Monday, January 22, 2018

Trevor and Shona Pitman - Press Release



Former States Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman were discharged from Bankruptcy in the Royal Court of Jersey on  19 January 2018 with immediate effect.
The Bailiff Sir William Bailhache  presided with two Jurats in attendance.
The Viscount presented details of the application - although she was virtually inaudible from the public seats even when using the hearing aids provided - and had no grounds to object and did not claim costs.

Trevor appeared for his wife and himself and addressed the court but the Bailiff said he would not allow him to make certain allegations about the role of Jurat Le Breton in the proceedings that led up to the couple's bankruptcy.

Trevor Pitman persisted and said that he would be issuing a Press Release following this hearing.

This is the Press Release issued for publication today;


PRESS RELEASE: THE UNCLEAN HANDS OF THE ROYAL COURT - THE JERSEY WAY ROLLS ON?

FROM:  FORMER DEPUTIES TREVOR & SHONA PITMAN

DATE: 19 JANUARY 2018.   EMBARGOED:  UNTIL 22 JANUARY 6.00AM

Extract from the sworn testimony of former Investigating Police Officer Anton Cornelissen: Day 102 October 2015, of the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry:

‘John Le Breton was clearly responsible for covering up abuse at Victoria College, and, as yet, he has not faced public scrutiny. Clearly questions must be asked as why this is, and how he was allowed to continue as a Royal Court Jurat. What message does this send out?’

It is with reluctance that we find ourselves obliged to issue this press release today. The truth is, as the following facts make clear, we should never have been put in this position.  We nevertheless make this statement now, simply to turn mainstream media attention away from the smokescreen irrelevance of whether or not we were right to bring our defamation action against the Broadlands Estate Agents and the Jersey Evening Post, to court.

Instead, having taken legal advice, it is as a consequence of damning evidence provided to the Island’s Independent Care Inquiry (ICI), that we now turn the spotlight on to the real issue underlying our manipulated bankruptcy: the dishonesty of the Royal Court, in keeping the stark truth of the serious question marks regarding the past actions of the senior of the two Jurats allowed to preside on the case, from our knowledge.  The Royal Court thus subjected us to a ‘legal’ process that can now be seen to be at the very best wholly unsafe. And one which by any standards, is in clear breach of Article 6 – the right to a fair trial – of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the summer of 2012, after the brief window of opportunity to appeal the decision of the two Jurats who decided on our case, with allegations regarding Jurat Le Breton’s past actions reaching both us and our then lawyers via members of the public (not least in regard to the never publically released Sharp Report (1999)), we had consequently approached the Bailiff who’s Office had appointed Le Breton to judge on our case.

As set out in Mr Pitman’s own sworn statement to the ICI, in the course of both written correspondence and a face-to-face meeting with the then Bailiff Sir Michael Birt, he subsequently opined that all who had worked with Jurat Le Breton would state him to be scrupulously fair and conscientious in his work; further still, that he himself could not recall there having ever been any complaint about either Jurat Le Breton’s judgement or integrity.  The sworn, in depth testimony of former Investigating Police Officer Mr Cornelissen before the ICI, in our opinion now shows these 2012 claims to be without merit.

Indeed, amidst extensive ‘on Oath’ evidence, this brave former Police Officer stated how the then College Vice-Principle John Le Breton, ‘bullied’ one pupil who complained to him of being abused by Maths teacher Andrew Jervis-Dykes into silence. In describing what the child said within his disclosure to the police, Mr Cornelissen told the ICI the abused pupil, who was apparently from a poor background and on a scholarship, had stated, he was told:

‘Don’t go down this route. We don’t like your sort here. If you want to progress, if you fail your exams your scholarship will effectively be finished.”

According to Mr Cornelissen’s testimony what the abused pupil disclosed he was told by Le Breton left him feeling threatened; and in the former Police Officer’s words had ‘Put the fear of God’ in him.  Incredibly, in his evidence Mr Cornelissen also goes on to state how once made a Jurat, Le Breton also attempted to ‘obstruct the arrest’ of his colleague and alleged friend Jervis-Dykes, by ‘disputing the facts of the warrant’.  Yet perhaps most disturbing of all, to our mind, the former Officer told the ICI how the police were ‘not allowed to put any pressure’ on Jurat Le Breton regarding any of this. Further still, how it was conveyed to the police that ‘a Jurat had never been prosecuted before’.

While the Bailiff at the time of the Victoria College child abuse scandal was Sir Philip Bailhache; the Attorney General with responsibility for prosecutions was Sir Michael Birt – the very Crown Officer who as Bailiff, later evidently saw fit to let his Office place Jurat John Le Breton to judge on the defamation case of two States Members, who were amongst the handful who consistently championed the cause of securing justice for the multitude of victims of Haut de la Garenne and other Jersey ‘care’ institutions.

In the course of our discharge hearing today, the basis of the evidence within this press release was put to the current Bailiff, William Bailhache by Mr Pitman.  Incredibly, in light of Recommendation 7 arising from the ICI’s report (the need to put an end to ‘The Jersey Way’) in response, having first asked the Viscount if there was any way by which the Court had ‘discretion’ to refuse our discharge (there wasn’t – we had complied with everything despite the injustice) Bailiff Bailhache then made the truly shocking claim below.

The ‘word of one man’ he stated – never mind that this was the Police Officer charged with identifying child victims at Victoria College – ‘carried little weight’.  A Chief Judge dismissing sworn testimony from a police officer regarding disclosure from an abused child! Of course, we do recall that in early 2015, shortly after becoming Bailiff, Bailhache’s Office brought Jurat Le Breton out of retirement to sit on a child abuse case. Finally, in what was passed off as advice, but which was certainly taken as a veiled threat, it was then stated that we should ‘be very careful’ about putting this sworn evidence out within a press release.

We firmly believe that the reason for those at the helm of the Jersey ‘justice’ system refusing to remedy a court process that was demonstrably unsafe remains that, as strong critics of the Jersey Establishment, they saw our court case as a convenient means by which to force us out of politics and, hopefully, silence us.  After all, contrary to what has been spun to the public, we have been barred from standing for election for a period of nine years – quite an irony given that had one of us been a Constable and the other a Deputy, in 2014 only the Deputy would have lost his/her seat.

To this regard, we further suggest the public should also ask themselves why we were made bankrupt, when though not having an income as high as before Mr Pitman entered politics, we were still earning a joint salary of £90,000. We thus conclude this press release with the paraphrased words of Jersey’s former Police Chief Graham Power – suspended on the back of a ‘damning report’ we now know to have been a lie whilst he and his Deputy Lenny Harper had fought to shine a light on decades of ‘Jersey Way’ cover up:

‘If they can do this to two high profile politicians and get away with it then think what they can do to you…’

Make no mistake – ‘the Jersey Way’ is just as prevalent today as it ever was.

We nevertheless now request, for the second time, that the Chief Minister, whom claims he is committed to tackling ‘the Jersey way’, investigates this!

 

104 comments:

  1. Who said the Jersey Way was a thing of the past? I find the evidence quoted damning. How was this man ever allowed to become a Jurat? The Pitmans should receive a public apology and their house back.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why have I had to come to a blog to read this?

    Not one of the island's so called accredited media sites has published this.

    What does this say about Jersey.

    Fair play to you Tom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We've heard it all before and tbh it is boring. Time they moved on with their lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course it is boring Jon. The covering up of child abuse as stated in evidence sworn to the Care Inquiry. Time you got over your sick and twisted jealousy of the Pitmans most would say. Hope you aren't a parent. That would be very worrying. But tell us why isn't the bullying of an abused child important?

      Delete
    2. Whatever the merits of your comment, the Pitman's case against the JEP was utterly groundless. Anton Cornelissen is of unblemished integrity, and they are simply using his evidence to further their hopeless case. The issue of whether Le Breton should have been appointed is another matter quite separate from the Pitman's ill-advised self inflicted law suit. The bottom line is that the criticism of Le Breton is not news and their current publicity stunt takes us no further. The question I would ask is why was le Breton's position not examined when Anton gave his evidence which as far as I know has never been refuted.

      Delete
    3. Stop making excuses troll boy. fair trial is the entitlement of all and the Pitmans who were two of our few representatives to
      actually stick to their election manifestoes didn't get one as any non troll can see. As for their case against the JEP being groundless to quot one of your other rants what a loaf of shite. 4 x the salary, darling! when even on here it points out the Pitmans had a higher income out of politics. The only cogent point you make is that Cornelissen's evidence should have been acted on three years ago. The Pitmans should have been contacted then to tell them their defamation hearing had been unsafe and the result was being quashed. More important still that the J+urat was to be arrested and stripped of his title. Along with Birt and his boss Bailhache for letting it all happen.

      Delete
    4. The editor of our dying newspaper is shown in transcripts to have stated that in his view the horrible Broadlands depiction of the couple wrapped in an election rosette made of banknotes was referring to their alleged increase in income.

      This was obviously not accurate we learnt. And something you would have thought the dopey editor might have checked.

      So why did the newspaer, so keen to undermine the abuse investigation throughout, actually publish it? The Pitmans case was rock solid. They were just niave to think in a court as bent as Jersey's they could get an honest hearing.

      It is hilarious though that the bent process also cost the dopey newspaer's owners a shedload. Karma perhaps?

      No wonder hardly anyone reads it anymore.

      Delete
  4. Shocking, but not surprising in the least. Jersey governments care nothing about truth and justice. Their only interest is in destroying those that pursue the truth with honesty. Good to see Trevor's words in print again.

    Yes Mr Gorst - what are you going to do/say about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comment at 2.32pm sounds like that geezer from the JEP who was whining about Rico Sorda a couple of years back for highlighting the paper's rapid decline on the blogs. To claim the Pitman's case against the JEP was groundless is plain daft. If you sat in court you would know the JEP wanted to stop the case no doubt because they knew in an honest court they were going to lose. Trouble was the way I heard it they tried to offer the Pitmans little more than the cost of a year's subscription to their bullshit sheet. But regardless maybe Mr Whiney can share with readers why the obvious fact that the trial wasn't legal shouldn't override the decision as it would in any other jurisdiction in the world? can't wait for the answer. Especially as he seems to recognise that the Jurat wasn't fit to be there.

      Delete
  5. I never bought any of this Jurat stuff and it being responsible for the Pitmans losing their case, because in reality who presided over this ridiculous libel is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that no other Politician has won a similar case about a cartoon libel ever. Had the Pitmans won this case then it would have made history and would have been a massive blow for freedom of the press and free speech. Therefore this constant bitter blame game against a Jurat who may well should never have been in the job, will always miss the real reasons they lost this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So explain how somebody not getting an honest trial is irrelevant you tit?

      Doesn't matter if they would have lost or should have lost with an honest court. They didn't get one and that is what everyone understands but you.

      Delete
    2. I think it is you thaat is bitter squire. As for me I would be going ape if I had presented all of this disurbing evidence and the government and UK justice ministry still had their fingers in their ears and their head up their bum in fear and denial of having to deal with it.

      Delete
  6. The comment at 5.14am is as pathetic as you can get. Your earlier comment is correct. The Pitmans should get an apology and huge compensation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. See in tonight's filthy rag a police driver who went through a red light and collided with someone got banned from driving.

    As your blog is about the Pitmans brought to mind how nobody got done for going through a red light and almost killing the poor girl.

    The Jersey Way is very much alive. If only we had a Chief Minister with a backbone and a sense of right and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why does the always well oiled idiot going on about being boring always speak in the third person?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The judiciary you deserve as Stuart used to say. And the government if none of the lilly-livered wastes of space are even kicking up a stink about this.

    Stuart, Trevor and Shona are well out of it. This island doesn't deserve such good and brave souls.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What a loaf of utter shite. They tried using the Le Breton/Sharpe Report card in an appeal and the Court didn't want to know. Poor unclever Trev, learnt nuthin in 4 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @9:46am
      Indeed the "Court didn't want to know" about the unsafe judgement of an utterly unsuitable child abuse concealing bully as detailed in the "Le Breton/Sharpe Report"

      Any genuine court would have been keenly interested in the implications of the Sharpe Report.

      But the Jersey court in not a "genuine court" it is a racket run by individuals and interests which are balls deep in covering up child abuse.

      That is why the investigation and prosecution of Le Breton was prevented.

      Or perhaps you have another rational explanation.


      Glad you are not a paedo-troll :-x

      Delete
  11. The Pitmans were Legends and paid the price for calling it how it is. When you don't even have the Reform Jersey group yelling about this you know everyone is in the same gang. Jurats should be replaced with juries.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So the Pitmans were shafted. Shows they should have learnt to just go through the motions like today's 'progressives'. Jersey is right wing and always will be. You rock the boat too much. You pay.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, we haven't heard it all before. There are facts brought together in the statement, and evidence brought to public understanding, which we've never had before.

    The issues raised in the statement are of dramatic public-interest significance.

    Good work for publishing this, and please don't let your blog be diminished or distracted from the subject at issue by the kind of empty trolling which we have all heard before, and which is boring tbh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Talking of advice, Great post but you need to update the page with any comments to get the most engagement.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gorst needs to act on this abuse of process now or resign. We can't afford a Chief Minister scared to rein in a corrupt court.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some posts do not seem to have appeared. I don't know why but the suggestion that the blog has been hacked is noted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make sure you run your security checks to find out.

      Delete
  17. Shocking that no one who has a States mandate raising this. Just goes to show Bailache's poodles and those who like to claim they are Progressive and their own men or women are all the same. Gutless. All terrified of getting the Syvret/Pitman treatment. I voted for Russell Labey in Trevor Pitman's absence. So much for my wasted vote. Think I'll be joining the non-voting apathetics come May.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You were a bit daft if you ever thought Russell Labey would ever stand up against the Bailhace/Birt brigade.

      Toothless. Just like is useless cousin Carolyn in our Fascist Enclave of Gouville.

      The even more useless Deputy Wickenden won't be speaking out either as the most vulnerable of the St Helier No 1 numpties.

      Delete
  18. FAIR & LAWFUL COURT PROCEDURES, PART 1

    Perhaps I can save your readers from the tedium of the trolls who suggest the conflicted nature of Jurat Le Breton’s position is of no relevance to the safety of the judgment.

    It has long been widely recognised that it is vital that not only are decisions actually made free from bias or partiality, but that they appear to be. As Lord Hewart CJ put it in the famous passage in R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy:

    “It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way. But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

    “The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made any observation or offered any criticism which he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter. The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done.

    “Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice. Speaking for myself, I accept the statements contained in the justices' affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction.”

    That is the long-established guiding principle of the administration of justice in English law.

    ………….CONTINUED BELOW

    ReplyDelete
  19. FAIR & LAWFUL COURT PROCEDURES, PART 2

    We see from in your ‘correspondent’s’ ignorance of law a failure to understand the accepted and established ‘twin-principles’ of ‘actual’ and ‘apparent’ bias, namely subjective and objective impartiality.

    Subjective impartiality requires that members of the tribunal themselves must be subjectively impartial; none of its members must show bias or personal prejudice. But the second test of ‘objective’ impartiality requires the tribunal to “offer guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect”.

    Jersey’s judicial cadre always cite that 1st test, ‘subjective’ impartiality, and they then claim to meet it. (Although it must be noted, such claims are often not credible , as in the case of Jurat Le Breton) What they cannot remotely claim is to meet that 2nd test of satisfying the ‘appearance’ of objectivity.

    In Lawal v Northern Spirit [2003] UKHL 35, [2003] ICR 856, Lord Steyn, giving the opinion of the appellate committee, explained the importance of objective impartiality as having “at its core the need for ‘the confidence which must be inspired by the courts in a democratic society … public perception of the possibility of unconscious bias is the key”.

    That judgment, echoes the original finding of Lord Hewitt CJ, that ‘not only must justice be done, it must be seen to done’.

    Is it not possible to objectively view the involvement of a man so dammed upon the facts and entangled in previous child-abuse concealment controversies as Le Breton to then have met the test of the appearance of objectivity in the case of two anti-child-abuse campaigners like the Pitmans.

    And as the tribunal involving the Jurat does not meet that ‘objective’ test of impartiality, the resultant judgment is irrefutably unsafe. The merits of the case are simply immaterial. Did the tribunal meet the objective test? No. Game over.

    It is simply further evidence of the structural unfitness and inadequacy of your judicial system that it continues to fail to uphold the settled and uncontroversial case-law.

    And those who practice law cannot help but notice the fact that Bailiff William Bailhache, in an alarming display of just how bad his judgment is and how far from the path of reality he has journeyed since the beginning of the Jersey child-abuse scandal, persisted in hearing the application by the Pitmans last Friday. The man is at least as seriously conflicted in all matters concerning the child-abuse cover-ups, and the politics of the scandal, as Le Breton.

    I sense that one day legal practitioners in Jersey are going to ruefully regret failing to mobilise against the Bailhache brothers, complain to London, and have them removed. Both men have taken Jersey down a path towards bedlam. It is very difficult to see any way back for Jersey’s present arrangements given the undisguised lawlessness on display.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nice to see this very good blog busy as it deserves to be and carrying a story that the Jersey msm's refusal to print/broadcast puts them to shame.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Tom. I don't know you. Your blog, which I admit I have only just discovered, is most excellent not least for the varied and excellently presented stories.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I quote from the Pitman's press release:
    "In the course of our discharge hearing today, the basis of the evidence within this press release was put to the current Bailiff, William Bailhache by Mr Pitman. Incredibly, in light of Recommendation 7 arising from the ICI’s report (the need to put an end to ‘The Jersey Way’) in response, having first asked the Viscount if there was any way by which the Court had ‘discretion’ to refuse our discharge (there wasn’t – we had complied with everything despite the injustice) Bailiff Bailhache then made the truly shocking claim below.
    The ‘word of one man’ he stated – never mind that this was the Police Officer charged with identifying child victims at Victoria College – ‘carried little weight’. A Chief Judge dismissing sworn testimony from a police officer regarding disclosure from an abused child! "

    I believe there is an error "in light of Recommendation 7 arising from the ICI’s report (the need to put an end to ‘The Jersey Way’)"
    I don't think that Eversheds Recommendation 7 stated that there was a need to put an end to The Jersey Way.
    I think the wording was to put an end to the PERCEPTION of The Jersey Way!

    The devil is in the detail

    The CoI was a fake.
    The peados and their supporters have won.

    Either lube yourselves up and accept that the shareholders in The Jersey Way have dominion over your ass and even your kids' asses ........or paint the streets yellow.

    Are there any other options now?

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is huge and delightful news. The main stream medias can be forgiven for going deadly silent. Probably at a loss as to what way to proceed. Young and inexperienced local journos with news to report at last. But dare not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ignoring all the virtual court room comments above, the Pitmans are running their own show and if they believe their case is unfair then they take it to the European Court of Human Rights. All this bickering of 'I don't agree with you so you are a Troll' when nobody on here apart from the Pitmans can do anything is a waste of everybody's time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only as you know the poor sods can't take it to the European Court of Human Rights unless they were richer than the owner of Chelsea maybe. Because they were not allowed to complete the national circuit with the Privy Council claiming they did not have jurisdiction.

      Bonkers I know but there you go. With this new evidence that no one could argue was kept from the Pitmans by Bailhace's dodgy court what is needed is our dear Chief Minister to grow a pair and tell the UK our court is out of control.


      Think you should just get over this hatred you have for some reason. Just think how you would feel if your abused kid had been told by his College teacher to shut up or he was out on his ear.

      Delete
    2. 1. "if they believe their case is unfair" .........FACT: it IS unfair not to be given a fair trial.

      This is an established fact outside of the paedo-island and legal La-La-Land
      see:
      http://tomgruchy.blogspot.com/2018/01/trevor-and-shona-pitman-press-release.html?showComment=1516720735623#c5975955910150337456

      2a. "then they take it to the European Court of Human Rights" ......Can you please provide a cost estimate for your suggestion?
      ......do you have the £500,000 odd available to fund this????

      2b. I don't believe that it is actually possible for a dissident from jersey to get to "the European Court of Human Rights" because y understanding is that the European Court of Human Rights will not look at a case until it has exhausted the GB legal avenues through the British Courts. As Syvret discovered, Britain ring-fences it's quasi money laundering island by referring such cases back to the corrupt Jersey authorities .....so it gets shunted into an endless loop and can never "exhaust the GB legal avenues" and so can NEVER get to the "European Court of Human Rights"

      2c. RE "the European Court of Human Rights" ......Have you not heard of a little something called BREXIT ???


      Congratulations for not being a paedo-troll....
      ....... and not wasting of everybody's time :-)

      Delete
    3. A Jersey complainant to the ECHR must "exhaust all domestic remedies" first. Those are Jersey court remedies (not GB)usually although the Privy Council has been considered as a "domestic remedy" occasionally. Of course there have been very few Jersey cases to the ECHR to test such things. Sometimes leave to appeal to higher courts is not available so it is possible to skip various theoretical "domestic remedies" and unrealistically high cost or lack of a lawyer are matters that might be taken into account too. Also, it must be realised that ECHR principles will also be tested in the Jersey Courts and there were supposedly at least 350 other international conventions, treaties etc ratified for Jersey 20 years ago and the External Affairs Department can only list 71 of these currently. So Human Right is a field of obscurity and neglect - but BREXIT will certainly reveal much information over the next few years on this whole aspect of law, the rights of people and the wrongs or Jersey government.

      Delete
    4. Just one point, Mike. My current belief is that the test for exhausting domestic remedies is now incredibly high for a Jersey litigant, having read the most recent Jersey case, which is Bhojwani v United Kingdom. If you read that judgment, Mr Bhojwani relied on the advice of "leading English counsel" that, in respect of applying for leave to appeal to the JCPC: “I have no hesitation in concluding that there is no prospect of leave being granted in this case.” Therefore he relied on that advice and instead took his case direct to the ECtHR, only to be told that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies and that the JCPC "was a remedy that was effective and available in theory and in practice". Now if that's not a high bar to jump then I don't know what is. If this links works then you can read it yourself: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-165218%22]}

      As for the Pitmans, I can understand their anger but in my opinion they should have dropped this complaint about the Jurat, which was hopeless, and instead brought a court challenge against the unfair clause in the States of Jersey Law which automatically disqualified them from being States Members as a corollary of their bankruptcy. As far as I am aware they didn't get any right to a fair hearing even though they both lost their jobs overnight. I don't believe the legislature had to provide them with any right to a hearing but surely the Royal Court would have been obliged to hear them state their case at the very least? It would be interesting to speculate what the ECtHR might have made of our outdated bankruptcy laws, which are far tougher than other jurisdictions. In fact I don't believe the Pitmans would have been disqualified from holding, for example, the office of Members of the European Parliament on becoming bankrupt. There closest colleagues in the States Chamber should have called for a full review of the laws that led to their overnight removal from office - but their colleagues let them down badly and let that be a lesson to anyone who befriends States Members and trusts them!

      That said, they would have had to start such a legal action straight after losing their positions in the States and about to lose their home too, presumably either having to represent themselves in court or rely on a government patsy free lawyer who would probably have advised them not to challenge it. The odds would have been almost impossible. So I can see why they never did that.

      Delete
    5. That's very interesting. If ECHR is treating the PC route as always necessary then many cases will never get started and the local courts must be relied upon. Of course other Conventions afford a right of appeal too but generally the "optional" clause has not been ratified by Jersey (or the UK)so there is still much reform to be done. Heaven help us if we break with the UK and Europe to satisfy the Finance sector post BREXIT.

      Delete
    6. A couple of posts on here seem to imply that the ECHR and Brexit are related.

      They are not. The ECHR is a part of the Council of Europe, which is wider, softer (and arguably more use) than the EU.

      Delete
  25. If Trevor and Shona Pitman are unable to take an Appeal any further then there is nothing more for people to say.

    Passing insults against people for having their own views on how things went won't change their minds.

    People win or lose in Court, it happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iremember that weirdo alcoholic who was posting hate about public figures and women who had rejected him.

      Eventually he made an an abusive phone call threatening the family would be murdrered for being friends with Syvret.

      He lost in court and still bitching about it now even though the not very clever chap knows he was in the wrong.

      People who know they are in the right like Shona and Trevor have in contrast shown huge reserve and dignity.

      It really galls and appalls me that here we have obvious proof about how bent our Royal Court is and those who oversee it and yet our media won't report it pretending it isn't news.

      The Pitmans are wrong. There is no doubt the Jersey Way rolls on. It is a fact.

      Delete
    2. @9:37pm "People win or lose in Court, it happens" HA HA HA ....
      Experience shows that in Jersey's paedo cover up courts ""People" INVARIABLY LOSE if they happen to be anti-child-abuse campaigners and political dissidents.

      Or can you demonstrate different?


      Your glib assertion that "there is nothing more for people to say." is a transparent attempt to direct debate away from issues that you appear desperate not to be discussed or highlighted. This thread demonstrates that there is evidently PLENTY to say in spite of your glib assertion.


      This whole subject also demonstrates that nothing has changed in Jersey in spite of a £23,000,000 public inquiry which (deliberately) missed half the issues and half of the fundamental witnesses.

      How can children ever be safe with attitudes like yours?


      Congratulations for not being a paedo-troll

      Delete
    3. Not so. There is much to say. And we must not stop saying it until we are rid of the Axis of Legal Evil Dirty Berty and The Krays and get an honest court where kids are protected and dodgy jurats are not.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous@9.37.

      It is likely that you generate people's chagrin because of the facts that your views are so obviously incorrect dare I say it obsessive.

      Delete
    5. No idea what these comments are about and why a poster on here keeps on attacking members of the Public for the Pitmans losing their own personal libel action. But no Media source has reported on this Press Release, unless somebody can supply a link to show otherwise. Remember that the Pitmans are no longer news as they are not States members anymore which possibly has more to do with it then any newsworthy interest in angry comments we've heard many times before anyway.

      Delete
    6. What the Pitmans revealed is HUGE news. The issue is why aren't our media reporting it? Answer - the Jersey Way. Now pipe down and go get another beer.

      Delete
  26. I know loads of people still love Trevor and Shona. I have every respect for them myself. We just don't have fearless States members like them and Syvret anymore. Really I just wanted to say that I hope as many people take an interest in Reform Day this year. How ironic that it was Trevor Pitman who took up the guantlet for you and got this important day recognised by the States. An official ceremony is long overdue.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Why is there so much interest in the Pitmans after all of these years? Time to move on. They are out of politics. Time to get behind people like Ozouf and Farnham.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Good to see this blog thriving. People should have more appreciation for the Human Rights stuff those behind it do.

    This story fits in with that although it might not seem so at first glance being about two of Jersey's most uncomproming Social-istas.

    Me? i love 'em. Like Syvret if probably wisely not as rude we just don't have their like any more. The facts revealed in this press release are as scandalous as they are shocking though.

    What kind of a judge claims a policeman's testimony based on his direct interview with an abused school pupil bullied in to silence by a teacher-cum-jurat holds very little weight?

    Most people would suggest the answer is a bent one, but certainly one not fit to hold office.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I do not agree with any of this and I wonder who is calling people who disagree so many nasty names. The outcome of this libel case would have been the same no matter who had judged it. People should read the initial judgement and the Appeal which was made by another Judge before posting anymore nonsense. This far fetched idea that a Jurat had it in for the Pitmans was stupid then and is stupid today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do keep trying Jon. If I could write slowly as in speech in the hope of your alcohom-hammered brain cells finally kicking in I would.

      Read slowly now.

      A fair legal set up MUST underlie and override all else. Even if the Pitmans had brought the most vexacious, silly nonsense of all time to court.

      Even if the right decision was reached. It clearly wasn't but let's leave that for now, eh.

      Like it or not the moment Jurat Le Breton's revolting past leaked out that decision, under the terms of well established law, became unsustainable.

      That William I'm letting off Mr K because of the consistently positive supervisory reports he (didn't) have Bayleaf won't do his job only compounds the corruption.

      Some day soon the walls of Justice Jericho are going to come tumbling down.

      Even the 1000 year Third Reich only lasted twelve.

      Now get off back to the cupboard under the stairs with your bottle of meths.

      Delete
    2. My name is Paul and I would be interested to know your true identity as I have my suspicions.

      Let us put this into context Wan.

      This Blog is not a substitute for a real Court of Law so stop patronising people on here in pretending it is.

      You keep on pretending their libel case was an open and shut case for them which I do not agree with at all. They were States Members and were supposed to be able to roll with the MSM punches but they couldn't. They showed weakness in even reacting to this stupid cartoon never mind going as far as they did.

      Therefore I shall not be answering anymore of your bullying comments because as I said, this Blog is not an alternative to the Courts and then you implying that I am drunk for having views on this silly case is blatant trolling.

      Delete
    3. "This silly case"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

      Now if that doesn't mark you out a Troll I don't know what does.

      Get over the bile my friend. You will get an ulcer.

      Delete
    4. Ha, Ha, Ha! Bailhache's Royal Court is not a substitute for a real court either. It is an imposter.

      Delete
    5. My name is Paul (Mr. Paul Digger Barnes?) @5:00am

      Did-ums read something he did not like - but expects the Pitmans to "roll with the JEPeado punches" of an in-funny newspaper claim that was blatantly false. The JEP admitted in court their understanding of the cartoon"

      You are hilarious "Paul"

      No one has claimed that "This Blog is not a substitute for a real Court of Law" so yours is yet another straw man argument.

      Indeed it is clear over multiple cases that The *Bailhache Court* "is not a substitute for a *real Court of Law*" ...... "so stop patronising people on here in pretending it is".
      ....you beat me to it @9:35 :-)


      Whether or not the Pitmans should have won is actually irrelevant. The fact is that the court was tainted and it's finding is void in any lawful jurisdiction.

      Live with it.

      Delete
    6. I really do not comprehend what you - Paul Digger Barnes? - are writing about.
      If you would like to record a video interview to express your views please let me know

      Delete
  30. Surprised you didn't keep this as your lead story longer. Its such an important story. Mind you most people are too stupid and apathetic to realise it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Pitmans (should either be interested?) ought to be demanding how it is that my pal Markus, being a discharged bankrupt from the South-East of England could have moved here last November and stand in our May election. Yet neither of the Pitmans (whome I believe were born and bred here?) can. WTF? as my teenage son texts his mates.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Pitmans lost their case, lost their appeal, lost their home, lost their jobs, lost their credibility by suggesting this is all a conspiracy theory. This all started due to an estate agent placing a satirical cartoon in an advert on Christmas eve in a local newspaper. they had done this every Christmas for years and picked on topical personalities and events as their fodder and it never raised so much as a wry simile previously. From this it was the Pitmans that decided to seek legal remedy(despite precedent not being in their favour) and every action, since that moment, was their doing and no one else. The distraction of a Jurat who, years prior to being a jurat had shown some dubious judgement, plays to their paranoia but is irrelevant to the outcome of the case, although I would agree that it is hugley disappointing that this has become focus when everyone should be far more concerned with the lack of arbitration or a legal process that doesn't bankrupt those seeking remedy. Maybe the Pitmans could use their experience to spearhead a lobby to overturn the current process and look for an alternative to costly litigation in relatively small claims of this nature?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In case you missed it earlier:

      FAIR & LAWFUL COURT PROCEDURES, PART 1

      Perhaps I can save your readers from the tedium of the trolls who suggest the conflicted nature of Jurat Le Breton’s position is of no relevance to the safety of the judgment.

      It has long been widely recognised that it is vital that not only are decisions actually made free from bias or partiality, but that they appear to be. As Lord Hewart CJ put it in the famous passage in R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy:

      “It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way. But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

      “The question therefore is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made any observation or offered any criticism which he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter. The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done.

      “Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice. Speaking for myself, I accept the statements contained in the justices' affidavit, but they show very clearly that the deputy clerk was connected with the case in a capacity which made it right that he should scrupulously abstain from referring to the matter in any way, although he retired with the justices; in other words, his one position was such that he could not, if he had been required to do so, discharge the duties which his other position involved. His twofold position was a manifest contradiction.”

      That is the long-established guiding principle of the administration of justice in English law.

      ………….CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    2. FAIR & LAWFUL COURT PROCEDURES, PART 2

      We see from in your ‘correspondent’s’ ignorance of law a failure to understand the accepted and established ‘twin-principles’ of ‘actual’ and ‘apparent’ bias, namely subjective and objective impartiality.

      Subjective impartiality requires that members of the tribunal themselves must be subjectively impartial; none of its members must show bias or personal prejudice. But the second test of ‘objective’ impartiality requires the tribunal to “offer guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect”.

      Jersey’s judicial cadre always cite that 1st test, ‘subjective’ impartiality, and they then claim to meet it. (Although it must be noted, such claims are often not credible , as in the case of Jurat Le Breton) What they cannot remotely claim is to meet that 2nd test of satisfying the ‘appearance’ of objectivity.

      In Lawal v Northern Spirit [2003] UKHL 35, [2003] ICR 856, Lord Steyn, giving the opinion of the appellate committee, explained the importance of objective impartiality as having “at its core the need for ‘the confidence which must be inspired by the courts in a democratic society … public perception of the possibility of unconscious bias is the key”.

      That judgment, echoes the original finding of Lord Hewitt CJ, that ‘not only must justice be done, it must be seen to done’.

      Is it not possible to objectively view the involvement of a man so dammed upon the facts and entangled in previous child-abuse concealment controversies as Le Breton to then have met the test of the appearance of objectivity in the case of two anti-child-abuse campaigners like the Pitmans.

      And as the tribunal involving the Jurat does not meet that ‘objective’ test of impartiality, the resultant judgment is irrefutably unsafe. The merits of the case are simply immaterial. Did the tribunal meet the objective test? No. Game over.

      It is simply further evidence of the structural unfitness and inadequacy of your judicial system that it continues to fail to uphold the settled and uncontroversial case-law.

      And those who practice law cannot help but notice the fact that Bailiff William Bailhache, in an alarming display of just how bad his judgment is and how far from the path of reality he has journeyed since the beginning of the Jersey child-abuse scandal, persisted in hearing the application by the Pitmans last Friday. The man is at least as seriously conflicted in all matters concerning the child-abuse cover-ups, and the politics of the scandal, as Le Breton.

      I sense that one day legal practitioners in Jersey are going to ruefully regret failing to mobilise against the Bailhache brothers, complain to London, and have them removed. Both men have taken Jersey down a path towards bedlam. It is very difficult to see any way back for Jersey’s present arrangements given the undisguised lawlessness on display.

      Delete
    3. If this 2 part post has appeared twice its partly my fault - I am just too tired to read everything this evening.

      Delete
    4. The 2 part post is worth reading more than twice !

      It is a little long but I suspect that it is written by someone who actually knows what they are talking about (unlike the 12:08am poster who apparently repeats the claim that it does not matter that the Pitman's court case was fundamentally unsafe.

      The wisdom or otherwise of the Pitmans seeking to take the filthy rag down a peg or two is IRRELIVENT next to the FUNDIMENTAL failure of the rule of law.

      These basic failures of the rule of law in the Bailhache courts are the source of so many of Jersey's ills; from the decades of unprosecuted physical and sexual abuse of minors to the rampant moral and actual corruption and the silencing of all effective political dissent.

      The RULE OF LAW is the Rosetta stone by which Jersey's insidious evils can be identified and understood.
      Further, the proper rule of law is the key to a functional future for all islanders and their children.


      The poster at 12:08 claims that "The distraction of a Jurat who, years prior to being a jurat had shown some dubious judgement, plays to their paranoia but is irrelevant to the outcome of the case"
      This is the Jurat who apparently bullied an abused child (from a non-establishment family) with the words
      "We don’t like your sort here"

      .....at Victoria college where a Baihache was head of the governors

      It is more than plausible that this (unprosecuted) Jurat, years later
      "didn't like the Pitmans sort here"

      ...... in his parliament where, you guessed it ......again "a Baihache was head of the governors".



      "We don’t like your sort here"
      The point is not just that this was a disgusting way for a human being to manage the situation but that this Jurat had *loco parentis* for that child.

      The man should have been investigated and prosecuted!
      Instead the establishment rewarded him with being an administrator of their Justine on the island.

      Like I said .....the Rosetta stone.

      Without the rule of law, nobody is safe and corruption flows freely beneath the veneer of respectability.

      Delete
  33. There is a rumour going around in Jersey that Bailiff William Grumpy Bailhache is now abusing his position to prevent any questions in the States on the cover up regarding Jurat Le Breton's past as highlighted in the sworn evidence of Officer Cornelissen. Anyone know any more?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thanks for letting us know about the good Pitmans, and the bad Jersey Way. There has been a server lack of communication on what is happening here. Real news at last and even Voice For Children Blog have managed not to be tempted back. By the way missing VFC so much any news on why they have stopped blogging?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Amusing to hear that ex Jurat John Le Breton is being pressed to take action against the online hate campaign which is being promoted by you Mike Dunn. I will laugh my socks off if you end up being done for this. New laws in place to stop online harassment of people and according to other online sources, a number of comments on this Blog are breaking that Law. John Le Breton was never charged with the obstruction of Justice and despite the Pitmans weary attempts to say otherwise at the end of the day, Le Breton is not legally accountable. So he is being slandered here. Perhaps this is why the MSM have not touched this story eh? The Blogs still have a lot to learn about what is acceptable tp put online these days but you carry on Mike Dunn, good to see idiots are still doing these things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to laugh don't you. Now would it not be great to see Jurat John Le Breton seek to use his mates in Jersey's bent court to shut down a blog let alone attack the Pitmans.

      All sworn evidence let us not forget.

      This would do more to bring down the establishment house of cards than the Pitmans, Syvret, Power, Harper and Co ever managed with their noble efforts.

      I hear the national media are also being to rouse from their slumber at last and all thanks to this press release and blog. Sof if true. Go on Jur+at go for it. Great to see you before a proper court and in a proper newspaper trying to defend the indefensible.

      Look great for Silly Willy and chums too, wouldn't it.

      Mind you talking of breaking Jersey's Putinist new internet law looks like they would then have to finally come for Jon and his misfits on the Reform hate site.

      Delete
    2. Last Laugh at the LeglessJanuary 27, 2018 at 4:49 AM

      Think you need to learn a little more about law. Don't you even know the difference between slander and defamation? But how to simply explain it to a drunken troll, eh?

      Defamation would be something written. Perhaps like saying someone was getting 4 x the salary when provably not true. Or wrapping the peron in bank notes perhaps.

      Slander for example would be being witnessed by people talking malicious verbal kak about people when three sheets to the wind at a politicians 50th birthday as you boozed at the free bar

      Delete
    3. You really should see a shrink over your obsession with the Pitmans.

      All credit to this blog. Finally getting the interest and traffic the quality of writing and topic deserves.

      Delete
    4. Yeah yeah Maureen, whatever.

      Delete
    5. That was a threat BTW Mr Dunn.

      "Amusing", isn't it?

      "Le Breton is not legally accountable" says Jon L'LastLaugh @2:41
      *Quite* , but *only in Jersey* and a few other corrupt jurisdictions is that true!

      There was attempted discussion on what was meant by a "Paedo-Troll". Perhaps that warrants a guest posting all of it's own?


      The state has been hijacked. Once the rule of law is hijacked you can run a fake CoI into your decades of child abuse. You can close down bloggers. You can do anything you like.

      This is what defeat looks like!

      Jersey people are pussies. They won't paint the streets. Fewer and fewer will even put their heads above the parapet.

      Well done for holding out so long Mike.

      Delete
    6. Maureen M complained about this post on PJ 2 days ago with same legal threats so they took one of them down. Coincidental.

      Delete
    7. "Le Breton is not legally accountable" says Jon L'LastLaugh @2:41

      You're still obsessed with Jon then.

      Delete
    8. 'Jersey people are pussies. They won't paint the streets. Fewer and fewer will even put their heads above the parapet.'

      Says he who is posting anonymously.

      The LL has a point, John Le Breton was never charged for covering up child abuse as implied in the Sharp Report and the main question should be - why?

      But because we are going back 20 years ago, and they must have had their reasons, we may never know why. I would be interested to know what the Sharp Report actually is. Is it a legal document or only a collection of views by Mr Sharp following the end of a trial? Also testimony at the Care Inquiry without Mr John Le Breton being their to answer back is equally unsafe.

      Delete
    9. This is the address to copy and paste, if the link doesn’t work:

      http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/news/comments/the-sharp-report-jersey-abuse-download/

      Delete
  36. I have just returned, very cold and wet from the Holocaust Memorial Day proceedings on the St Helier Quay and wonder is this really why so many millions of people died in such terrible circumstances? If we are to have any more posts here can the writers please bear in mind what has gone before us to enable our "freedom of expression...just for a while at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Mike.

      Somebody's freedom of expression includes:
      "Ha Ha Ha, Go to the Police, go to *Data Protection*, go to whoever you like!"
      I hope I got quote word for word off the death threat recording.

      We thought that they were the delusions of a troll, but he was bang on the money with the inside track on the authorities' game-plan, with his drunken threats.

      Dark days indeed when these people have the protection of the authorities and it is their victims who are persecuted.
      The Nazis never really left!

      Good luck appealing to his better nature.
      Have you come across the dark triad/tetrad?

      Delete
  37. Too right. So many people murdered by oppressive forces. Yet still as we see here so many don't understand the modern significance of when they came for blad-di-blah I did nothing. Maybe Syvret or a Pitman can explain the importance of it?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ok - that's enough playing word games - this is the reality of today. No more. Unless you have a reasoned comment to make it will not be published

    ReplyDelete
  39. http://tomgruchy.blogspot.com/2018/01/jersey-holocaust-memorial-day-27.html

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hope someone brings this outrage up in the Staes tomorrow. Mind you Bailhache will surely abuse his position again to try and stop it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must be psychic. Bailhache made a right fool of himself.

      Delete
    2. I thought the final speech by the AG made a fool out of Higgins.

      Delete
    3. Hardly. The AG who some know has a rather big non-prosecution problem brewing looked rather desperate in his misleading the States.

      The Care Inquiry did not in fact examine the Vic College/Le Breton/Jervis-Dykes scandal because it had been deliberately placed outside its remit. So to talk of findings was a rather bad joke.

      Aloso misleading to refer to Graham Power. The police chief who failed to support his officers during the scandal was actually another Le Breton, Bob.

      Delete
    4. I went to Victoria College in the 1970's and I am sick of this Jervis Dykes case still being used as a Political Football after over 20 years. It was never fair on those who had to give evidence and I believe this case was only ever dug up by certain Deputies because it is 'Victoria College'. They do not like the School because other States Members they also hate went to it. We will never know the truth about the abuse because the Head Master - Devonport died of cancer before the Jervis-Dykes case got to the Police's attention.
      So I wish people like the Pitmans and Higgins would stop regurgitating inaccurate stories about this case when they were never there and never gave evidence.

      Delete
    5. Old Vic? Sure. Inaccurate? No spot on. Why you attempt to defelect from the Head Master - Jack Hydes appalling failings I can't imagine. He knew. He did nothing. And no mention let alone condemnation of Jurat John Le Breton? Says it all I guess.

      As for hating Vic College I would think that like me the Deputies you attempt to blame to deflect from the criminal behaviour of others, I note you don't even mention the Bailhaches and Birt, probably would not willing send a dog to such a second rate, elitist and socially redundant school.

      Delete
    6. Comment at 10.38 sounds highly dubious. The attempt to focus on Davenport especially. Going to Vic myself Davenport was not someone I would put any faith in. But Hydes was at Vic from 1992. There were complaints about Jervis-Dykes four years before he was ever charged. So please tell me. What did Hydes and the smarmy John Le Breton do about this? Far from shuting up politicians should be joining Higgins in demanding answers and action. I was lucky but one of my still best friends wasn't. For your information Old Vic I know he gets furious every time he sees photos of Le Breton strutting around in his ludicrous red robes. The man never should have been offered the role of a Jurat. And while ambivelent to some aspects of the Pitmans politics I can fully understand how angry they must be at having an individual like Le Breton placed on their court case, and having not been told the truth about his background.

      Delete
  41. Any news on whether the referendum will take place at the May election?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Brave speech from Dep Higgins. Those who let this Le Breton stay as a Jurat need suspending. As for our Bailiff claiming as per the press release that officer Cornelissen's evidence carried little weight he ought to be stripped of his office immediately. Civic head my backside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No news report of the Higgins clash with the cantankerous Bailhache in JEP, or on ITV, BBC or 103. Back to the bad old days of pre-2008.

      Delete
  43. Heading for the big 100 comments? Good for you. The quality of much of your posts deserves it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Great post. But do you know what has happened to voiceforchildren?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Old news.
    If the Pitmans had so little faith in the Justice system then why show this hand now? The Sharp Report is well old and was online long before the Pitmans tried to sue Broadlands.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I have not posted several comments because they are not relevant or repeat previous comments or add nothing of interest. I suspect this blog has run out of steam - but if you feel the need to carry on with the discussion there is always Facebook or why not start a blog of your own?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Being from the UK you will forgive me if I am not fully aware of what others may know but one thing seems obvious to me in my ignorance. Jersey is a Crown Dependency regardless of it having a government. Therefore, given that the above seems to make clear strong evidence not available to the Pitmans at the time of their court hearing is now available. Just as importantly that it is not being acted upon by the very court who, for whatever the reason, appear to have messed up. Surely this can be forwarded to the UK ministry of Justice? In the UK cases where new evidence let alone deliberately concealed evidence most definitely can be re-opened so so speak. Or does your island have some kind of opt out mechanism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there is an 'opt out' then it only an unofficial agreement done by the turning of a blind eye due to Jersey's tax haven benefits to the British goverment and Crown. Certainly nothing legal. The powers that be just hope that wronged peasants give up through lack of deep pockets.

      Delete
  48. You have two stories here centering on three of arguably the most visible politicians of recent years. It is just a thought but if on line interest is anything to go by then the May election looks rather bleak for Senator Ozouf. The Pitmans by contrast could probably be facing any election with confidence. If they were not excluded. Ozouf v Cnnetable Renard anyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ozouf or Renard? What a horrible choice. No woder so many don't bother to vote.

      Delete
    2. More might vote if we had the likes of the Pitmans back to lead proper, brave and principled opposition?

      1 ask you why bother to vote when you people like Chairman Mezec too scared to rock the boat by challenging the Crown Officers who we all know really call the shots.

      Gorst is just a straw man in my opinion. Think less people than ever will vote this time and really can't blame them.

      Delete
  49. Thanks for putting up this press release. Haven't seen it anywhere on the professional media which likely says a lot. Without your blog I would not have been able to read it at all. I don't offer any new or great insights. I just wanted to say that when you read in today's JEP William Bailhache claiming concern at potentially having to re-run trials having 'hung' juries you might think in the light of the above that he should be voicing greater concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  50. There should be no place for jurats in the modern world. The only fair trial can be had by a jury of ordinary people who have links to neither party involved. Cost must be seen as secondary.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 100 comments!

    At last this most excellent blog appears to be catching the interest of the number of people its quality merits.

    Any chance of a post on your thoughts about this rumoured exhibition being promised to recognise the historic events of September 28th 1769? You are after all the man responsible for it being recognised.

    I would also like to know if anything a bit more public is being done this year? Forget the little scuffle that was the so called Battle of Jersey.

    How about a march with torches and pitchforks following the route of Tom Gruchy and his fellow citicens? Reform Jersey like marches. Maybe they could get involved?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Jersey is bent as a nine bob note, people are so afraid of loosing everything that they won't stand up against the Jersey way, there are good reasons that Burt was known as Burt the butcher!

    ReplyDelete