take a look at certain distinct aspects of this latest manifestation of the corrupt conduct of Jersey’s oligarchy.


For example, the most – err – curious conduct of the judge, Michael Birt’s colleague and appointee Charles Gray, who decided to receive, and allow to influence and structure the judgment, a submission from the JEP – when he had refused – 12 months earlier – those very arguments and submissions – when made in writing – by me.


And we’ll also have to take a close and careful look at just what on earth Gray imagines himself to be doing – in accepting, and permitting to influence, and incorporating into the judgment – not one – but two – interventions made by third-parties – after all of the proceedings had ended.


Submissions which ended up forming the judgment – but which I had had zero knowledge of – until the judgment was issued.


Submissions which now form case-law – but which were wholly un-tested, un-scrutinised, un-examined and un-challenged in any court.


Still, there must be some explanation for this startlingly novel approach to the administration of justice which is not yet apparent to us mere proles.


So, what’s it all about then, eh? – this “secret” super-injunction, taken out against me – and which has been so heroically reported by the Jersey Evening Post – twelve months after it was all made public in the House of Commons by John Hemming MP?


It’s potentially a complex subject – with many dry & technical aspects – and various examples of documented evidence – but before we get into that territory in future postings,  I’m sure many readers would like a quick and easy explanation – something that provides an overview, as it were – and which enables you to grasp the subject – with clarity. So here goes.


Before you read any further, click on this link, scroll down a little, tothe YouTube clip under the heading, “Another ‘Stella’ Moment to be Proud of” – and listen to the audio recording; it’s only 2 mins, 25 sec – so it won’t take long – and in so many ways, we can laugh at it now:

That was a recording of a crazed, drunken, abusive phone-call made by one Jon Haworth.


He makes many such calls – other people have other recordings. He also engages in cyber-staking, harassing women, abusive internet trolling, and threats of violence and of murder.


He is an inadequate, loathsome worm – the kind of cowardly, solitary fantasist who might harass your daughter on social media. To get a brilliant – and very funny – understanding of the Jon Haworths of this world, take a look at the song – Thank You Hater – which captures the breed oh so perfectly; I’ve put a link at the end of this posting. The song could have been written about Haworth.


So – of what relevance is the above, to the “super-injunction” – free-speech – the Data Protection Law – the conduct of Emma Martins – and of what passes for a “judiciary” in Jersey?


Jon Haworth is one of the four individuals in whose names this super-injunction has been obtained against me.


Nice chap, eh?


Well worth – I’m quite sure you will agree – spending £500,000s of your money – on protecting – so that he can carry on his anonymous regime of cyber-stalking, threatening women, and abusive trolling.


I first wrote about Haworth in 2008, when he was brought to my attention by a number of my constituents; for example, vulnerable single women who had rejected Haworth’s obsessive advances, and were having their health affected by his constant barrage of frightening threatening phone-calls and obnoxious internet abuse.


But even though there is not so much as one, single, solitary scrap of anything that could be described as official “data” about Haworth – not so much as one single syllable of actual “official information” concerning him – published on this blog, Emma Martins decided it would still be just fine to embezzle £100,000s of tax-payers money – your money – and bring the full authority and power of the state into play – to shield this inadequate maggot.


Why should the Jersey establishment feel a need to protect Haworth?


Because he is involved in running pro-child-abuse-concealment websites – which are used by the Jersey oligarchy to attack those of us who want the system cleaned-up. Haworth’s role in this has included receiving and publishing actually stolen data – data stolen by the spiv and low gangster Deputy Sean – “to be sure, to be sure” – Power – a blarneying crook who gives “confidence-men” a bad name.


But notwithstanding the evidenced theft, handling, supplying and publication, of private data of no public-interest disclosure merit – Emma Martins and Attorney General Tim Le Cocq flatly refused to prosecute those involved, such as Sean Power and Jon Haworth.


This is Jersey Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins – daughter of Bergerac actor John Nettles.

That’s John Nettles – acquaintance of child-abuser & necrophiliac and regular visitor to Jersey, Jimmy Savile. I mention Nettles, because Emma Martins has actually boasted publicly of being guided and advised by her father in her campaign of oppression directed against me ever since I began – in 2007 – my battle to expose the decades of concealed child-abuse in Jersey.
And not a lot of people know this – but before Haute de la Garenne was closed as a children’s home in 1986, the site was used by the BBC for filming Bergerac. That is – when it was still a home for vulnerable children – and where various un-vetted BBC staff were permitted to come and go and wonder around the site amongst vulnerable and impressionable kids.

Read about it here:

Alas, Emma Martins failed to recall this plainly conflicting and nullifying conflict of interests that fatally contaminates her Office – when engaging in her various efforts to silence me.

Just as she “forgot” to declare the fact that another of the four individuals she has decided to “assist” – an evidencedly corrupt police officer – is also an acquaintance of her father.
And another of the four individuals is a suspected child-abuser – and who was also involved in the corrupt concealment of other cases of child-abuse – for example, the horrifying regime of abuse conducted by Jane and Alan Maguire in the States of Jersey Blanche Pierre Group Home.
I listened to some of the victims of that man’s actions – and the experience will live with me all my life.
He won’t sue me for defamation – because he knows perfectly well I could call upon ten of his victims to speak in open court.
But, still, we can’t blame Emma for being so neglectful – so forgetful – of such piffling matters as conflicts of interest – after all, it’s precisely the same “cultural approach” adopted by her fellow Crown Officers, friends and bosses, and which has been a part of the very life-blood of “The Jersey Way” – for centuries.
I mean, just for example, consider Michael Birt – the current “Bailiff”. He “forgets” the many very serious direct conflicts of interest which contaminate him in these matters, and persists in involving himself. For example, choosing and appointing his own judges, to hear these oppressive actions against me in what purports to be a “court of law”.  Birt also persists – like his equally fatally conflicted colleague, “Deputy Bailiff” William Bailhache – in involving themselves in these matters when they come before the States assembly.
In particular – in the case of Michael Birt – we are dealing with the man who prematurely ended the 1999 investigation into the rogue male nurse – a rapist – and almost certainly a clinical serial-killer. That individual is one of the four proxies, behind whose names the Crown Offices of Jersey now seek to hide their corrupt failures to protect the public.
Your relatives could have been amongst the victims of the nurse.
So serious is the case of that one of the four individuals – it requires a separate posting.
But it isn’t as though the conduct of the remaining three proxies – and the reasons the Crown has for using them to conceal its own failures – was not serious enough.
Michael Birt must have forgotten that when the police belatedly became aware of the atrocities by the Maguires, and attempted to prosecute them in 1998 – part-way through the case, Birt corruptly abandoned it – falsely saying to the Royal Court there was “insufficient evidence”. Michael Birt also failed to obtain any medical evidence in respect of Alan Maguire’s claims to have “terminal cancer” and only months to live.
As Deputy Police Chief Lenny Harper drily observed to me  – when Alan Maguire was shown  assaulting the Panorama film crew  – ten years later – “well, I’m no clinical pathologist, but that man looked very much alive to me.”
But, you know, it’s not so surprising that Birt adopted that attitude when he was Attorney General in 1998. After all – had the Maguires been properly investigated – fully prosecuted for all their crimes – that would have had career-annihilating consequences for his predecessor as Attorney General – and his then-boss – Philip Bailhache.
You see – the horrifying catalogue of abuses – of savage crimes – committed by the Maguires had become fully known to the authorities – in 1990.
Philip Bailhache was the Attorney General then – the sole prosecuting authority in Jersey – and the legal adviser to the relevant authority responsible for permitting the regime of abuse, the then Education Committee.
Philip Bailhache colluded with the Education Department in covering-up the abuse in 1990.
The police only got to know of it by pure happenstance – in 1998.
“Well”, you may ask, “ok, so the criminal prosecution was not seen though in 1998, but surely the victims would have got civil compensation – and the proper help and support they needed?”
The damaged, vulnerable and angry and confused victims were assigned – as legal aid clients – a law-firm to represent their interests.
But that could have been a problem – could it not?
After all, if these vulnerable young people had good legal representation, their lawyers would be objecting to the abandonment of the prosecution of their attackers.
Their lawyers would be demanding a public inquiry into such deeply, deeply alarming questions as “why did the authorities cover-up the horrifying crimes when they were first officially recognised – in 1990?”
Questions would be asked of the then Attorney General – Philip Bailhache – as to “why on Earth the abusers – and the corruptly concealing Education Department – were not prosecuted in 1990?”
And in 1998, the victims would have belatedly received – righty so – dramatic amounts of compensation from the state – for the horrors they suffered.
If – of course – they had had competent, effective – non-corrupt – legal representation.
So – which law-firm was assigned by the powers-that-be – to “represent” the interests of the victims of the Maguires & the States in 1998?
That firm was Bailhache LaBesse – Senior Partner, at the time, one William Bailhache.
That’s William Bailhache – brother of then Bailiff Philip Bailhache – the former Attorney General who – in 1990 – was responsible for the failure to see that the Maguires and the Education Committee were charged and prosecuted then.
So, what happened to the young vulnerable victims and their interests – once they were under the tender care of Philip Bailhache’s brother’s law-firm?
They were utterly and wholly betrayed. They received zero effective representation – in any sense at all – and came away from that episode with zero justice – and actually even more damaged and angry and distressed and wrecked than they were already.
Bailhache LaBesse have morphed since then – and are now a part of Appleby Global – and legal – fiduciary – and ethical – liability for that betrayal of those young legal-aid clients continues to hang over the law-firm.
Now – a question, dear readers: –
What law-firm – do you think –  has been funded by Emma Martins – and in many ways more significantly, empowered by the imprimatur of her Crown Office – to pursue this campaign of “legal” suppression against me?
This is too easy, isn’t it?
That’s right – the law-firm – which is being given millions upon millions of pounds – of your money – to fund their oppression of me – so as to stop me exposing many crimes of child-abuse  and associated corrupt concealments such as those engaged in by Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global – is Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global.
I thought you’d like that.
Indeed – one of the four proxies that Martins, Bailhache LaBesse/Appleby and the Crown are using against me  in this war of suppression – the proxy who is also the child-abuser – was expressly and directly involved in manipulating and betraying the Maguire victims during the corrupt abandonment by Michael Birt of the prosecution of their attackers in 1998.
Of course – all of this – this deeply “problematic” issue of the Blanche Pierre child abuse episode – and the corrupt concealment of the abusers Jane and Alan Maguire became a real nightmare for the Bailhache/Birt/Bailhache syndicate – when it was reopened in 2007 and 2008 – when people like me were fighting to get the truth exposed.
It was during that period that one of the victims of the Maguires asked me to assist them in recovering their case file from Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global, because the law-firm was repeatedly refusing to hand it over. I accompanied her to the firm’s offices – where – after a failed attempt to intimidate the survivor into seeing him alone – Advocate David Benest proceeded to scream abuse at the pair of us.
During that whole recent episode, it would have been very, very useful – would it not – for the corruptly conflicted Bailhache brothers to have “sources” – bent cops who would illegally leak them information – from inside various police investigations – in direct breach of the Data Protection Law – thus assisting the Bailhache brothers in various manoeuvres to obstruct and sabotage those who were fighting to expose past misfeasances.
Low and behold! – here’s another of the four proxy individuals!
Emma Martins has used as a cover – to give millions of pounds of your tax money  – to Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global – to oppress me – to stop me exposing the corrupt conflicts of interest of Bailhache/Appleby and expose the malfeasances of the Bailhache brothers – to the bent cop.
Yes – millions of pounds of your tax-money has been illegally embezzled – to protect a bent cop – who was criminally leaking inside information – to William Bailhache – who was criminally leaking that information in turn to his brother, Philip Bailhache – who was then engaging in grossly illegal attempts to intimidate and coerce States members away from investigating corruption.
But all of those conflicts of interest – well – they’re just so easily forgotten, aren’t they?
Just the kinds of things that so easily slip the minds of so many busy lawyers, Data Protection Commissioners, Attorney Generals, Deputy Bailiffs, and Bailiffs?
So – when your tax-bill lands on the door mat – you’ll be able to console yourself with the thought that, perhaps, £8 million of it has been illegally chiselled to…err – has been spent on the really important and worthwhile task of funding a campaign of unlawful abuse, harassment  and oppression – against the one consistently fearless and honest anti-corruption politician Jersey had in the post-war years – and spent  in the protection of an alcoholic internet troll, a child-abuser and concealer, a bent cop, and psychopathic rapist and murdering nurse.
Readers will note the Jersey Evening Post – commonly known simply as “The Rag” in the island, savouring the part of the judgment that ordered costs against me – so let’s finish for the moment with a quick look at that most fascinating of subjects.
There are, essentially, four purposes – four objectives – to making these type of cost-orders in these political show-trials. Those are, (1) psychological warfare against the victim of the oppression – (2) manufacturing a power to bankrupt the target, thus preventing them from ever seeking election  – (3) to make an example of them, so as to terrify any other uppity proles who might think of opposing our gangster-state – (4) and straightforward – illegal – financial racketeering.
Everyone involved knows – perfectly well – that there is precisely zero chance of my paying over one penny piece to this criminal racket. That’s not why they make the costs order. The money – probably millions of pounds all-told – will come from public funds. That’s you – dear tax-payer.
They have to make these court-orders – because there is absolutely no public money at all – none – not even the slush-fund of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund – that can be lawfullyspent on paying large expensive private-sector law-firms – to run crypto-defamation actions in the name of proxy individuals – for the purposes of suppressing and harassing whistle-blowers and political opposition activists.
In fact – it’s even blunter than that. There is not one penny piece of public money that can be – lawfully – spent by any States department – or other public authority in Jersey – to fund the abusive misapplication of the Data Protection Law – and to fund acts of political suppression in Jersey.
It is illegal to spend, obtain, use and receive public money for purposes not agreed by the States of Jersey.
Even more starkly – it is illegal to spend public money for criminal purposes and for the furtherance and concealment of criminal acts.
But – here are a large number of immensely powerful lawyers – private-sector and public-sector (not that there is any longer a meaningful difference in Jersey between the two, the Crown authority given to the Crown Offices being little more than a kind of “licence” given to private interests to do with as they please) who need millions and millions of pounds to fund a squad of lawyers – and spin-doctors –and  London PR firms – and lobbyists  – so as to suppress those who oppose their corruption.
Therefore the financial transaction – the illegal embezzlement of public funds – requires camouflage. It has to be disguised – no matter how thinly – and – even more importantly – it needs the imprimatur of a “higher authority” – a stamp of approval – some form of “official justification” – to provide a pathway for a transaction of very substantial amounts of public money from the public coffers – into private pockets – when in the absence of such an improvised pathway – the expenditure in question would be even more starkly illegal than it already obviously is.
That is the main purpose of the court-order for costs; to provide that necessary disguise; to provide a kind of fig-leaf – behind which the fraudulent and corrupt embezzlement of public money could be hidden.
So – don’t forget who the beneficiaries of this fraud are.
The main beneficiaries are not the four despicable proxies – the real beneficiaries are the law-firm Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global, and Philip Bailhache and William Bailhache, and Michael Birt.
We’ll take a close look at the “law” and the “judgments” in these cases – and the implications – in the next posting.
In the mean time – have a listen to the song at the YouTube link below; it’s a song about Jon Haworth – who is the beneficiary of a vast amount of your tax money – courtesy of Emma Martins.
Stuart Syvret
A Funny Song About Jon Haworth:

Stuart Syvret repost – judge-made law in jersey

The Covert Coup by the Crown

Against the Island’s Legislature.

Here are a few questions which thinking people in Jersey will want to consider:

How many of the island’s judges did you vote for?
Did you elect the Bailiffs and Deputy Bailiffs?
Did you like their criteria for appointing other judges – their friends – as Commissioners?
Was it their policy of appointing their best friends as magistrates, to then preside over cases they were directly interested and conflicted in, which appealed to you?
Were you confident that that whole assemblage of patriarchs, oligarchs, potentates and vassals would do a far better job of making laws for Jersey than the democratically elected members of the island’s parliament could ever do?
Perhaps you felt that the island’s legislature – and the process of approval by Her Majesty-in-Council – would often get it wrong when introducing laws – so a coterie of local lawyers was needed to reverse those legislative “mistakes”?
You didn’t vote for any of these people – and don’t even have the ability to – and never approved any such transfer of what should be democratically accountable power from your politicians, to un-elected, self-selecting, self-protecting lawyers?
Well then you’re going to have to become familiar with the concept of ‘judge-made law’ – and in the context of Jersey how judge-made laws are not confined to a measured development from democratically accountable legislation, but instead can be a diametric opposition to it.
In the brief video below I spend a few minutes addressing the question of what is known as “judge-made law”, and the failure of the UK authorities to meet their own policy and their self-declared legal obligations in respect of the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

In the next posting, we’ll take a closer look at judge-made law, in the Crown Dependency of Jersey in particular. How many readers, I wonder, are familiar with the Latin legal maxim stare decisis?

It may seem dull, I know – but it’s by such arcanery that lawyers can usurp democracy and have an effect on your lives. And no matter how bad the average politician is – remember – lawyers are always worse: infinitely expensive – usually incompetent – devoid of ethics or any sense of moral hazard – and democratically unaccountable.
As John Keats said:
“I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters.”
Stuart Syvret

Stuart Syvret repost – jersey’s prosocution system

Its Role in the Island’s 2011 Elections.

The facts you won’t learn

From the establishment media.

As I’ve said at several Hustings meetings, one of the great challenges facing this community is the existing power-structure. We don’t really understand why most of our politicians are largely powerless most of the time – and why our government just doesn’t do what we want it to.


And if, in truth, your politicians are largely powerless – then you are powerless.


If you want to understand where real power lies in Jersey – look to the Attorney General and judiciary – and look to the local mainstream media. Those two entities – the legal establishment and news outlets – wield more influence and control than you do via your elected representatives.


The press-release – published below – illustrates the power of both groups.


What you are about to read explains the true, politicised conduct of Jersey’s Attorney General and judges. The document also illustrates just how powerful the local media are. It was issued to BBC Jersey – but yet none of the important issues it describes have been reported.


Jersey’s judicial establishment – and Jersey’s establishment media – both working together, to do all they can to influence people to vote for oligarchs like Philip Bailhache.


Taking  a few minutes to read,  and reflect upon, the facts explained below will give you more insight into real power in Jersey, than you will ever gain from all of the island’s mainstream media.


Press Release:


(Issued exclusively to the BBC – Monday, 10th October, 2011.)














Jersey’s authorities knowingly withheld relevant evidence from the defence side during the prosecution against Stuart Syvret, and during the subsequent appeal.


Jersey’s authorities also concealed the existence of a key witness from the defence side during the prosecution against Stuart Syvret and during the subsequent appeal.


The concealing of evidence and of witnesses is unlawful.


These concealments cause all of the legal proceedings against Stuart Syvret to be ultra vires and miscarriages of justice.


Mr. Syvret came to know of these concealments only in recent weeks – sometime after the appeal was rejected.


He has made an urgent application to the Jersey judicial authorities for a court hearing at which he can table the concealed evidence, given the fact the evidence shows the convictions against him to be flawed and unsafe.


The existence of the new evidence – and the very fact it was concealed – also shows the nature of the proceedings against him to be an ‘abuse-of-process’ and to thus be ultra vires.


But as a result of the dangerously flawed proceedings against him, Mr. Syvret stands convicted – and under severe and damaging prejudice as a consequence of a prosecution in which key evidence was deliberately concealed from the defence side.


Such is the power and relevance of the concealed evidence and the witness testimony, Mr. Syvret has applied – as would be the right of any person – for an urgent court hearing at which the new evidence would be tabled in support of an application to quash and stay the prosecution and conviction against him.


Mr. Syvret wrote to Jersey’s judicial authorities on the 2nd September applying for a court date to make an application to seek some form of immediate relief from the existing judgments which are no longer safe.


Immediate relief was required – as Mr. Syvret is under immediate and seriously prejudicial consequences in respect of the recent criminal proceedings against him – and the verdicts – and sentences arising – which are now clearly no longer safe.


Quite extraordinarily, Jersey’s court authorities have refused to give Mr. Syvret access to justice – until after the conclusion of Jersey’s general election, in which he is a candidate.


Even more extraordinarily – that decision to refuse Mr Syvret access to justice until after the election – was made by Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache – brother of former Bailiff Philip Bailhache – who is an opponent of Mr Syvret in the same election.


Justice delayed – is justice denied.


Any person who is suffering the prejudice and harm of an evidencedely unsafe court verdict has a right to access a court to seek relief from that prejudice. Even if such relief were to be temporary, pending a full hearing.


All people have a right to access justice – and a right to a fair trial – as guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.


It is established law that the right to access justice must be an “effective” right – in order to satisfy the provisions of Article 6 of the ECHR.


For Mr. Syvret’s right to access justice to be “effective”, he requires access to a court before the Jersey elections. Refusing him such access guarantees that the sever prejudice and damage he has suffered as a result of the unlawful concealment of evidence cannot be partially repaired by him gaining some vindication prior to the election.


Therefore, the only means by which Mr. Syvret has been able to gain a court-hearing – by which he may seek justice – has been to refuse to comply with the ultra vires sentences imposed upon him. Consequently, he has been told to appear before the magistrates’ court this Wednesday 12th October, at 10.00 am.


Mr Syvret has notified the court of his attendance – and informed them of the case he will make.


However – given the bias and ultra vires nature of the past judicial conduct against Mr. Syvret, it seems probable that attempts will be made – again – to prevent him from running his defence case effectively.


The decision to deny Mr Syvret his right to access court is already rendered ultra vires by the conflicts of interests of Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache, given his brother, Philip Bailhache’s position as an election opponent of Mr. Syvret. However – the clear unlawfulness of the decision of William Bailhache to provide a timely court hearing for Mr. Syvret is rendered even more illegitimate given William Bailhache’s own, direct, personal conflicted position in the case brought against Mr Syvret.


William Bailhache was the Attorney General – the sole prosecuting authority in Jersey – who ordered and directed the investigation, covert police surveillance, massed police raid, arrest, unlawful search without a search-warrant, charging and prosecution against Mr. Syvret in the first place.


The startling illegitimacy and unlawfulness of any involvement of William Bailhache at all – in any decisions relevant to either the charging or prosecution of Mr Syvret – or, more latterly, in Mr Bailhache’s capacity as Deputy Bailiff, decisions in respect of Mr Syvret’s access to timely justice – becomes even more clear when it is understood that William Bailhache was, in fact, the initial “complainant” – and alleged “victim” – of supposed breaches of the Data Protection Law that he contended had been committed against him by Mr. Syvret – and for which Mr. Bailhache ordered the massed police-raid, arrest, search without a warrant, charging and prosecution against Mr. Syvret.


William Bailhache’s conflicted involvement as a supposed complainant and “victim” is proven by three items of documentary evidence.


Those are: –


·        1: A number of recorded Police decisions.


·        2: The statement by Graham Power QPM to the Wiltshire police.


·        3: The statement by Lenny Harper to the Wiltshire police.


The Police “Major Crime Policy File” decisions (only a few of which have been disclosed to Mr. Syvret) demonstrate a number of things:


·        That the Police Force were conducting a major, high-level investigation into Mr. Syvret’s work as a politician; work he was undertaking on behalf of his constituents;


·        That the “investigation”, surveillance, raid, arrest, search without a warrant, charging and prosecution was undertaken on the orders of William Bailhache’s office.


·        The decision included – specifically – an unlawful decision to illegally mount a raid and arrest against Mr. Syvret, so as to provide a device to “get around” the requirement of a search warrant.


·        That the Attorney General (William Bailhache) was the supposed “victim” of the supposed “crime” of Mr. Syvret.


The statement to the Wiltshire Police by Graham Power contains many, many sections which are of direct and dramatic relevance to all of the criminal proceedings conducted against Mr. Syvret – and, in particular, of huge relevance to the central defence case – namely that the actions taken against Mr. Syvret were an unlawful ‘abuse-of-process’ and a malicious prosecution.


Throughout the entire proceedings against him, Mr Syvret has sought disclosure of Mr. Power’s statement, as Mr. Syvret very strongly suspected it would contain important and highly relevant evidence.


However, the prosecution and the courts refused to disclose the evidence to Mr. Syvret.


The prosecution – acting under the instruction of William Bailhache, and, more latterly Tim Le Cocq (Bailhache’s successor as Attorney General) – repeatedly asserted that there was no requirement to disclose this evidence as it was of no relevance or assistance to the defence case.


Mr. Syvret only obtained a copy of Mr Power’s statement – from a source – in recent weeks.


As is very clear from reading Mr. Power’s statement, it is of immense relevance to the defence case – powerfully showing as it does, the deeply politicised nature of the prosecution function in Jersey –  the many and various political involvements and entanglements of the Attorney General – the “political” interest William Bailhache had in suppressing the effective investigation and exposure of the child abuse investigations – the motivations William Bailhache and his political allies had in obstructing, thwarting, damaging and discrediting Mr. Syvret in his work as a then Senator attempting to politically represent certain of his then constituents who are child abuse victims – corrupt inducements of career advancements being offered to certain senior police officers by politicians such as former Deputy Andrew Lewis – and the “investigation” into how Mr Syvret was obtaining information he needed to represent his constituents in respect of the unlawful failings of the Office of Attorney General to prosecute their abusers. That investigation was named “Operation Adrian”.


Not only did Attorney Generals William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq unlawfully fail to disclose this evidence to Mr Syvret – their agent – prosecuting lawyer Stephen Baker repeatedly misled the court concerning the document. He repeatedly claimed it was “of no relevance” – but then, after two years of legal proceedings – inadvertently admitted that he had not, in fact, actually read the document.


However, following this incident – in the very final stages of the appeal, having been forced to actually read the evidence, Advocate Baker still falsely asserted the document contained nothing of any assistance to the defence arguments.


As can now be seen by any person reading the document, that claim was completely untrue.


Moreover – Stephen Baker himself is revealed as directly conflicted – being referred to in several parts of Mr. Power’s statement in respect of the obstructions by William Bailhache’s office to the Police wish to have certain child abusers charged and prosecuted.


The statement by Lenny Harper to Wiltshire police – in ways similar to the statement by Graham Power – powerfully evidences many examples of deeply politicised activity by Jersey’s prosecution system and Attorney General William Bailhache in particular.


For example – Mr. Harper’s statement refers to a lawyer with great experience of child protection matters – Sarah O’Donnell – offering her services to William Bailhache at an early stage – and William Bailhache replying to her “I wouldn’t worry because there are not going to be any prosecutions any way.”


Mr Harper’s statement also evidences the fact the Attorney General William Bailhache had initiated a major criminal investigation against the political work the then Senator Stuart Syvret was undertaking on behalf of specific, directly disadvantage constituents who were survivors of abuse.


A key part of that work by Mr Syvret were his efforts to expose and challenge the improper manner in which at least four highly evidenced child abusers had been let off. Those abusers being Jane and Alan Maguire and Mr. and Mrs Bonner.


In the latter case, the States of Jersey Police Force had been forced to release them without charge, following interference from William Bailhache.


In the former case – that of the Maguires – Mr Syvret had been seeking their extradition from France, they having retired there following the improper abandonment of a prosecution against them in 1998. Their victims were utterly failed and betrayed by the Jersey authorities on that occasion.


Further – the legal representation the victims had at the time in 1998 also failed them, disastrously. That law firm was Bailhache LaBesse and the Senior Partner at that time was William Bailhache.


Under well-established standards of administrative law – a public authority that carries out a statutory function – in this case the prosecuting authority – must not be conflicted in its decision-making.


That is simply the law.


In the case of all and every prosecution decision made concerning Mr Syvret – the function has been wholly and profoundly contaminated with a dramatic and evidenced range of conflicts of interest.


Therefore all of those decisions by the prosecution system are unlawful – ultra vires – and have no legal legitimacy.


That is not because Mr Syvret claims, nor has he ever done, that he be immune from prosecution; rather – the prosecution system of Jersey has become so politicised, dysfunctional and contaminated by personal conflicts of interest – that it has taken itself into territory where it simply cannot function in a lawful manner.


Nor is its operation and conduct – given these circumstances – capable of being compliant with the ECHR.


There is a further matter.


In addition to the prosecution system of Jersey – the island’s judicial apparatus is similarly hopelessly contaminated with political and personal considerations.


The magistrate – Bridget Shaw – who heard the original prosecution against Stuart Syvret – is personally well known to several of the prosecution witnesses.


She is also friends with other parties who clearly have a powerful negative “interest” in matters concerning Mr. Syvret.


She has also refused to disclose the identity of the individual or individuals from who she has taken “advice” and “guidance” during the prosecution.


She also ruled Mr Syvret’s entire defence case “inadmissible” – after three months defence work – once it was realised the prosecution had no answer at all to that defence case and their charges had collapsed.


In the case of the appeal – matters remained dysfunctional and unlawful and non-ECHR compliant, when the case went before Jersey’s Royal Court.


The Judge, Sir Christopher Pitchers, was appointed to hear the case by ‘Bailiff’, Michael Birt – the former Attorney General who Mr. Syvret had exposed and criticised in respect of failing to properly investigate the case of a rogue nurse seriously suspected of being a clinical serial-killer.  The public interest disclosure of the case being the supposed “offence” that Mr. Syvret was eventually charged with.


Further – Commissioner Pitchers – only belatedly – eventually admitted in the case that he had, in fact, had dinner with Michael Birt – and William Bailhache – in their present posts of Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff.


That is nothing less than extraordinary.


Plainly – no person can be viewed as an objective and impartial judge – if they have wined and dined with THE two, key – directly – and centrally involved antagonistic parties in respect of the accused.


This conflict of interest is seriously compounded by the repeated refusal of Commissioner Pitchers to disclose this social knowledge of key, involved parties at a far earlier stage.


Mr. Syvret shall be making a formal complaint to the United Kingdom Lord Chief Justice concerning this conduct of Commissioner Pitchers.


It is when viewing the extraordinary conduct of Jersey’s prosecution system – and Jersey’s judiciary – in light of the above factors – that some insight is finally gained into the extraordinary judgments against Mr. Syvret – which have seen a legal precedent established against independent internet-based journalism that has no corollary or analogue anywhere else – at all – in all of the established democratic Western countries.


Moreover – it is a precedent that purports to override statute law – and replaces it with judge-made law.


The British Channel Island of Jersey has descended into a condition of overt lawlessness and corruption.


The blame, responsibility for – and the remedy to – this crisis all lays with the Office of UK Justice Secretary.


That Office is going to be challenged concerning its failure to ensure good governance, the proper rule of law and good administration of justice in Jersey – in court in London.

Stuart Syvret repost – So be it

William Bailhache to Graham Power
In November 2008  – after having failed to coerce Chief Constable Power 

Into dropping a police investigation into planning corruption;

An investigation William Bailhache, and his brother, then Bailiff Philip Bailhache, had tried to obstruct by coercing a States member and illegally handling and leaking stolen e-mails. 

Days after William Bailhache wrote “so be it” to him –

Graham Power was unlawfully suspended.  

Published here in full, is a new affidavit by the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.
Mr. Power wrote this affidavit at my request for use in my appeal against the corrupt, malicious prosecution conducted against me.
This document is the end of the career of William Bailhache – and the beginning of the end of the Jersey oligarchy.
William Bailhache was, until 2010, the Attorney General – the sole prosecutory authority in Jersey. He is now the Deputy Bailiff – the deputy head of Jersey’s judiciary, and the unelected deputy speaker of the island’s parliament. He is also a criminal.
William Bailhache has been profoundly and nakedly corrupt – yet so crazed with hubris, he has gone about abusing his public Offices with remarkably little subtlety or caution.
For here you have a closely involved witness – of no-less calibre than a decorated, nationally respected Chief of Police – producing a sworn statement – in which he describes William Bailhache, and his brother Philip Bailhache, being involved in attempts to prevent the proper investigation of  – “allegations of corruption at the heart of government.”
And that is not all.
For what Mr. Power is also describing are the immediate events leading up to his unlawful suspension.
And make no mistake – it will be very apparent from reading Graham Power’s affidavit – that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
These matters are so stark, they’re not even complicated. The various criminal offences of William Bailhache fall in to several categories, but most obviously, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and of misconduct in a public office.
Within his affidavit, Graham Power quotes from his second statement to Wiltshire police. Just reading this brief quote alone will convey the gravity of the situation:
“In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone.   So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General.   Not long afterwards I was suspended.   Initially it was claimed that my suspension was as a result of information relating to the Historic Abuse Enquiry which was received on 10th November 2008.   It is now known that this is untrue because the suspension notices were in fact prepared on the morning of Saturday 8th November 2008, which implies that the actual decision to suspend must have been taken in the week-ending 7th November 2008.”
That part – and the related parts of Mr. Power’s affidavit are apocalyptic enough – without even considering their obvious implications – and, indeed, those of the rest of the affidavit – for the motivations and “lawfulness” of the decisions of William Bailhache.
Decisions to have me raided and arrested – to have Deputy Labey’s house searched by an army of police officers – under the direction of Dave Minty – without a search-warrant – to have her files in respect of the planning corruption interfered with – to have my files and laptop with parliamentary privileged communications between me and hundreds of my constituents stolen – and to then subject me to a malicious prosecution.

In the previous posting, I drew readers’ attention to the Watergate scandal – and in doing so, I gave notice of how remarkably similar that criminality was, to what will come to be known as Jerseygate.  Similar – save for the fact that Jerseygate is far worse.

An entrenched political oligarchy – and the Attorney General – involved in coercion, corruption, unlawful suspension of the Chief of Police, illegal politically motivated police raids, in which the police under Warcup were used as  “official” burglars, assault,  the theft of confidential data, the criminal concealment of many different crimes – including corruption – and many cases of child abuse – the direct use of corrupt elements in the police to sabotage opposition politicians and to illegally interfere in the democratic rights of their constituents – and using a suborned and contaminated judicial apparatus as a tool of political “enforcement”.
All lawyers – including judges – speak in a strange language – one evolved over the centuries, in ways calculated to confuse and disempower ordinary people.
They like to imagine that, with their arcane phrases – the ceremonial surroundings – their fancy-dress – the obscurantist word-play – the air of deference – the power – that we won’t see the plain truth beneath the theatrics.
Although they will want to maintain the charade – the entire prosecution against me has reached its destination.
It has collapsed.
It was always an unlawful enterprise – undertaken by a structurally conflicted public authority – and a directly, personally conflicted individual in William Bailhache.
An individual corruptly and criminally motivated.
It’s hardly surprising, really – that when I attempted to subpoena William Bailhache, back in 2009, in order to question him a during my abuse-of-process application in the Jersey magistrates’ court – that he “heard” of my summons – and e-mailed the issuing authority (a friend of his) and told him not to.

And nor is it surprising that when I sought to challenge the failure to issue the summons, the prosecuting lawyer (a friend of Bailhache’s) argued that Bailhache’s involvement was “not relevant” to my abuse-of-process argument.

And equally unsurprising that the magistrate (a friend of Bailhache’s) agreed with the lawyer.
But in light of the testimony of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, it is now established that the actions and decisions and involvements of William Bailhache were – indubitably – of central and key relevance to the case.
Even now, given their arrogance, I’m not quite sure these oligarchs realise just how much trouble they are in.
Next week – I am going to file a very simple – urgent – court application.
That application will be for the immediate quashing of the criminal actions against me.
Quashing on the plain and obvious ground that it has all been unlawful.
Starkly unlawful – in several ways.
If which ever judge hears this application (invariably, another friend of William Bailhache’s) fails to agree my application – it will merely be another nail awaiting that rapidly closing coffin-lid of Jersey’s existing judicial apparatus.
But either way – I’m going to have to consider whether I should ever set foot – voluntarily – again, into any Jersey court to answer these criminal charges against me?
The entire prosecution against me is – of itself – a criminal enterprise.
It may well be my public duty to call this farrago for what it is – treat it with the contempt it deserves – rather than to continue to confer “credibility” upon this corrupt and shabby apparatus.
A relevant speculation is whether William Bailhache will now resign – or whether he clings on – and takes the Jersey Law Officers Department and the island’s judiciary down with him in a spectacular Gotterdammerung.
The latter I suspect. In truth – it’s too late now – for even the immediate resignation of William Bailhache to save the rest of the suborned and corrupted Jersey prosecution and judicial apparatus from what is now, plainly, the inescapable.
The thing that long-protected Jersey’s criminals – because they themselves had colonised it – is itself now exposed as a criminal enterprise.
People are often poor at foreseeing the long-term consequences of their actions. Especially so when they are usually confidently in control of events – and they themselves wield power, or they are close and allied to those who do. But beware hubris; events happen. Around the world we see even the most entrenched of regimes falling. Many powerful and influential people in Jersey’s hitherto protected criminal class – the island’s grifter elite – and their vassals and those who have obeyed their orders and done their bidding – will now be sensing – as though a long black cloud came out of this summer sky – the beginning of their decline and fall – and the fear.

Affidavit of Graham Power QPM.   

Former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

1.      My name is Graham Power.   I am a retired Police Officer and I currently live in North Yorkshire.   Earlier this year I was contacted by Mr Stuart Syvret.   I know Mr Syvret as a former Senator in the States of Jersey.   Mr Syvret informed me he was involved in a legal action which arose from a prosecution against him in respect of alleged data protection issues.   The legal proceedings in which he is now engaged apparently involve a hearing before a Court in which Mr Syvret is seeking to establish that the police action and prosecution was legally flawed and politically motivated.   Although I am aware of the current case I have not been following it closely and am not familiar with its detail.   Mr Syvret has told me the Court has agreed that he may submit a statement from me relating to the case.   On 27th April 2011 I received a document from Mr Syvret which set out the points which he was asking me to refer to in a statement.   I have therefore prepared the following for the benefit of the Court.   The request from Mr Syvret is wide-ranging and I have therefore sought to refer only to matters which appear to me to be relevant to the proceedings and helpful to the Court.  For the avoidance of any doubt this statement has been provided in order that it can be used to assist proceedings currently taking place before a Jersey Court and for no other purpose.
2.      The Court may see value in knowing something of my own policing background.   I therefore offer the following brief summary. I joined the Police Service in Middlesbrough in 1966 and during the early 1980s was a Superintendent in Cleveland Police.   I joined North Yorkshire Police on promotion to Chief Superintendent.   In 1990 I transferred to the Scottish Police Service where I held a number of posts based in Edinburgh.   Initially I was Assistant Chief Constable in Lothian and Borders Police and I later became Deputy Chief Constable of that Force.   In the late 1990s I was appointed Assistant to HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland and it was while in that post that I applied for and was appointed as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in 2000.
3.      I have been selected for a number of high-level courses at the Police Staff College, Bramshill.   These include the “Special Course” and the “Senior Command Course.”  Both courses were intended to select and develop the future leaders of the Police Service.   In the early 1970s I was awarded a University Scholarship by the Police Staff College subject to me gaining admission to a suitable University Course.   I successfully applied for a place at Queen’s College Oxford where I read Politics, Philosophy and Economics.   During my time at University my senior tutor (and subsequently Provost of the College) was the late Geoffrey Marshall who was the author of the book “Police and Government” and an authority on the relationship between senior police leadership and the political authorities.
4.      In my service as a senior officer I have worked in partnership with a range of political groups and interests.   For example, in Cleveland there were some sharp divisions between traditional “Old Labour” representatives and those who were seen as more left wing and radical.   In North Yorkshire there was strong political representation of traditional and landed interests.   In Scotland, Police Authorities, and both local and national government were sometimes strongly divided between Nationalist, Devolutionist and Unionist interests.   There were also sometimes sharp divisions along sectarian lines.
5.      I consider myself to be experienced in working in challenging political environments and aware of the need to strike a balance between proper political accountability of the police service and the need to be independent, both in terms of reality and perception, in the delivery of operational policing.   In 1994 I was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for distinguished service.
6.      On 12th November 2008 I was suspended from duty by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, who claimed he was in possession of evidence which indicated that I was guilty of serious management failure in respect of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry.   He stated that he had come to this conclusion on the basis of a report which he had received the previous day.   In spite of this claim no disciplinary charges were ever brought and no hearing was ever called.   I retired from the Police Service in July 2010 having completed over 44 years service.   In all of that time I have never been charged with any disciplinary offence.
7.      I regard my suspension in November 2008 as a planned and calculated act of intimidation and a gross abuse of Ministerial Power.   I believe that this view is well supported by the available evidence.   This evidence includes the critical comments made by the Royal Court and the findings of an enquiry by Brian Napier QC.
8.      Mr Syvret has asked me to comment on the arrangements by which the Chief Officer of Police is accountable to the relevant political authorities in Jersey, and how this compares with other jurisdictions with which I am familiar.   I have written on these issues in some detail in my two Affidavits and Skeleton Argument as part of my application for a Judicial Review of my suspension.   I understand that all of these documents are available to the Court should they be seen as relevant.   In those documents I argue that in Jersey there is an absence of the checks and balances which are present in comparable jurisdictions, where they are generally seen as essential in preserving the independence of operational policing.   I set out a view that in Jersey the absence of these checks and balances results in a situation in which the Chief Officer of Police is vulnerable to political influence both in reality and perception.   I have not changed my views in relation to these issues.
9.      I believe it is possible that the Court may have an interest in any working relationship which may be said to exist between myself and Mr Syvret.   It may therefore be helpful to draw the attention of the Court to the evidence contained in the first of two statements I made to Wiltshire Police.    The statement was prepared in connection with an investigation conducted in accordance with a Disciplinary Code created under the Police Force (Jersey) Law of 1974.   The investigation was named “Haven 1.”   My statement was completed on 30th July 2009.   The Minister for Home Affairs has recently stated that he intends to publish parts of the statement at a future date.   Some parts of that statement touch upon my contact with the then Senator Syvret and the Court may wish to have the statement in its entirety should it be seen as relevant.   I understand that the Court should be able to gain access to the full statement should that be appropriate.  However, it may be that an extract will suffice.   In paragraphs 125 and 126 of my statement I make reference to my contact with the then Senator.   The relevant paragraphs, which are in a section dealing with the significance of the Abuse Enquiry to the Island, are reproduced below:
125.                      The issue has also been part of a major political divide.   Prominent and active in this debate has been Senator Stuart Syvret.   He also features in some of the witness statements.   He is a controversial local politician, who is noted for his anti-establishment views.   He has a significant number of supporters in politics and the wider community.   From some of the evidence offered by witnesses who have provided statements during the course of this enquiry, the Investigating Officer may have felt that he was being encouraged to take a view that the Senator was some form of marginalised “crank” figure, whose opinions should be taken lightly.   That would not, in my view, be an accurate assessment.  Senator Stuart Syvret is the island’s current longest serving politician.   Although he has not faced an election in recent years, he sometimes claims, on the basis of historical results, that he is also the islands most popular politician.   That might be arguable, but it could also be true.   As a professional police officer I recognise that I should try to avoid expressing a view on a political figure.   However, given that he is a common thread which runs through much of the background to this enquiry, I find that hard to avoid.   In any event it might be appropriate be deal with this now and then move on to other things.   While I cannot support many of the things which Senator Syvret says and does, I nevertheless see value in his contribution to the political process.    He brings a spirit of challenge which is often lacking in local political debate.   He is a determined, committed and interesting person, and a politician who most ordinary people, or individuals who are disadvantaged, would trust.   In a community which is sharply divided into “us” and “them” he is apparently seen my many people as one of “us.”  
126.                      In the interests of transparency I disclose that I have been on friendly terms with Senator Syvret and his partner, Deputy Carolyn Labey.  She is also a hard-working and dedicated politician.    Some time before “Rectangle” became a big issue Carolyn Labey invited my wife and I to a small social event held at the farmhouse where they both lived.   Stuart Syvret was present.   Nothing of a sensitive nature was discussed.   Since I have been suspended both Stuart and Carolyn have initiated contact.   I have told them that it would be best if this contact ceased for the time being.   Shortly after my suspension I met with Senator Syvret in my capacity as his constituent.  The meeting took place in St Helier Parish Hall and the Connétable of St Helier was present as a witness.   We discussed issues relating to the suspension and my representations to have it overturned.   Neither at this meeting, nor at any other time have I discussed operationally sensitive matters with Stuart Syvret.   There have been no “leaks” and no secretive contacts.   My dealings with him have been either entirely professional, or have constituted a legitimate exercise of my common-law right to communicate with my elected representative.
10.  The statement which I made in 2010 was true then and is true now.   Nothing new of significance relating to my dealings with the now Mr Syvret has occurred since that time.
11.  I have been asked by Mr Syvret to make comment on my perceptions, as a former Chief Officer of the Force, of what he describes as a Police “raid” on the home he shared at that time with Deputy Labey.   This incident occurred after I had been suspended and I have no information about the event other than what I heard or read in the media at that time or have been told by others.   It is difficult for me to offer comment when I have only limited information.   I have formed some views on the basis of the limited information which I have available to me, but I accept that if I had more information my views may be different.   Without access to all of the facts I cannot be sure.   All that said, I believe that on the basis of my experience in policing matters I am nevertheless able to offer some general views on the principles involved.
12.  Mr Syvret has asked me to comment on how I would have managed the arrest of a person for data protection offences.   That is a difficult question.   I have no knowledge or experience whatsoever of the police arresting any person for breaches of the data protection law.   I know of no case where this has happened either in Jersey or in any other location in which I have served as a Police Officer.  That does not mean to say that it has never happened.   It is just that if it has happened then it is not within my experience.   In all of my experience data-protection issues have been dealt with by investigation and a written report to the relevant prosecution authorities.   If the matter is to progress further then a summons, or equivalent process, would be the usual way forward.   I am sure that there will sometimes be exceptional circumstances which would justify an arrest.  Otherwise the power to do so would not exist.   I do not however have any knowledge or experience of any such cases.   I do not think that I can assist further on that specific question.
13.  Mr Syvret tells me that some of the conduct in contention is believed by him to have arisen because the Police gave his previous address in an application for a warrant.   If that is true then I find it surprising.   It was common knowledge that Senator Syvret lived at the address of Deputy Labey.   No secret was made of the fact.   I attended a social event at that address.   I recall at least one member of the Senior Management Team of the Force describing another social event at that address in the context of some heated argument involving the Senator.   Whatever that argument was about it is not the point for the purposes of this issue.   The point is that “everyone” including senior members of the Force knew where the Senator lived, or if they did not know they would have little difficulty in finding out.
14.  I do not know how operations of this nature would have been discussed when I was not in charge of the Force.   It may however be useful for the Court to know how they would have been managed during my time as Chief Officer.   As head of the Force I followed a practice, common in most forces, of meeting with key staff briefly at 9am each weekday.   At that meeting the head of Operations would speak about any matters of significance which had occurred in the previous 24 hours, and anything of significance which was planned for the near future.   By that means I would have an opportunity to question, challenge or advise as may be appropriate.  I would also be in a position to think about how I would deal with any political or media “fallout” from a planned operation.   I do not know whether the planned arrest of Senator Syvret was discussed in this way.   I can however say for sure that had I been in post such a discussion would have occurred.
15.  I have been asked to give an indication of the position I might have taken had I been Chief Officer and been told of the intention to arrest the Senator.   In the absence of all of the information I cannot be sure of everything I would have said and done.   However, from what I know I can be certain about some things.   I am sure that I would have seen the proposed arrest as a matter of high significance.  The arrest of the most prominent critic of the Government would present many challenges, both in terms of reality and perception.   There would be a major risk that whatever the grounds for the arrest, it would be seen by many Islanders as a political act driven by the agenda of the Islands Government.   I am sure that I would have asked the head of Operations to justify the action and I would have raised some challenges.   These would have included the following:
·         Was he sure that the action was lawful?   Had he obtained written legal advice and could he produce that advice?
·         Leaving aside the question of strict legality, was he satisfied that the proposed arrest and the means by which it was to be carried out were justified, necessary and proportionate?   Could the objectives of the investigation be achieved by less intrusive means?
·         Was he sure that the evidential basis on which he was operating was sound?  Had the evidence been checked?
·         What consideration had been given to the probable defence that the Senator had published material as part of his legitimate work as an elected politician?
·         It was known that the Senator published a “blog” which was widely read.   What consideration had been given to the possible claim that he was engaged in “journalism” and thereby able to claim some of the protections which apply to investigative journalists and their sources?
·         What resources were to be allocated to the operation and was there a written plan?
·         What was the plan for managing the political and media “fallout” from the operation?
16.  I do not know what the answers to these questions would have been, and consequently I do not know what I would have done had I been in post at the time.  I am however sure that had I felt that the operation was justified I would have allowed it to go ahead.   Had I felt differently I would have asked for an alternative plan.   In the absence of more information I do not know which course of action I would have supported.    What I can be sure of however is that if I had been convinced that the plan should go ahead then I would have ensured that everything possible was done to manage the perception problems which would inevitably arise from such an operation.   This might have included consideration of involving a UK force, either to complete the investigation or provide an element of advice or oversight.   I would also have given thought to when the Minister for Home Affairs should be briefed.   In cases such as this a briefing of the Minister soon after the commencement of the operation may be appropriate.
17.  Because of my circumstances at that time I learned of the arrest of the Senator through the Jersey media.   I saw a television interview with the Minister for Home Affairs in which I recall him saying that he knew nothing of the operation.   The media agenda was dominated by Senator Syvret and political critics of both the Force and the Government.   This led me to wonder whether the entirely foreseeable reaction to the operation had been properly anticipated by the Force, and whether a plan for management of the reaction was in place.   Without more information I cannot be sure.   I can only record that the impression gained from the media reports which I have seen is that the Force had been taken by surprise by the reaction to the operation, and the allegations and criticism which followed in the immediate aftermath.
18.  I have been asked by Mr Syvret if I will offer a view as to whether myself and the former Deputy Chief Officer, Mr Leonard Harper, were the real targets of the operation.   As I understand it the theory underpinning this belief is that the data protection issue was a pretext to allow police officers to gain possession of the computer or computers used by the Senator, and to search for incriminating “leaks” from myself or Mr Harper.   I do not have enough evidence to comment on whether this belief could be justified.   I can however offer some comment on the perceptions of the issue.   I can say with certainty that the motive described above was the subject of speculation from the onset, and that such speculation was not confined to those naturally inclined to believe the worst of the Islands Government and its institutions.   Shortly after the news of the arrest became public I received a telephone call from a prominent Jersey Advocate with whom I was on friendly terms.   I was asked directly if the seizure of the Senators computer was a “problem” for me and whether I would be in need of advice in consequence.   I was able to say that I anticipated no problem from the event.   This did not however stop the speculation as to the real motive of the operation.   I suspect that this speculation will continue for a number of years into the future.   It was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the police action and should have been anticipated and planned for.
19.  There is another matter which Mr Syvret alleges could have been a motive for his arrest and the search of his address.   This relates to the interest of his then partner, Deputy Carolyn Labey, in allegations of corruption relating to planning issues.   Mr Syvret states that some local people had approached Deputy Labey with their concerns and that she had drawn these concerns to my attention.   Mr Syvret goes on to state that the Police Officer who I had delegated to look into the allegations is the same officer who led the operation in which he was arrested, and Deputy Labey’s home searched.   He alleges that files relating to the corruption allegations were accessed as part of the police operation.   He has also heard that I had been involved in some exchanges with the then Attorney General in relation to the matter shortly before I was suspended.   Mr Syvret asks if I have any evidence to offer in relation to these matters.
20.  In response to these requests I refer the Court to evidence which I have already provided which touches upon some of these issues.   This evidence is in the second statement which I made to Wiltshire Police which was completed on 10th March 2010 under the relevant provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law which I referred to earlier.   The enquiry for which the second statement was made was named “Haven 2.” The Minister for Home Affairs has recently indicated that he will publish parts of that statement.   I understand that the Court will be able to gain access to the full statement should that be appropriate.   However, in order to assist the Court I have copied below paragraphs 63 to 67 of my statement which appear to be the paragraphs most relevant to the allegations by Mr Syvret.   These paragraphs are in a part of the statement in which I am listing issues which may have been recorded in files which are said to have been kept in relation to some political figures.   There is reference in the statement to “Operation Rectangle.”   This is the name given to the Jersey historic abuse enquiry.
63.  There is another series of events which may have made it into the files.   They happened quite close to my suspension so it is possible that they did not.   I will however give brief details in case they are relevant.   These involved allegations made against Senator Terry Le Main the Housing Minister.    I recall that Deputy Carolyn Labey got in touch with me and related to me information which she had received from people who said that they had inside knowledge of corruption in the granting of permission to build retirement properties on previously designated agricultural land.   The allegations were a bit complicated but in brief it was alleged that the Senator and at least one of his senior officials were in a corrupt relationship with a developer who was being assisted in turning lower value agricultural land into high value development land.   At my request Chief Inspector David Minty made some initial enquiries.  
64.  At some stage I spoke to the Attorney General and offered the view that these were serious allegations, and some form of criminal enquiry might be called for, if only to clear the air.   I was aware that word of the allegations had spread and they were being talked about widely in some circles.   I recall that at this time my relationship with the Attorney General was experiencing some tension.   The above matter was running parallel with another issue, which arose after the key period in Operation Rectangle, which concerned children who had been placed in situations of risk by the Social Services Department, apparently contrary to specialist advice.   In consequence of this action some of the children had suffered serious abuse and the offenders had been convicted.   I know that David Minty had submitted an initial report to the Attorney General following criminal proceedings against the abusers of the children, in which he recommended a criminal investigation into the actions of the Civil Servants involved in the decision to place the children at risk.   As I recall the Attorney General responded by suggesting that he might address the matter by having a discreet word with the Chief Executive.   I recall that I thought badly of this idea, regarding it as the sort of thing which had got us all into the “Rectangle” situation to begin with.   I might have had some exchanges and discussions in relation to that matter, but my recollection of it is not good at this time.   I mention this episode now as it was part of the background to what happened when I attempted to address the reports relating to the alleged corruption involving Senator Le Main.
65.  I had some email and telephone exchanges with the Attorney General about the above allegations.   My interpretation of these exchanges is that the Attorney General became disproportionately fixated upon the fact that the information regarding the alleged corruption originated from Deputy Labey, who was in a relationship with Senator Syvret, who was a persistent and determined critic of the Attorney General.   At some point in these exchanges Deputy Labey emailed me expressing lack of confidence in the independence and integrity of the criminal justice system, and expressed criticism of the then Bailiff, who is the brother of the then Attorney General.   A print-out of the email from Deputy Labey had been obtained by the Attorney General, and there were some exchanges about it in which I was involved.  The Attorney General reacted angrily towards Deputy Labey and demanded she apologise to the Bailiff or something of that nature.   At some point I asked him if he had obtained the copy lawfully, when I should have said “legitimately.”  He said he had obtained it as part of the bundle of papers submitted by David Minty, who was leading on the discussions as to whether there should be a criminal investigation.   I have since thought about this and on reflection I do not think that his use of the email was entirely legitimate.   He obtained the email in his capacity as the Head of the Prosecution Service, and then appears to have used it in his other capacity as the legal representative of the government.   This is of course a symptom of the multi-role of the Jersey Law Officers Department.
66.  In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone.   So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General.   Not long afterwards I was suspended.   Initially it was claimed that my suspension was as a result of information relating to the Historic Abuse Enquiry which was received on 10th November 2008.   It is now known that this is untrue because the suspension notices were in fact prepared on the morning of Saturday 8thNovember 2008, which implies that the actual decision to suspend must have been taken in the week-ending 7th November 2008.   So far as I can recall this brings the decision close to my exchanges with the Attorney General regarding the need to investigate allegations of corruption at the heart of government.   This has led me to suspect that the exchanges which I have described in the above paragraphs may have been influential in the matter of my suspension.   Only a full and independent enquiry into the suspension with full legal investigative powers, which Ministers have so far resisted, can confirm or refute whether these suspicions have any foundation.
67.  However, for the purposes of the Haven 2 enquiry, I do not recall whether documents relating to the allegations against Senator Le Main were placed in the file to which this enquiry relates.
21.  I have nothing to add to the evidence which I provided in my statement dated 10thMarch 2010 relating to these issues.
Graham Power

2nd May, 2011

North Yorkshire


Stuart Syvret repost – private eye and Jerseygate

The Beginning of The End? 

Private Eye magazine has published an article concerning events in Jersey. They examine one of the things that I exposed – and the consequent actions taken against me by what they describe as “the intensely political system of justice in Jersey”. Click on the image to make the article expand to a readable size.

 Even though you’re able to read that particular article here, taken from the current edition, I urge people to buy Private Eye. Not only is it often very funny – it is the journal to read if you want to understand what’s really going on in the dark underbelly of power in Britain.
Whether they open its pages in pleasure – or fear – everyone in the country who is seriously involved in politics or the media reads Private Eye.
That means it is a main source of hard-core information for everyone who has power over you.
The article is short – eight paragraphs; but what do those few elements mean?
How to understand the gravity of what is revealed?
Not all readers will be familiar with the true nature of ‘Politics’ – just as many readers won’t be familiar with the wholly corrupted power-structure of the British Channel Island of Jersey; a tiny island through which hundreds of billions of dollars pass each year – and in which there is no separation of powers – no independent judiciary – no checks and balances – and not even an independent prosecution system. Although situated in the seemingly “respectable” heart of Western Europe, this island – an off-shore “protectorate” of the British establishment in London – is virtually totally lawless.
In the coming months – just how lawless – is going to be revealed.
But perhaps you don’t want to wait that long? Perhaps you want to know the score – truly “understand” the situation – right now?
OK – I’m going to tell you a story.
Or rather – Wikipedia is going to recount some modern history to you.
I reproduce below some sections of the Wikipedia entry for the Watergate scandal.
As you read the quotes – I invite you to bear in mind certain key words and phrases that Watergate has in common with Jerseygate. For any thinking person – it’s all here; all you need to know:
Democratic sabotage.
Breaking and entering.
Documents photographed.
Attorney General.
Denial of involvement.
Tip of the iceberg.
Solicitor General.
Interception of communications.


Unauthorized and improper.
Fiduciary responsibility.
Lieutenant governor.
Government officials.
Finance Director.
Deep Throat.
Secret fund.
Bank records.
Hush money.
Obstruction of justice.
Secret deals.
Abuse of power.
Refusal to disclose evidence.
It isn’t only those words that Watergate and Jerseygate share; the parallels between the two criminal enterprises are remarkable; extraordinarily close. Save for a few, key, differences.
As bad as it was, Watergate only involved illegal wiretapping, burglary, assault upon democracy, political espionage, bribery, abuse of Office, blackmail, abuse of power and perjury – for the “cause” of partisan political advancement.
Jerseygate – absolutely – parallels all of those actions and motives. But it’s worse.
When you’re reading the following quotes from Wikipedia – just imagine – if you can – how much worse Watergate would have been – if self-enrichment – the commercial racketeering of public Office – the outright theft of public money – child abuse – the use of the police force as a private army of burglars – misuse of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund – the criminal concealment of child-abuse – the criminal concealment of clinical murder – and the suborning of the judiciary – had been involved?
Imagine that – then you start to get close to understanding Jerseygate.
Wikipedia on Watergate; selected quotes:
“The Watergate scandal was a political scandal during the 1970s in the United States resulting from the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. Effects of the scandal ultimately led to the resignation of the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, on August 9, 1974, the first and only resignation of any U.S. President. It also resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of several Nixon administration officials.
The affair began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex on June 17, 1972. The FBI connected the payments to the burglars to a slush fund used by the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President…..”
“…..The men who broke into the office were tried and convicted on January 30, 1973. After much investigation, all five men were directly, or indirectly, tied to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP, or sometimes pejoratively referred to as CReeP). The trial judge, John J. Sirica, suspected a conspiracy involving higher-echelon government officials. In March 1973, James McCord wrote a letter to Sirica, claiming that he was under political pressure to plead guilty and he implicated high-ranking government officials, including former Attorney General John Mitchell. His letter helped to elevate the affair into a more prominent political scandal…..”
“…..The unravelling of the cover-up began in the immediate aftermath of the arrests, the search of the burglars’ hotel rooms, and a background investigation of the initial evidence, most prominently thousands of dollars in cash in their possession at the time of arrest. On June 19, 1972, it was publicly revealed that one of the Watergate burglars was a Republican Party security aide. Former Attorney General John Mitchell, who at the time was the head of the Nixon re-election campaign, denied any involvement with the Watergate break-in or knowledge of the five burglars. On August 1, a $25,000 cashiers check earmarked for the Nixon re-election campaign was found in the bank account of one of the Watergate burglars. Further investigation would reveal accounts showing that still more thousands had passed through their bank and credit card accounts, supporting their travel, living expenses, and purchases, in the months leading up to their arrests. Examination of the burglars’ accounts showed the link to the 1972 Committee to Re-Elect the President, through its subordinate finance committee…..”
“…..The investigative finding, which cleared Bernard Barker’s bank of fiduciary malfeasance, led to the direct implication of members of the Committee to Re-Elect the President, to whom the checks had been delivered. Those individuals were the Committee Bookkeeper and its Treasurer, Hugh Sloan.
The Committee, as an organization, followed normal business accounting standards in allowing only duly authorized individual(s) to accept and endorse on behalf of the Committee any financial instrument created on the Committee’s behalf by itself, or by others. Therefore, no financial institution would accept or process a check on behalf of the Committee unless it had been endorsed and verified as endorsed by a duly authorized individual(s). On the checks themselves deposited into Bernard Barker’s bank account was the endorsement of Committee Treasurer Hugh Sloan who was duly authorized and designated to endorse such instruments that were prepared (by others) on behalf of the Committee.
But once Sloan had endorsed a check made payable to the Committee, he had a legal and fiduciary responsibility to see that the check was deposited into the account(s) which were named on the check, and for which he had been delegated fiduciary responsibility. Sloan failed to do that. He was confronted and faced the potential charge of federal bank fraud; he revealed that he had given the checks to G. Gordon Liddy and was directed by Committee Deputy Director Jeb Magruder and Finance Director Maurice Stans to do so.
On September 29, 1972 it was revealed that John Mitchell, while serving as Attorney General, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance intelligence-gathering against the Democrats. On October 10, the FBI reported that the Watergate break-in was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the officials and heads of the Nixon re-election campaign. Despite these revelations, Nixon’s re-election campaign was never seriously jeopardized, and on November 7 the President was re-elected in one of the biggest landslides ever in American political history…..”
“…..The connection between the break-in and the re-election campaign committee was highlighted by media coverage. In particular, investigative coverage by Time, The New York Times, and especially The Washington Post, fueled focus on the event. The coverage dramatically increased publicity and consequent political repercussions. Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deep into the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and even the White House. Chief among the Post’s anonymous sources was an individual they had nicknamed Deep Throat, who was much later (2005) revealed to be former Deputy Director of the FBI William Mark Felt, Sr.. It was Deep Throat who met secretly with Woodward, and told him of Howard Hunt’s involvement with the Watergate break-in, and that the rest of the White House staff regarded the stake in Watergate extremely high. Deep Throat also warned Woodward that the FBI wanted to know where he and the other reporters were getting the information which was uncovering even a wider web of crimes than first disclosed. In one of their last meetings, all of which took place at an underground parking garage somewhere in Washington DC at 2:00 AM, Deep Throat cautioned Woodward that he might be followed and not to trust their phone conversations…..”
“…..A taped conversation that was crucial to the case against President Nixon took place between the President and his counsel, John Dean, on March 21, 1973. In this conversation, Dean summarizes many aspects of the Watergate case, and then focuses on the subsequent cover-up, describing it as a “cancer on the presidency”. The burglary team was being paid hush money for their silence and Dean states: “that’s the most troublesome post-thing, because Bob [Haldeman] is involved in that; John [Ehrlichman] is involved in that; I am involved in that; Mitchell is involved in that. And that’s an obstruction of justice.” Dean continues and states that Howard Hunt is blackmailing the White House, demanding money immediately, and President Nixon states that the blackmail money should be paid: “…just looking at the immediate problem, don’t you have to have –handle Hunt’s financial situation damn soon? […] you’ve got to keep the cap on the bottle that much, in order to have any options.” At the time of the initial congressional impeachment debate on Watergate, it was not known that Nixon had known and approved of the payments to the Watergate defendants much earlier than this conversation. Among later released recordings, Nixon’s conversation with Haldeman on August 1, 1972 is one of several tapes that establishes this. Nixon states: “Well…they have to be paid. That’s all there is to that. They have to be paid” During congressional debate on impeachment, those who believed that impeachment required a criminally indictable offense focused their attention on President Nixon’s agreement to make the blackmail payments, regarding this as an affirmative act to obstruct justice as a member of the cover-up conspiracy.
Cox’s refusal to drop his subpoena influenced Nixon to demand the resignations of Richardson and deputy William Ruckelshaus, on October 20, 1973, in a search for someone in the Justice Department willing to fire Cox. This search ended with Solicitor General Robert Bork. Though Bork believed Nixon’s order to be valid and appropriate, he considered resigning to avoid being “perceived as a man who did the President’s bidding to save my job.” However, both Richardson and Ruckelshaus persuaded him not to resign, in order to prevent any further damage to the Justice Department. As the new acting department head, Bork carried out the presidential order and dismissed the special prosecutor. Allegations of wrongdoing prompted Nixon to famously state “I’m not a crook” in front of 400 Associated Press managing editors on November 17, 1973.
Nixon was compelled, however, to allow the appointment of a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who continued the investigation. While Nixon continued to refuse to turn over actual tapes, he agreed to release transcripts of a large number of them; Nixon cited the fact that any audio pertinent to national security information could be redacted from the released tapes…..”
“…..On March 1, 1974, former aides to the president, known as the “Watergate Seven” — Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Charles Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian and Kenneth Parkinson — were indicted for conspiring to hinder the Watergate investigation. The grand jury also secretly named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator. John Dean, Jeb Stuart Magruder, and other figures had already pleaded guilty. On April 5, 1974, former Nixon appointments secretary Dwight Chapin was convicted of lying to the grand jury. Two days later, the Watergate grand jury indicted Ed Reinecke, Republican lieutenant governor of California, on three charges of perjury before the Senate committee.
Nixon’s position was becoming increasingly precarious, and the House of Representatives began formal investigations into the possible impeachment of the president. The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the president: obstruction of justice. The second (abuse of power) and third (contempt of Congress) articles were passed on July 29, 1974 and July 30, 1974, respectively.
On August 5, 1974, the previously unknown audio tape from June 23, 1972, was released. Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented Nixon and Haldeman meeting in the Oval Office and formulating a plan to block investigations by having the CIA falsely claim to the FBI that national security was involved. Haldeman introduces the topic as follows: “…the Democratic break-in thing, we’re back to the–in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn’t exactly know how to control them, and they have… their investigation is now leading into some productive areas […] and it goes in some directions we don’t want it to go.” After explaining how the money from CRP was traced to the burglars, Haldeman explained to Nixon the coverup plan: “the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters [CIA] call Pat Gray [FBI] and just say, ‘Stay the hell out of this …this is ah, business here we don’t want you to go any further on it.'” President Nixon approved the plan, and he is given more information about the involvement of his campaign in the break-in, telling Haldeman: “All right, fine, I understand it all. We won’t second-guess Mitchell and the rest.” Returning to the use of the CIA to obstruct the FBI, he instructs Haldeman: “You call them in. Good. Good deal. Play it tough. That’s the way they play it and that’s the way we are going to play it.”
Prior to the release of this tape, President Nixon had denied political motivations in his instructions to the CIA, and claimed he had no knowledge prior to March 21, 1973 of any involvement by senior campaign officials such as John Mitchell. The contents of this tape persuaded President Nixon’s own lawyers, Fred Buzhardt and James St. Clair, “The tape proved that the President had lied to the nation, to his closest aides, and to his own lawyers – for more than two years.” The tape, which was referred to as a “smoking gun”, hampered Nixon politically. The ten congressmen who had voted against all three articles of impeachment in the committee announced that they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House…..”
“…..Charles Colson pleaded guilty to charges concerning the Daniel Ellsberg case; in exchange, the indictment against him for covering up the activities of the Committee to Re-elect the President was dropped, as it was against Strachan. The remaining five members of the Watergate Seven indicted in March went on trial in October 1974, and on January 1, 1975, all but Parkinson were found guilty. In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Mardian; subsequently, all charges against him were dropped. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell exhausted their appeals in 1977. Ehrlichman entered prison in 1976, followed by the other two in 1977.
The effect on the upcoming Senate election and House race, only three months later, was significant. The Democrats gained five seats in the Senate and 49 in the House. Watergate was also indirectly responsible for changes in campaign financing. It was a driving factor in amending the Freedom of Information Act in 1974, as well as laws requiring new financial disclosures by key government officials, such as the Ethics in Government Act…..”
“…..Since Nixon and many senior officials involved in Watergate were lawyers, the scandal severely tarnished the public image of the legal profession. In order to defuse public demand for direct federal regulation of lawyers (as opposed to leaving it in the hands of state bar associations or courts), the American Bar Association (ABA) launched two major reforms. First, the ABA decided that its existing Model Code of Professional Responsibility (promulgated 1969) was a failure and replaced it with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983. The MRPC have been adopted in part or in whole by 49 states (and is being actively considered by the last one, California). Its preamble contains an emphatic reminder to young lawyers that the legal profession can remain self-governing only if lawyers behave properly. Second, the ABA promulgated a requirement that law students at ABA-approved law schools take a course in professional responsibility (which means they must study the MRPC). The requirement remains in effect…..”
“…..Meier told Donald that he was sure the Democrats would win the election because they had considerable information on Richard Nixon’s illicit dealings with Howard Hughes that had never been released, and that Larry O’Brien had the information. O’Brien, who had received $25,000 from Hughes, didn’t actually have any documents but Meier claims to have wanted Richard Nixon to think he did. It is only a question of conjecture then that Donald called his brother Richard and told him that Meier gave the Democrats all the Hughes information that could destroy him and that O’Brien had the proof. The fact is Larry O’Brien, elected Democratic Party Chairman, was also a lobbyist for Howard Hughes in a Democratic controlled Congress and the possibility of his finding about Hughes’ illegal contributions to the Nixon campaign was too much of a danger for Nixon to ignore and O’Brien’s office at Watergate became a target of Nixon’s intelligence in the political campaign. This theory has been proposed as a motivation for the break-in…..”

There is, of course, a particularly fundamental difference between Watergate and Jerseygate in that Nixon didn’t – quite – have the power to decide not to investigate and prosecute himself – unlike Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, William Bailhache and Tim le Cocq – the London appointed and protected Jersey officials at the heart of the scandal.

Those readers who are familiar with Watergate may remember some very famous quotes. For example, this from special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski:
“From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known; our Constitution works. And during the Watergate years it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one – absolutely no one – is above the law.”
I hope that Jaworski was right in respect of the USA. In the coming months we will discover whether his assessment runs in the British sphere. Because as far as the British island of Jersey is concerned – ‘our “constitution” has not worked’.
The journalist who was most prominent in exposing the Watergate scandal was Bob Woodward, and it is difficult to avoid finding parallels with the work of today’s citizens’ media – and Jerseygate – when reading some of his quotations:
“Way before Watergate, senior administration officials hid behind anonymity.”
“The source known as Deep Throat provided a kind of road map through the scandal. His one consistent message was that the Watergate burglary was just the tip of the iceberg.”
“The fact of the Watergate cover-up is not nearly as interesting as the step into making the cover-up. And when you understand the step, you understand that Richard Nixon lied. That he was a criminal.”

There are a lot of “Richard Nixons” in Jerseygate – but most prominent amongst them are the London-appointed succession of Attorney Generals– not least William and Philip Bailhache.

For reasons that are going to become clear – they were behind the assault, aggravated burglary and theft conducted against me – as carried out by the States of Jersey police under the leadership of David Warcup and Mick Gradwell.
Private Eye – in the article quoted at the head of this posting – reports that part of the episode thus:
“This gave the Jersey authorities the excuse they needed to act against a thorn in theirside. In an unprecedented move for alleged data protection offences, the police raidedSyvret’s house without a warrant, seizing and copying papers and computer hard drives containing, among other things, confidential correspondence with his constituents and information on other Jersey scandals.”
The Jersey police – obeying the orders of a personally and professionally conflicted and compromised Attorney General– engaged in burglary – assault -illegal breaking and entering – the theft of the sacrosanct private communications between the Jersey public and their elected representatives.
As Senator Sam Ervin – Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee observed: –
“If the many allegations made to this date are true, then the burglars who broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate were, in effect, breaking into the home of every citizen.”
Jersey’s Attorney General, and a suborned police force – following the illegal suspension of Graham Power – mounting illegal raids – burglary, theft –political repression – against your democratically elected representatives – against you.
I genuinely wonder about the rationality of the Jersey oligarchs and their vassals.
It isn’t clear – even now – that they understand the territory they have chosen to occupy.
But even if they don’t recognise the terra damnata they’ve voyaged into and the gravity of their position – a lot of other people now do.

Stuart Syvret repost – jon haworth


Purveyor of Death-Threats;

Solitary Lunatic;

Harasser of Women;


Intimidator of Witnesses; 

Invader of Privacy;


Handler of Stolen Material;


Oppressor of Other Internet Users;


Ranter of Obscenities;


Secretive Coward;


Apologist for Child Abuse Cover-ups –


A Typical Loyal Foot-Soldier of the Jersey Oligarchy.
You know, it’s often wisely remarked that you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.
Jon Haworth  – the individual described above – was, until just recently, protected and encouraged by the Jersey oligarchy in a long-term campaign of illegal cyber-stalking, multi IP trolling, propagandising, criminal harassment of people who are opposed to the island’s establishment, the flooding of various web sites with pro-oligarchy comments under different make-believe identities, and – in particular – running a frankly deranged web-site that existed for the sole purpose of opposing the child abuse investigations.
It is so very fitting – so very apposite – that such an inadequate and dysfunctional character as Jon Haworth – should find such natural and supportive allies in the Jersey oligarchy.
It is an allegiance that speaks volumes – about Haworth – and the Jersey establishment.
You can listen to Jon Haworth’s threatening and deranged telephone call by going to the following blog then clicking on the YouTube link – though, be warned, he uses offensive obscenities:
Obnoxious, disturbing, alarming, pathetic – and yes, perhaps even faintly funny in a tragic kind of way – the telephone call is all of those things.
But – it is also something more significant than that.
It is the sound of a man supremely confident of the protections and support of the Jersey authorities.
OK, perhaps just a little too confident on this occasion. But even then – he would have got away with it had the call not been recorded – and had I not raised the matter in open court, as an attempt by him at witness harassment.
People like Jon Haworth are protected; protected by the Jersey oligarchy.
He has – only now – after many years of harassing and obnoxious behaviour – and after many different complaints to the police – by many different people – finally been prosecuted for this one, minor, charge.
Haworth fully expected to – and he would have – got away with it – again – if it were not for the recording – and the fact his conduct was raised in court.
Because when considering the behaviour of Jon Haworth, we are not – contrary to his claims in court – dealing with a one-off aberration in his conduct; a “moment of madness”. On the contrary – we are dealing with many years of similar, well-documented foul dysfunction.
I first wrote about Jon Haworth on this blog on the 20th May 2009. That posting can be read here:
I pieced together the true nature of Haworth’s conduct, following several different approaches from angry and worried constituents of mine, who had been – and still were in several cases – victims of Haworth’s cyber-stalking, invasions of privacy and intimidations.
Haworth’s conduct was so disturbing that he had even made death-threats to woman who had rejected his advances. These included such speculations as wondering “what caustic soda will do” to a woman’s face.
Jon Haworth’s brother is an ex-police officer – one who was sacked by Lenny Harper for corruptly misappropriating tax-payer funded Police Service IT equipment.
Decent people simply could not obtain protection from this obnoxious bully, so finally turned to me, to expose him and give him a taste of his own medicine.
So, as remarked above, it isn’t – in truth – at all surprising that Haworth should have found such natural bedfellows as Jersey establishment spin-doctors – and several current States members.
States members who have – with contemptible cowardice – used the blog-site Haworth runs – to churn out bile, lies and smears – under the cloak of anonymity.
It was such connections – and the fact the he provided such a “service” for the Jersey establishment – that led Haworth to become even more confident that he was untouchable and immune from the legal consequences of his behaviour.
In the coming days we will be taking a more detailed look at Jon Haworth’s conduct – and the many criminal complaints against him – and his political allies and support – and – in particular – the remarkable failures of the Jersey authorities to charge and prosecute him for the full range of offences he has committed.
In the mean time – listen again to Haworth’s telephone call – and reflect upon the fact that what you are hearing is actually a true representation of the current calibre and attitude of the Jersey establishment.