Saturday, December 26, 2015

That Other Speech

Trevor Pitman

Having reposted Stuart Syvret's 2007 speech to the Jersey Parliament (States) which he was not allowed to deliver, my attention has been drawn, in a comment on that post, to a more recent landmark speech by the then Deputy Trevor Pitman, indicting the perverse Jersey justice system.

This is also a fine speech, delivered in full to the Parliament, and heard without interruption. It is a passionate speech, delivered, I understand, without notes. While it might be best listened to rather than read, given the passion put into it, the available recording, presumably from the Parliament itself, is a lazy piece of work, with auto volume control making it very difficult to hear properly.

The speech was published in both text and audio on 28/9/2013 on Voice for Children's blog.

I have included relevant links at the end of this post.

As the speech was made in the context of a particular debate in the States and as it contains many references to events and persons in Jersey, I think it is necessary, for those readers not fully up to speed on the Jersey situation, to set the speech in context.

Deputy Trevor Pitman and his wife Shona, then also a Deputy, have been in the forefront of the fight for justice in Jersey. He is one of a small number of parliamentarians and bloggers who have been attempting to expose the grossly deficient and corrupt justice system on the island.

Along with former Minister and Senator Stuart Syvret he has been hounded out of parliament. Trevor and his wife have literally been bankrupted, which has effectively excluded them from the parliament.

While it is a saga in itself the story of the Pitmans' fatal run in with the powers that be in Jersey is as follows.

That cartoon

Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman claimed that they were defamed by a cartoon commissioned by Broadlands estates agency for an advertisement published in the JEP on Christmas Eve 2008. The relevant part of the cartoon is shown above. The Pitmans claimed it accused them of entering politics purely for the money and was defamatory. The Pitmans lost their case and were ultimately bankrupted over the costs and consequently excluded from parliament. The fairness of the whole procedure is for another day but I personally think that Trevor was set up and the way in which the judgement was implemented saw the State gleefully, and perversely, claiming its pound of flesh.

Anyway, to the speech itself.

It arose in the context of the following proposition

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion that, within the Executive branch of Government, the Chief Minister is responsible for justice policy and resources, as clarified in the accompanying report.

It seems that, while the Minister for Home Affairs is responsible for the implementation of justice, the whole question of justice policy and ministerial accountability for it was a bit up in the air to say the least. What the proposition is effectively saying is that, in the absence of a separate justice ministry - something proposed earlier by Senator Farnham - this overarching responsibility should reside with the Chief Minister (Senator Gorst). It was apparently envisaged that this would not in any way affect the current responsibilities of the Home Affairs Minister in this area; it would simply close a gap that had appeared in the transition from the earlier form of committee government to a ministerial one.

As to the broader "constitutional" structure of the island. It is a crown dependency which means that the island's government is directly the responsibility of the Queen. She keeps an eye on them through her Lieutenant Governor. She appoints the chief officers such as the Bailiff (chief honcho, chief judge, and speaker of the States). She is responsible for good governance on the island, which function she has delegated to her UK Justice Minister (though Jersey is not part of the UK) and final appeal from the Jersey courts is to her Privy Council (though, as a matter of course, they redirect all complaints/appeals back to the Jersey authorities for decision).

The Greffier is the clerk and record keeper of the States Assembly, effectively the head of the administration of the parliament. It was he, in the absence of the Bailiff/Speaker, who chaired the session below.

The reference to data protection is to its misuse in an attempt to silence Stuart Syvret and have his blog taken down. The Data Commissioner virtually invited people to come forward with complaints and then financed them out of public funds to have a go at Syvret in the courts. Four out of five invitees went along with this, and a motlier bunch you would not find.

Reference to the Deputy from Grouville is to Stuart Syvret's former partner Carolyn Labey, who says in the debate that she has no problem with the present proposition.

I hope the above is enough to set the context for the speech.

Hansard reproduces it as a single paragraph, but that is quite a difficult format to absorb in a blog post, so I have attempted to paragraph it purely for ease of reading.

by Deputy Trevor Pitman
in States of Jersey (Parliament)
on 25 September 2013

2.1.11 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is ironic, after allowing a lot of people to be betrayed yet again, as we did earlier, here we are talking about justice and yet it is all going to be done and dusted in about 10 minutes.

The fact is, in my opinion and in a growing number of the victims of the Jersey justice system, there is zero accountability to those at the top of the justice system in Jersey. It is a very scary, frightening fact. I do not know if the Chief Minister kids himself, but he is not in control here. The political power in this Island lies with the law office; it is an absolute fact, certainly as far as enforcement of its will. As has been said, and I never used to believe this, but it is all too often a tool of oppression.

It is a great example here today of how we could be saving money and how we do not need the Bailiff; the Greffier and his Assistant are proving that admirably. We do not need any individual in a red cloak. I will be quite honest, the reason I did not come to the special sitting last week, I find it highly offensive to see a judge, any judge - and this is not a personal thing - as our first citizen in the 21st century. It is absolutely ludicrous.

I supported Senator Farnham’s idea for a Minister for Justice, but this is one of those watered-down fudges, and I think he is putting a brave face on and trying to be nice about perhaps convincing himself, wishing to convince himself that this is all going to move in a positive direction. I think he is mistaken in that.

Senator Gorst, well, I told him yesterday I was not going to support this because I voted for him, as he knows, and I have been appalled that I did vote for him. He is, in my view - I have to say that or I will get into trouble - utterly too weak to ensure justice in this Island. If Members ask themselves when do you hear the Chief Minister talk about justice, speak out about it and upholding it? Practically never.

You cannot go against the rule of the Bailiff. It is one of the most striking things when you come into this Assembly: the ridiculous and quite offensive deference that is given to someone just because he is a judge. Let us put it quite clearly: the Bailiff deserves no such deference, any Bailiff. He is just a judge, and yet he can interfere, he can block what elected representatives to this Assembly say and ask.

As we saw yesterday in a quite embarrassing display, the justice system in this Island is so appalling that when the Bailiff fails appallingly, you can only go and take those failings to the Bailiff. It is a bit like déjà vu when I remember back years ago when Senator Syvret was forced out of the States for 6 months, in 1996 I think it was. Who could he ultimately appeal to about that? Probably the same man who many would say was instrumental in him being removed from that Assembly.

This cannot be trusted to the Chief Minister’s Department because the Chief Minister just does not appear to have the will, the determination and the courage to do the job. He is too weak. That might upset some people, but I have to speak the truth, that is what we are meant to do here, are we not?

Where is the judicial accountability now? There is none whatsoever. We have a U.K. Minister for Justice who is meant to intervene when he should but he does nothing, and you cannot go through an appeal system.

We heard a really brilliant example of how the Jersey justice system is dysfunctional when we had to hear the desperation ... if you do not get what you think you should have, you can go to the Privy Council or then to Strasbourg, like those poor victims up there today. It is a bit late by then because you cannot challenge failings properly. People have had their lives ruined by then.

Is the Chief Minister going to put that right? No, because he is one of those who I believe strongly is absolutely frightened to death of the aura of the Bailiff and all that it suggests. The Bailiff has only got that deference from people because of the dual role. We talk about in this report from the Chief Minister that you have got to have that independence between Judiciary and politics.

Does he not ever look at the individual and what that represents sitting in that chair every session, the hypocrisy and absolute comical farce of what he is saying? I cannot remember who said it, it might have been Deputy Tadier, it might have been Deputy S. Pitman, but you would have a Minister still being controlled on issues of justice by an unelected judge.

There is no place for this in the 21st century. I am sorry the Deputy of Grouville cannot see the problem with it; just about any other right-thinking person can see the problem with it: it is a person wearing 2 hats at one time, it is an unelected judge being involved where he has absolutely no right.

It might have been okay in the 17th century when we were all meant to tug our forelock to our betters, but it is not okay now. Well, I could not tug my forelock, but there we go; I may doff my cap. I cannot afford a cap, but there we go.

It makes me so frustrated to say we will happily sit here and discuss ourselves for weeks on end, we will discuss dog mess for hours or days, and justice ... hardly anyone speaks.

Let us spell out the facts again: there are only about 5 of us in here who ever stand up for justice, and we are made out to be some kind of radicals, we are out to destroy known civilisation. No, for those of us who talk about justice, it is because we care about our Island.

The rest, and I am sorry, that is 95 per cent of the States Assembly, fall into 2 categories: people who just keep their head down, they are too scared; to protect the status quo they will say nothing. Or, it has to be said, people who perhaps do not care about justice at all, which is even worse.

Some of those people who we were debating earlier said to me yesterday: “For too many people, it is only when an injustice happens to them that they realise what is going on in this Island.” That is because in the mainstream media they do not report on the true facts.

Again, they have got a huge responsibility, they have more power than we have but they do not talk about the real issues: “Let us just keep attacking the 4 or 5 loony lefties who keep going on about child abuse and the dual role.”

If I am to support this, Chief Minister, what are you going to do about all that? What are you going to do about all these issues? As we heard, the Chief Minister cannot go against the word of the Bailiff, so how is this being under his sway, how is his control going to differ?

I was at that meeting the Deputy referred to; he acknowledged there were huge areas that needed to be changed, but would he do them? We have Jurats elected by lawyers; that is crazy, it does not even happen in Guernsey, and some people are always mocking Guernsey for what they do. How can you have lawyers choosing people they are then going to be pitching to win their case to later?

It is absolutely bonkers. The Jurat Law; what stops you being a Jurat? If you have received assistance from the 1948 Poor Law, it does not matter if you are Jimmy Savile, you are in, you are a pillar of society. That is what it comes down to, in essence: no convictions against Mr. Savile so he probably would have been welcomed as a pillar of the community.

Sorry if some of this is uncomfortable, but it is true. I have got so many cases now on justice, I admit - and I will use this to apologise to some people I have not even been able to get back to, because I am being overwhelmed and I know Deputy Higgins has got a huge number - they are diverse and they are shocking.

What is being done about it? What have successive Chief Ministers done about the injustice in this Island? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Justice in Jersey is made up as we go ... a phenomenon which some people may not be aware of: judge-made law. It is a great example of what happens in Jersey: rulings, decisions given by judges that have absolutely no visible link to the laws that were passed by Assemblies such as ours.

Who challenges it? Is the Chief Minister going to challenge it? No, because he is not strong enough, and I put my trust in him, and this is not a personal thing either. I put my trust in him when he was making his pitch to be Chief Minister and on the key issues, justice, like for the abuse victims, he has really done nothing.

He expressed his satisfaction, his contentment with the case against former Senator Syvret. I do not agree with a lot of what Mr. Syvret has done, but I will stand with him on justice issues.

Regularly, there is a gentleman who sits up there who can show you his many consistent statements made to the police about, as a child, being pinned down and having blood trickling down his legs after he had been abused.

The person who he alleges, and more than a dozen others allege is an abuser, is still employed by the States of Jersey, has still got access to children.

How is the Chief Minister and his legal team, who are meant to be doing redress, treating that man? Well, he is accused of never being at Haut de la Garenne. It is only other people who were at Haut de la Garenne who would remember him there. Has he had sympathy? Has he had compassion? No. I will tell you what has happened to him: he has been threatened by the legal team that if he did not drop his allegations, he would be prosecuted and could end up in prison.

Justice in Jersey? Utter farce. Yet we are satisfied for the secret court case against Mr. Syvret. Of course, one of those people given such huge financial assistance is the very man that so many people have accused. That same case -if we are talking justice, Chief Minister - why is it that there is a letter in existence pitching for individuals to come in and put the case together and decide how they would get Mr. Syvret? Five people invited; one of them refused. Proxies; are those what they were?

I happened to believe that some of them, certainly a couple, have got cases for what has been done to them. They may have cases to answer on the accusations against them. The best way to have done that would be before a court. As I have said before, then Mr. Syvret could have been taken to account if what he said was completely wrong and those people could have earned justice.

But no, what do we do? Justice in Jersey, Chief Minister, we have secret court cases. I do hope he is going to do the decent thing and resign when we get the true figures about how much this has all cost, because the question is already in for next session. He wants to control justice.

Why is it that data protection and this access ... and it is all very well for him to chuckle over there, perhaps it is how he usually takes justice. Why is it that data protection ... this assistance is not available to all?

One of the individuals who was given money - Members might not know - is the scourge of innocent people in this Island. He has been intercepted by the police threatening ex-partners; does not get charged. He sends out posters to decent, ordinary people about threats to women; does not get charged. He puts hate sites up on the internet which emails stolen from one of our own Members end up on. Does not get charged.

When I went and made a complaint about him, the senior police officer went and looked and he was shocked at the amount of complaints against this individual, so he could see it was just not me. Put the case to the Attorney General’s office; no case to answer.

Perhaps that explains, for all his faults, why Mr. Syvret went down the route he did, because it all comes back down to this image, hardly anyone wants to risk challenging Jersey’s fluffy image as a shining beacon of democracy, as I think former Senator Perchard said.

The way you improve your image is by confronting the things that are wrong, and that is what me, and those few other Members who stand up and talk about justice, do. Of course, we get pilloried by the Jersey Evening Post, pilloried by other Members, former judges.

There is a wonderful little clip if Members get bored: go and look at YouTube and they will see a wonderful little clip of a former chief judge in Jersey and he is giving a talk to, I assume, the Law Society or a collection of lawyers, and he laughs and he gets a huge, great ripple of applause: “When I was a judge and the law was silent, I did what everyone did, I made it up because that is what everyone else did”; is that justice? People laugh.

A chief judge, or a former chief judge ... I must not get into trouble, I must go down the magistrate route of today, confusing individuals. It is funny, just on the news today the former assistant magistrate is out of prison already, laughing all the way to the bank, while those people we have sent away with their tails between their legs are going home. One of them is on to income support as a result, she was telling me.

This makes me furious, these tick-box propositions that come back pretending to do something when the proof of the pudding is that this Chief Minister never stands up for justice ever, even when it is wrong. He is controlled by the law office, in my view. He does not have the courage to challenge things that are wrong.

Why am I not going to support this? It is not because I do not support Senator Farnham’s original idea, I do, though I ask the question, how many in this Assembly could do that job, 4 or 5, because most - and I mean that as no offence to any particular Member - have not got the courage and the conviction to stand up, as I do, so often.

But this is just a fob, it is a fudge. It is another one of the Chief Minister’s cop-outs. Why did we have a Minister for External Relations when we have not even got a Minister for Children? Far more important. Why have we not got a Minister for Justice? Far more important than giving someone a title to do a job that, let us be honest, Senator Ozouf has been doing a pretty good job before we even had this Assistant External Affairs Minister.

I say to Members, do not support this, force the Chief Minister to come back with something that is fit for the 21st century. Make him come back with something which will provide justice for all.

I think it was Deputy Le Fondré who today said when would justice purely relate to how much money people have got? Well, that happens all the time in Jersey. Many of us in St. Helier see constituents. If they cannot afford to pay for lawyers and they get legal aid, they really may as well give up, because you will get a lawyer who is generally completely not interested or they are so young and inexperienced, it will probably do more harm to your case. If you are in the middle, you are even worse.

Some people would say the Jersey system is bent. I do not say it is bent, because if you imply that, then you think it could be put back into shape.

The Jersey justice system needs a full Turks and Caicos style intervention by the U.K.

We need the U.K. Minister for Justice to fulfil his mandate.

We need the Lieutenant Governor to fulfil the powers that he has got - and I like this Lieutenant Governor, I have had some lengthy conversations with him - but if he does not step in when he should, then what are we paying a great deal of money for?

We need a Minister for Justice, but I think it should be appointed from the U.K. because it is entrenched here, it is so entwined, political power with judicial power, that it cannot be done safely otherwise.

Now I think I will sit down and let our former Chief Judge attack me, as he does so often.


Voice for Children blog has reported the speech, including audio, here.

The comments on that blog post are well worth a read

The full debate in the States is also worth a read.

You can listen to the speech on Youtube, and it will give you an idea of its passion, but it is an irritating recording, and so it is probably best read.

You can get an extended summary of the court case here and here.


  1. What a bloody powerful speech. I would recommend anyone interested to do as you suggested and also go and listen on Voiceforchldren if just for the staggering emotion exuded by the Deputy, and to be fair the almost audible embarrassed silence from the gathered establishment numpties. Do any of them care the way Pitman and Stuart Syvret clearly do? Quite probably but being spineless cowards unwilling to stand up and take the abuse of judicial process Syvret and the Pitmans did you have to say they really can't be viewed as much better. But though you haven't covered it one simple truth in what happened to the Pitman's pulls both Syvret's speech and Trevor Pitman's together. This is the undeniable and quite astounding fact that a man who concealed reports of child abuse, and even bullied vulnerable kids who complained about being abused into silence was allowed to become a Jurat and as fate would have it sit on the Pitman's case. Does any more really need to be said to demonstrate what an utterly corrupt, unfit for purpose system of justice the island of Jersey has? I really wish one of you bloggers would hammer this home by disecting the written and verbal evidence to the COI by the police officer, Anton Cornelisson (apologies if I got his rather unusual name wrong) who investigated the Vic College abuse scandal and found himself, like Stephen Sharp, confronted with this Bailiff condoned fiasco. I find myself wondering how Jimmy Savile would have been protected by the local big-wigs if he had chanced to live on the island during his reign of abuse and been a Jersey pillar of the community. Makes my blood run cold to be quite honest.

  2. Anonymous at 21:17

    Yes, the whole Jersey situation is a blood boiler.

    I didn't cover the story of Jurat Le Breton as it has been covered elsewhere in some detail and I didn't want to overload the post.

    People should be aware that a Jurat is a sort of assessor who assists a magistrate in a case by determining the facts in advance of any judgement. As I understand it, if a Jurat assesses that the facts as not relevant then that's the end of the matter. The Jurat has therefore considerable influence, sometimes determinate, within the Jersey judicial system.

    Jurat Le Breton had been a teacher at Victoria College and effectively covered up child abuse there. That should have been enough to disqualify him from being a Jurat, but the powers that be thought otherwise. And, ironically he was a Jurat on the Pitman case, which, while it was about defamation, involved two anti-abuse campaigners whom the powers that be were very anxious to be shot of.

    I agree that Cornelisson's evidence to the current Inquiry, and particularly in relation to Victoria College, is worth a wider airing.

    If I get a chance, and nobody else has done it by then, I may have a go at that.

    One useful thing the present inquiry is doing is getting and publishing a lot of first hand evidence that had not been available to the public in such detail before. There are worrying signs, though, that it is skirting around some issues and its behaviour in some cases does not reassure in relation to its competence or bona fides.

    1. I agree, perhaps the only good thing that this Inquiry Panel is doing is publishing s lot of first-hand evidence previously not available.

      The sad irony however before we give them unfur praise is that the very same Trevor Pitman, being one of the major witnesses for the prosecution, if I can borrow that term, has seen his public evidence appearance turned in to a mockery by truly farcical selective focus and astounding brevity.

      Not just this but a huge written statement apparently vanished on government/judicial intervention after less than an hour live on line.

      The questions as they say just keep on mounting up, the inexplicable gaps and omissions growing ever bigger.

  3. Trevor Pitman was advised not to proceed with this legal action so what is the point of this post?

    1. I happen to know the former Deputy fairly well and can state for a fact that the above comment is not correct.

      Like most other regular blog readers I can also guess with little fear of bring wrong the individual making the above comment. An individual absolutely obsessed with the former Deputy and just about everyone else who has stood up against so many wrongs since 2008.

      As to my opinion. I too would not have trusted a justice system riddled with paedophile protectors and demonstrably bent Bailiff's.

      But as you say that is not the point. All of us are entitled to justice and the Pitmans clearly did not get it.

      The fact that anonymous at 14.24 not only fails to mention this but brings up what is an obvious irrelevance probably tells us all we need to know about his motivation.

      Why not focus on the speech and the one by Stuart Syvret likewise? The issues these two former Jersey politicians highlight with such articulation should raise any caring person's anger.

      To be fair I suppose it could also be the heady mix of cheap Spanish beer and the Tenerife sun helping befuddle anonymous' sense of what is important just as one of your other posters comments?

      Just a thought. Happy 2016.

  4. In his place, I would not have.

    But that is beside the point. He was entitled and did not get justice in my opinion.

    That's one of the points of the post.

  5. You have put up two speeches which make me ask one question above any other: if those in Jersey's government don't act or at least start asking questions confronted with speeches of this quality the chances of getting any action must be all but non existent? Not a nice conclusion I appreciate but the only one I can give.

  6. Anonymous at 17:49

    Sorry to disappoint, but comment from Anonymous at 14:24 came from Jersey. At least that's what my tracker tells me.

    1. Possibly but then the troll is infamous for his bouncing his comments off places as diverse as an old hotel in Yorkshire?

      But maybe with his weeks annual Christmas holiday out of the way he is back to sitting in his front room in his underpants with only a light bulb and a single bar electric fire to keep him and his laptop company?

      But an untrue comment whatever the truth. Toodle Pip. Almost a new year!

  7. So getting help under a 'poor' outdated by some six and a half decades prevents you from being one of these quasi judge Jurats. But not if you happen to have 50 years of allegations of abuse against you like Saville had? WTF!

  8. Under the version of the Jersey Courts Law 1948 currently in force, you cannot become a jurat if

    (j) the person has, within the 12 months immediately preceding the day of his or her appointment, received poor relief

    You can see the other disqualifying factors at Section 3 of this link.

    So the deserving poor, as long as they remain deserving poor, cannot be jurats.

    As far as Savile is concerned, given his friendship with the monarchy, Jersey should consider itself lucky he was not made Bailiff along the way. However, given the breadth of his nefarious activities, he would likely have considered that a spancel too far.

    1. Savile as Jersey's Bailiff! Jeez - don't even suggest it in jest. The scumbag would have been a shoe in for sure.

  9. Since this speech was made it has made no difference and you have ask yourselves why. Is it because of the person it is coming from?
    Trevor Pitman was advised by other journalists at the JEP to not bother proceeding with his action by the way.
    A states member is in the public eye and is supposed to be able to deal with the Press yet he Mr Pitman did not listen, and the JEP won its argument of free speech against him.
    I hope in 2016 you do a lot more research before posting any claims on this blog.

    1. Perhaps these mysterious JEP journalists knew of the very close relationship this Jurat Le Breton was exposed as having with a friend and Jurat called Sally Le Brocq, a lady who happened to be on the JEP Board of directors and a multi-million pound shareholder? Only in Jersey eh?

  10. Anonymous at 15:41

    Those remarks really don't bring the matter any further.

    Speeches on their own do not necessarily make a difference, particularly when the powers that be are as entrenched as they are in Jersey. The speeches are nevertheless a contribution to raising awareness and others also have a responsibility to follow them up.

    It is not clear why certain JEP journalists might have advised Trevor Pitman not to go the legal route. Perhaps they were aware that he would not succeed in vindicating his rights. That does not mean he was not entitled to those rights. And, from the sound of it, the attitude of the journalists concerned, if such was the case, are probably one of the reasons contributing to why the Jersey Evening Post is nothing more than a parochial rag.

    Of course politicians have to be able to deal with adverse press comment and take the rough with the smooth. That does not mean they have to lie down under libel and give an irresponsible press a free rein. Part of the JEP's problem is that it has no decent competitors and is itself embedded in the régime. The rights of a free press are derived from that press's expected contribution to the functioning of a healthy democratic system, and by democratic I do not mean the mere presence of free universal suffrage. There is a whole infrastructure that goes with it, including an objective judicial system.

    The fact that the JEP came out on top at the end is more an indictment of the Jersey justice system than a vindication of the right of free speech.

    The cartoon was a malicious disgrace. It is clear that the Pitmans are campaigning for social justice and to imply that they are in it purely for the money smacks to me of a serious attempt by the establishment to undermine them. It is not just a jokey Christmas ha ha.

    As far as reference to research is concerned, that is surely a funny, included as it is in a relatively threadbare comment.

    I will be quite happy in 2016 if I can keep up the quality of my postings to their present level.

  11. Ex Deputy Trevor Pitman takes his personal reputation very seriously and bitterly resents it being impugned. At one States sitting he revealed in 2012, during Oral Questions, that he had been a victim of "cyber bullying" on Internet blogs - a matter that he had referred to the States police.

    Ex Deputy Pitman, despite claiming to be a "strong person", was clearly upset that the police had refused to intervene and the police instead suggested that the deputy pursue a civil action.

    Ex Deputy Pitman attempted to challenge the Home Affairs Minister to take assertive action on "cyber bullying", which prompted the following exchange in the States Assembly, as is publicly noted in the States of Jersey Hansard.

    Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

    I think it is a very difficult issue as to which matters have entered the levels of criminality and which matters are a matter for civil action in such cases, particularly in areas of the law of libel and so on. Frankly, the police have to make those difficult decisions in individual cases. Those are operational matters. I am content to leave them to the police to decide.

    Deputy T.M. Pitman:

    Sorry, but could I ask for clarity because if matters, even like threats of violence, is a civil matter, then I will just use a large bit of 2 by 4 and deal with it myself.

    ..... Having failed to achieve satisfaction in his failed civil action for defamation against Broadlands and the Jersey Evening Post, one could only assume back then to expect Ex Deputy Pitman to appear outside their respective business premises, clutching a large plank of wood, seeking to get some level of "payback" for the significant level of costs that have now been awarded against him? His comments were reported back to the Police as a precaution.

    I hope that the Deputy will reflect upon what he has stated in the States Chamber / blogs over the years and accept that threats of grave and criminal assault are wholly inappropriate to the office of a Deputy and bring the reputation of the States of Jersey into disrepute.

    Ex Deputy Trevor Pitman and his wife, Deputy Shona Pitman made a serious error of judgement in pursuing their claimed libel action and this blame game 3 years on has become cumbersome and boring. For those in doubt the Court judgements are all online to see.

    1. Pitman's quip here was obviously a bit of dark humour to make a serious point. Possibly misguided for sure given he was an anti-establishment politician. But nothing important. What I do agree with is that cyber abuse and intimidation of people of the sort evident in the now infamous Haworth phone recordings really does need firm legal action. As we saw with the harassment of Rico Sorda's pregnant wife such behaviour merits a custodial sentence.

  12. I have already linked to one of the judgements in my post.

    I accept that Trevor Pitman tends to shoot from the hip but he is not a man of violence and everybody knows that.

    Clearly his choice to go the legal route in the defamation case was a very bad call and he probably should have known better, given what he was up against.

    Doesn't take from my view that his bankrupting was a perverse ending to an unjust verdict.

    1. Tis a fact is it not that in refusing to allow the Pitmans to appeal Jersey's alleged appeal judges claimed that there had never been any questioning of Jurat Le Breton's integrity.

      The Sharp Report in itself showed how ridiculous such a claim is. Yet the truth is we now know Senator Syvret had already written to Michael Birt and the Bailhache brothers highlighting this man's disgraceful and illegal behaviour.

      With what has been revealed thanks to the evidence from the police to the Care Inquiry referred to elsewhere any contention that any trial featuring Le Breton as a Jurat is credible is an insult to people's intelligence.

      We should be asking why Le Breton hasn't faced prosecution?

  13. It was Broadlands and the JEP who pursued the Pitmans under the Bankruptcy Law and not the States of Jersey Government that is being implied here.

    1. There is a rumour prevalent in legal circles that this was driven by the political promise to pay them both off from the criminal confiscation slush fund. An explanation for a move most see as making no sense?

  14. The anonymous poster claiming that even saintly churnalists from the bullying JEP advised the Pitman's not to pursue their action for defamation is a joke as anyone with an IQ of even 73 can tell. Simply fabrication.

    What I find interesting sitting through their court hearings was the JEP editor Mr Bright being forced to admit he allowed Broadlands to publish their malicious advert despite him being quite clear that to him the 4 x the salary, Darling slur was based on the Pitman's implied low salaries. In his words this was quite clear to him his excuse being that he 'didn't realise' professional youth workers were so well paid.

    I remember thinking that with this admission and Mr Trower being forced to admit that the apparently 'satirical' cartoon was 'serious political comment' it really was game, set and match to the Pitman's there and then. Even more so given that lawyers for both parties behind this horrible, clearly politically motivated cartoon had to acknowledge that far from increasing 4 fold the Pitman's income had dropped by several thousand pounds by Trevor Pitman entering politics.

    What none of us knew then of course was that the defendants had an ace card up their sleeve. This being that a Jurat on the case had a history of dishonesty in disregarding evidence of child abuse. As we now know thanks to the COI evidence of the investigating police officer was that this Jurat, John Le Breton didn't just disregard evidence of abuse he actually bullied children who complained to him of being abused into silence. The words of the police officer was that he and his colleague were 'appalled' Le Breton had been allowed to ever become a Jurat due to his 'lack of integrity'.

    This information which it is impossible to claim was not available and known to every Bailiff since Le Breton's appointment in 1998 should have seen the verdict thrown out and a mistrial ordered immediately it became public knowledge. That this did not happen and we still have apologists like your poster desperately trying to defend and distract from it shows clearly just how deeply corruption is embedded in the Jersey Way William Bailhache is so proud of.

    As we enter 2016 stark evidence that nothing in the way Jersey works has changed at all. And likely never will while people like our Queen's representative the Lieutenant Governor sits on his hugely over paid butt failing to do what he is paid to do.

  15. Didn't Data Protection pay invitees out of public funds to have a go at Stuart?

    1. Yes and though Deputy Mike Higgins and - ironically - former Deputy Trevor Pitman strove to find out we still don't know how much tax payers' money was used by Emma Martin and the judiciary to do this. One thing is for sure the amount admitted to by Ian Gorst would have wiped out a whole year's budget for Data Protection.

  16. Happy New Year Mr P. All the best in your investigative, pro-justice efforts in 2016.

  17. Thanks and a Happy New Year to all my friends in Jersey and beyond (and since the Pope has declared this the Year of Mercy I suppose I should also include the other lot :)

  18. The person arguing in the Pitman's favour should be advising them to do this in a proper Court and not a blog, because a blog will not take them back into solvency or restore their jobs.
    With regard to the '4 x salary darling' quote; it was my understanding that this was in relation to the mortgage borrowing capabilities of people, bearing in mind that Broadlands is an Estate Agent who arranged the cartoon with the JEP?

    1. Rumpole of the Bailhache Baily1 January 2016 at 12:22

      Only problem with this excuse is that Roger Trower was forced to admit that four times the salary was not even the current mortgage rate at the.

      I can say this from personal experience as in 2008 I had just got one for six times my salary.

      The other point I would make about your supporter of the Jersey Way criticising some of your posters who support the fact that the Pitman's were set up is to ask.

      How can anyone challenge such clear wrongs in a court of law?

      It would mean going through the very same corrupt institution who allowed such failings to happen.

      Including a Bailiff overseeing it all who is impossibly emeshed and conflicted in allowing individuals like the paedophile protector and abuse condoning Jurat to sit.

      Not likely to happen is it?

  19. Lol.
    Its Trevor Pitman making these comments because nobody else actually cares.

    1. Spoken like a true troll Jon Old News Nobody Is Interested Haworth. Strange how some want to distract from the justice issues highlighted in the speech. Whatever could the motive be?

  20. Anonymous at 12:03

    The connection between the two jurats was raised in the course of the case and deemed immaterial. I think I have to say that.

    Anonymous at 12:44

    Please keep feeding my tracker.

  21. Anyone got any insights as to why the position of Justice minister never materialised? One might think that with everything the enquiry's evidence is turning up such a post might have garnered significant support? Certainly more than a digital tech minister.

  22. Dannie Jarman's funeral has been announced for 1.
    30 lunch time at Jersey's crematorium on Friday 8th January.

  23. If that is what Jon says then he is right because its very old news.
    Chewing over decisions of the courts years later cannot change a thing so why waste time doing it?
    This speech achieved nothing, the Appeal did not do well and the rest is history. Biggest point missed in all of this is that the Judges who made these decisions were all from the UK.

    1. Ummm, no. Two unqualified Jurats actually and then three appeal judges. All appointed by the Jersey Bailiff. Do keep up.

  24. By the way 4 x Salary Mortgages is pretty standard. A max can by achieved at 5 x but lenders are usually restricted to 4.75 x.

    If The Salary for a States Member at the time was around £40K then it doesn't even sound plausible that Broadland's would imply that the Pitmans were originally on only £10K.

    These arguments have been lashed out in Court already so it really is old news.

  25. "The connection between the two jurats was raised in the course of the case and deemed immaterial. I think I have to say that."

    This is true.
    When are you going to do some proper research before writing a proper post Polo?

    Inaccuracies like these only play into the Establishments' favour.

  26. Anonymous at 18:14

    I didn't say I was unaware of the connection nor that I believed it was immaterial.

    As it was mentioned by another commenter I thought it prudent to say the court had considered it and deemed it immaterial.

    So no inaccuracies there.

  27. The Jurat system is what we have in Jersey.....
    If Trevor Pitman has such extraordinary views on their use after losing his case then it makes you wonder why he chanced taking Broadlands and the JEP to court in the first place.....
    Ahhhh, this debate is weary.....
    Happy New Year and here's hoping we see some fresh / original material on the Blogs this year.... though I wait with bated breath....

  28. Beanie

    We've probably gone as far as we're likely to get on this one on this thread.

    The argument does not seem to be about the Jurat system as such but in the quality of some of the Jurats.

    I'm sure Trevor rues the day he did go the legal route given the result. And it is clear that the verdict and bankruptcy is not going to be reversed. So the best one can do is draw conclusions from the whole process.

    Mine are that the jurat system does not appear robust enough to deliver justice, that the courts (including the UK input) are at the service of the establishment, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get justice through the courts in Jersey when one challenges the establishment.

    As for the new year, hopefully, and for all its flaws, the abuse inquiry, and the raw material it is providing, will cast further light on what has been going on on the island and not simply pull down the shutters, as many fear.

  29. O Jon boy. When will you get over these obsessions with what might be called progressive politicians and seeking to undermine the care inquiry, the victims?

    Many of the instances of child abuse took place decades ago. But they, their perpetrators and most important of all, the victims are not and will never be 'old news'. No ordinary, normal people would even want them to be.

    It is just a handful of sickos like you. And here you are repeating the same tired old abuse and ramblings nearly eight years on! How the long winter nights must fly?

    Focus on the flaws and down right horrors highlighted in the two speeches posted on this blog. Get over your hatreds. Sort yourself out. Support the victims and demand justice.

    This is a top notch blog and the truth is its owner's patient tolerance of your juvenile and psychotic abuse only undermines the quality.

  30. I have just reviewed the comment stream on this post and I must say I have learned a lot from it.

    It is my first effort at moderation and I have set out my intentions in the matter in a comment on another post.

    As the final commenter above has pointed out, I have probably been too tolerant of distracting comments, particularly judged by the standard I set myself.

    However it is a learning process. I am a softy when it comes to debate and easily distracted into the byways. I may yet need a bit more practice to get the hang of (i) not publishing comments which are either designed to distract or are just sloppy, (ii) constantly reviewing whether a comment is actually contributing to the debate in the context of the particular post and (iii) sharpening up my antennae for detecting persistent trollers.

    In any event I'm closing comments on this particular post. I am fed up being distracted from things I want to do when, every time I boot up or sit at the computer, I see new arrivals in my email and then have to prioritise making fine judgements about the relevance of comments and the motivation of the commenters.

    Finally, I would like to thank those commenters who have contributed positively to the debate on this post and those who complimented the blog. I do put a lot of work into it and do try to get things right. I hope they will indulge me while I work on getting the hang of this accursed and unwelcome moderation thing.

    At the end of the day, it is not in my interest to let the quality of a blog into which I put so much work be dragged through the mud by people with other agendas.