Archive Page 2


Doctor Who – The Flashing Blade Podcast 1-182

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”” height=”100″ width=”480″ scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]

Yes, it’s the return of Adric! Plus what do the two people who aren’t me think of the dour Scot?

Check out this episode!


Doctor Who – The Flashing Blade Podcast – 1-181

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”” height=”100″ width=”480″ scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]

Steve and Ian look at a Davison play as well as some bubbles. Or something.

Check out this episode!


Doctor Who – The Flashing Blade Podcast – 1-180

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”” height=”100″ width=”480″ scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]

Big Finish has a birthday. Steve and Ian have cake. Siobhan doesn’t. The bastards.

Check out this episode!


Doctor Who – The Flashing Blade Podcast 1-179

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”” height=”100″ width=”480″ scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]

Interviews from London Film and Comic Con. Stan THE MAN  Lee, Peter Miles, Tom Chadbon, David Collings, The Moff, The Hurt and the McGann…

Check out this episode!


Doctor Who – The Flashing Blade Podcast – 1-178

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”” height=”100″ width=”480″ scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]

Steve and that Ian person give a general overview of the State Of Things. Lots of Big Finish talk.

Check out this episode!




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: