Thursday, 27 May 2010


These creatures are human scum. This lady is magnificent, just listen to what she has to say.

Wednesday, 26 May 2010


This Blog Linked From Here Other bollocks deconstructors The Web
This Blog
Linked From Here
.Other bollocks deconstructors
.The Web
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Breaking...beware Council propaganda in the Skegness toddlers 'kidnap' case.

The Skegness twins with their natural father

Councils will try to use the Skegness case to hold on to
their arbitrary powers. We must resist this.

I note with great alarm that within hours of the Skegness 'kidnapped' children being found, the Lincolnshire CC Social Services propaganda machine has begun to start demands for 'more powers' to deal with such incidents. The last thing any social services department should be given is power - let alone more of it.

The Slog and its mother ship nby fought (along with thousands of others) a three-year battle to stop the nefarious activities of mad SS departments from Plymouth via Stafford to Liverpool. Earlier this year, the new Justice in charge of childcare described the actions of SS workers in many cases as "more reminiscent of the USSR than the UK". Now that we have a new watchdog, and are finally rid of the two criminals - Harman and Balls - who watched all this happen, we must all beware unaccountable State-paid idiots pleading lost powers.

The key points of this case are as follows:

1.Social services twice told the mother she could have the kids back, and then changed their minds.
2. They were supposed to be closely monitoring a mother-in-law's visit to the kids. But as usual they screwed up, and the mum pinched the children.
3. The mother's elder daughter was immediately arrested, although she had nothing to do with it.
4. The mother and her partner have been charged with kidnap and banged up without their feet touching the ground.
5. The kids were found in good health and completely unharmed.

It may well be that the mother is (as alleged) a dysfunctional alcoholic - a high proportion of the others with children under Council care are. But cases of such women snatching kids from the SS and police are more rare than hen's teeth. The Lincolnshire County Council SS don't need more powers: they need more employees who know what they're up to.

Interesting, is it not, that when the State wishes to demonise a mother (as in this instance) all Court reporting restrictions are lifted immediately. Funny how that never happens when the boot's on the other foot.

The great Nye Bevan once said "The purpose of power is to give it back". How right he was.
Posted by John Ward at 16:45
Labels: Court restrictions lifted to demonise mother, riddled with State propaganda, Skegness kids case

Friday, 21 May 2010


He is back in Jersey, but he was arrested (again) as soon as he arrived. They detest him, because he is exposing child abusers and other criminals!

Friday, 14 May 2010


She is STILL being persecuted by the Freemasons of Liverpool.

She has been repeatedly threatened with prison for sending a birthday card to her own son.

This is just getting silly now.

Also, I have had a death threat. Nice work, boys!

Can I just remind you lovely lads from the old boys funny handshake society that the Lord God Almighty has his eye on you, and going round threatening innocent folk is not really the sort of thing that he approves of, to put it mildly. Not a good idea to wind up the King of Kings - many have tried it and come to grief, read the Bible and know your history!

Maureen Spalek wants her kids back, and she wants them back now. You stole her kids off her to cover up a medical blunder, and it's all gone out of control now.

You lot carry on if you want, but I tell you as bluntly, if you carry on persecuting Maureen Spalek, what you are actually doing is picking a fight with God, a fight which you will lose. God will turn his flashlight onto all of you, and everyone will see who you are, and what you do. The people you are roping in to do your dirty work, the Police ect, they are sick of you involving them in your corruption, and they will turn on you!

Maureen Spalek wants her kids back, and that is all she wants. She does not want revenge, compensation, anything, just her kids. You'd be well advised to leave this child of God well alone, you don't want to make her Heavenly Father angry!

What's next?

Thursday, 13 May 2010



I am a survivor of the Staffordshire Pindown institutional child abuse and the secret family court persecution.

As a result of all the persecution I was put through, I discovered that there are lots of other people who, just like me, have been abused as children and them maliciously persecuted, in an attempt to shut us up. It hasn't worked, because believe it or not, we do have a Heavenly Father, and it took me a while to figure this out, that if any of us is being persecuted and abused, we can ask Him to help us, and He will. That is what I did, and what lots of other people are doing, and the Lord has helped us find each other, and helped us to find out all sorts of things about the secret family courts, and other secret things that the people who are running this country never wanted us to find out about.

We have just had a General Election, and it looks very much like it was decided through electoral fraud, see the post previous to this one. If this is the truth, then treason has been committed by the people who are responsible for allowing UK votes to be given to people who do not live in this country.

We are going to get in touch with David Cameron and Nick Clegg, I doubt that this is anything to do with them, but they certainly ought to be informed of this. I hope that you people beat us to it, and start a proper investigation into this matter.

This is a great country, but corruption is wrecking it. I hope you people will stop allowing traitors and criminals to use you as some sort of private terror squad, and start investigating the real crime which is taking place in this country. sending ten police officers to a woman's house to arrest her for ringing the doorbell of the foster carers house to enquire after her own children is a complete and utter waste of police time, and the person who poulls that sort of malicious stunt ought to be issued with a stern warning for wasting police time and resources.


World | UK
Bangladeshis 'vote' in British election via donated ballots
Thousands of people in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ghana used votes "donated" by members of the British public to take part in UK election

Published: 12:03 May 4, 2010

Activists from the group called "Give your vote" gather behind a banner in Dhaka, as they stage a rally in front of The National Press Club. Image Credit: AFP
Dhaka: Bangladeshi musician Abdul Sabuj does not own a passport and rarely ventures far from the Dhaka slum he calls home, but thanks to a new vote-donating project, he will have a say in Britain's elections.

Ahead of polling day in Britain on Thursday, Sabuj and thousands of others like him in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ghana have used votes "donated" by members of the British public.

The "Give Your Vote" scheme asks British citizens to pass on their votes to residents of poor countries that are heavily affected by British foreign policy.

Under the experimental system, British voters are matched with people in the three countries who then inform a centralised text messaging service of how they want the vote used.

"I voted for the Liberal Democrats as they've pledged major cuts in carbon emissions by 2050," Sabuj, 36, told AFP after casting his vote by sending a text message.

"Many people, including my family who lost their house to river erosion, are suffering from climate change in Bangladesh, and I know that developing countries are most responsible for this," Sabuj said.

"When I heard of 'Give Your Vote' I saw this was an opportunity for me to have a say."

Bangladesh-based Give Your Vote organiser Clemmie James said she had encountered some criticism of the pioneering project from foreigners living and working in the South Asian country.

"Many have told me it is naive to take the campaign to Dhaka's slums, assuming that people will not even know or care about the UK government," she said.

"But the people I have conversed with are not ignorant of things that go beyond their everyday existence."
London-based organiser May Abdalla said several thousand votes had been donated, but could not specify how many votes Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ghana would each receive until after the vote donation line closes on Tuesday night.

The "Give Your Vote" website said it would try to pair people up individually but admitted the plan was untested.

"If necessary, we will calculate the proportions for each party, randomise who to send which result to, and fire out the emails and texts," it explained.

"On the eve of the UK election, participants in the UK will receive an SMS or email, indicating which party their partner in Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Ghana wishes them to vote for."

A plan for donors to take pictures of themselves voting had to be scrapped as it was illegal under British electoral law.

Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats appeared to be wildly popular in Bangladesh, with Labour far back in second and the Conservatives struggling to make any impression, Abdalla said.

"We're not trying to swing the election on the basis of these votes, the significance of it is to prove that people outside of national borders want and can be involved in decisions that affect them," Abdalla told AFP.
"The idea that people are 'global citizens' who can participate and make a stand for democracy resonates very much in this interconnected world."

The "Give Your Vote" scheme named Adam Elliot-Cooper as one British citizen who gave his vote away.
"Our economic policy affects Ghana," he told the website. "Our climate policy affects Bangladesh hugely due to the danger of flooding (and) of course our foreign policy affects the people of Afghanistan a great deal."
The project has been backed by South African peace activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who described it as an idea that was "exciting, brave and emphasises our common humanity."

The opportunity attracted many young Bangladeshi students, like Mottaki Bin Kaml, who has never voted in his own country's elections, but is passionate about Britain's May 6 poll.

"I didn't vote in Bangladesh as I don't support any of the parties here, they're all corrupt, but I want to vote in the British election as global warming is a big issue for us here," he said.

"I hope that this project will have an impact, it is really great that people are showing solidarity by donating their votes like this," he said.

Wednesday, 12 May 2010




Wednesday, 12 May 2010


7.30 p.m - TOWN HALL.

Everything is changed.

Nothing changes.

Those were amongst the thoughts which occurred to me during my first week back in Jersey after six months of investigative journalism that could not have been conducted in the island.

Both my perception, and my knowledge of the true nature of power in Jersey had changed – giving me an entire different understanding of the real magnitude of just what it is we're up against. So much so that I now occasionally fear for my life.

But, on the other hand, Jersey is sunny, beautiful and the people great. I didn't expect to, but I felt happier than I had done in months. A fact made all the more intense by the numbers of people who have stopped me in the street and welcomed me back.

Amongst the things that have been said to me are many greetings, the usual words of advice about trying to be a little more diplomatic, questions about what I've been up to in London and why I had to go, encouragements to contest the by-election, and, most interestingly, a request from one gentleman, who asked towards the end of our conversation, if I knew anyone who might be able to help him obtain a rocker-box cover for a 1970 Morris Minor. Unfortunately I wasn't able to assist.

There are just too many issues to cover in one posting, so during the coming days and weeks I will be writing in greater detail about what I believe to be the fundamental failings with the traditional approach to politics in Jersey, and answering some of those questions; though, I confess, probably not the one about classic car parts.

But of all the issues I have been working on, the one which is most important, will be the subject of a public meeting.

'Why – and how – has all of Jersey's very expensive public administration so badly failed – to protect so many vulnerable children – over a period of so many decades?'

And – though even I found this very surprising when thinking about it – it will actually be the first public meeting - during the entire controversy of the last three years – at which we will be discussing how and why the States of Jersey failed, so badly and for so long, to protect vulnerable children.

As a community, we have yet to have that discussion.





7.30 PM – TOWN HALL.

I and one or two other people will be explaining the facts – and some of the evidence that you will not have heard about in the local media.

As well as answering your questions, we can discuss why the States of Jersey failed – and what we need to do to make sure our government consistently works for the public good in future.

It is actually quite remarkable in many ways, that notwithstanding the events of the last three years - the gross failures of politics and governance that have characterised the establishment’s response to the child abuse crises – the attempted cover-ups that have generated such controversy – there has not been as much as one, single public meeting at which people could consider the underlying Political dimensions of the child protection failures.

Not one meeting – to discuss the Politics of the situation - in the whole three years.

Well – on the evening of Monday 17th May, we will address that absence.

Perhaps I was na├»ve in imagining during the last two years at least, that Jersey's politicians – elected and unelected – would actually come to their senses – sooner or later - and stop shaming the community with their refusals to face the hard truths. But sadly, not only have they failed to do that – they have, instead, compounded their many serious errors of judgement by continuing to heap folly upon folly.

Contemplating the conduct of the Jersey establishment during these last three years has been akin to witnessing a group of men trying to douse outbreaks of fire – with buckets of petrol.

And there is no indication - at all – that the madness is going to end any-time soon.

On the contrary – the Jersey oligarchy persist in the insanity of refusing to see that David Warcup, their place-man as acting Chief of Police, is simply finished.

And he is finished.

So finished – than even some of the more sensible establishment States members will not vote to appoint him as permanent Police Chief, because they can see the Political contaminations of Warcup and the controversies that embroil him, make his position simply untenable.

There is real doubt that the proposition would even secure a majority in the House.

But even if it did – it is almost a certainty that around twenty of the 53 members will vote against him.

Contrast that outcome of the vote – with that which would be achieved by a man of Graham Power's stature – or, for that matter, any non-politicised, professional Police Chief. You may always get two or three States members voting against them – but such is the cross-spectrum appeal of a non-Political, professional police officer, they would always secure an overwhelming vote of support from all shades of opinion in the chamber.

Is it even vaguely credible for Jersey – for the reputation of the island – to have a Police Chief who is – essentially – a party-political figure? An individual so mired in serious controversy, he can barely secure a majority vote in the island's parliament?

The very prospect is madness.

Yet – the Jersey establishment’s approach to this disastrous state of affairs, is the same kind of refusal to face reality we see in the child abuse disaster – and the same absurd belief that if they can just hang-on long enough – it will all blow-over and be forgotten. But – for all kinds of reasons – that is not going to happen. Not this time.

And we have to ask the question – can a Jersey parliament still so dominated by men who believe that things can be covered-up – as though this was 1970 – not 2010 – really be expected to pilot Jersey through the looming financial crises?

Can a political establishment so insular, parochial and out-of-touch with the reality of unceasing close scrutiny in the international arena, lead Jersey through the necessary engagement with the international community – when they can't even deal with the child protection failures of the past – and are happy to allow senior civil servants to conceal child abuse?

I pose those questions – because as central and as serious as the child protection failures are – they can also be viewed as a symptom.

A symptom of a fundamental political illness.

The child abuse disaster – and the frankly corrupt indecency with which the 'old-guard' have tried to conceal it – whilst by far the worst failure – is just one failure amongst many.

Consider some of the others -

Poor decisions leading to an incinerator that is both around 15 years too late as a replacement for the filthy old plant – and grossly excessive in size.

Atrocious economic mismanagement.

A “zero/10” fiscal strategy which many of us said would not work – and it hasn’t.

Growing inequalities - with significant numbers of people in our rich community living in relative poverty.

Many young families unable to purchase a three-bedroom starter home – because they can't hope to pay the average price - of over half-a-million pounds.

A St. Helier Waterfront that is, essentially, a vast, sea-porous toxic waste dump.

A decade-long failure to deliver the Town Park - the island's “millennium project” – and the on-going political attempts to destroy it by building across half of the site - whilst lying to the public by claiming the resultant fragmented bits of lawn will still be the Town Park.

£49 million of capital project over-spends during the 1990's.

Failures to protect our environment.

Perilous vulnerabilities to public-sector employee pensions because of a failure to properly address the deficits of the schemes.

No energy strategy.

And – notwithstanding the last four 'gold-rush' decades – Jersey has no sovereign wealth fund worthy of the name – instead, merely a 'strategic-reserve' – that is so inadequate – it could not fund one year's worth of current public-sector expenditure.

Symptoms – all are symptoms of a fundamental political problem.

The Jersey establishment has too much power – concentrated into too few hands – and that same narrow grouping control all arms of the state and of public administration; the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the prosecution system, the senior civil service.

Too much power – too little accountability.

No effective checks and balances – and all of the complacency and stagnation that flows from having a political power-structure grown far too used to simply always getting its way – and never being held to account.

That is the fundamental problem that the community of Jersey is presented with, when considering our obsolete polity.

And only by addressing that central problem will we succeed in ending the succession of governance failures that have so blighted the public interest.

Of course – no miracle cures exist – the island faces many serious challenges. Anyone who tells you our problems can be addressed easily - or quickly – is either a fool or a liar.

But – to address those problems, we do have to make a start.

And what subject could be more deserving of our most urgent and serious attention – than the protections of vulnerable children?

If a society cannot protect its children – then it can't protect anything – including itself.

It is for that reason I decided to cause this by-election.

It would not be honest of me to say that I had not seriously considered other possible ways of pursuing the necessary political changes.

But, no matter what permutations of strategies and tactics I considered, there were always two inescapable and dominant factors – which always pointed to the forcing of a by-election.

The first – and less important – is my own personal weariness – after twenty hard years in politics.

There is a limit to just how many decades of constant obstructions and denigrations any person can tolerate. So – in many ways – deciding to give up my seat was no sacrifice.

Frankly – from my personal perspective – if I don't get re-elected, it would, in many ways, be a relief.

But, having said that, I still want to try and drive the necessary political improvements for my home island. And the most effective means of doing that – was the second, and more important of those two factors that drove my decision.

That factor is this.

I believe the public need to be confronted – to be challenged – with their own responsibility for how it is their government behaves.

I explained in detail my philosophical reasoning for this view in a recent posting – 'Letter from Exile # 22' – published on the 30th April. It's there to be read in my archive – so I won't repeat those thoughts now.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I believe there is a lot of truth in that old saying – 'people get the government they deserve.'

I was reminded of that saying when I spent a couple of hours this Tuesday morning in the public gallery of the States chamber – watching question time.

There are honourable exceptions.

But broadly, what was on display was a roiling toxic soup of presumption, egos, privilege, ignorance, bumbling incompetence, directionless political wallowing, unaccountability, out-right dishonesty, inarticulacy and a stultifying absence of wisdom.

I have always believed in political honesty. But perhaps it is the absence of honesty in politics that excuses the public from being to blame for so many examples of bad political representation. Maybe it isn't entirely fair to blame the public for the standards of government?

Perhaps because existing politicians and other candidates are often not honest with the voting public concerning their real political views – the public can be excused from being associated with the actions of politicians once they are in power?

That may be so.

Therefore – in this by-election, I want the public to understand clearly the significance – of the choice they make when deciding where to place their cross on the ballot-paper.

No doubt, in the by-election, there will be a range of good, bad, and indifferent candidates. Who knows – there might even be twenty – perhaps more? I've certainly heard mentioned the names of at least twelve. But if twenty - around sixteen will be using the election process to boost their public recognition prior to next year's elections. And there might be four serious candidates – in with a real chance of getting elected to the single Senatorial seat on offer.

Why the possibility of so many candidates for a single Senatorial seat? Because unlike previous Senatorial and Deputorial elections – the system has been changed – and the two sets of elections that would usually be held perhaps five weeks apart, will, next year – both be held on the same day.

Which means potential candidates will have to choose one election - or the other. The ability to run in the island-wide Senatorial election to garner publicity – and lose without worry – as they can then just run in the Deputies election a few weeks later, will be gone.

Therefore – this by-election represents the last chance that many candidates will have to gain some zero-risk publicity – before having to commit to one election – or the other – on the same October general election day in 2011.

And it is, of course, their perfect right to stand as candidates in this contest.

But this is no ordinary by-election.

It very easily need not be happening. But I have brought it about deliberately and voluntarily by triggering the vacancy.

This by-election is – effectively – a referendum.

The people of Jersey are being presented with a chance to decide which political policy they prefer. Accountability, and the proper protection of children – or – the Culture of Concealment.

If the population support the meaningful protection of vulnerable children – I will be re-elected. If the population prefer the traditional concealments of the establishment – then some other person will be elected instead of me.

And – yes.

It is - that simple.

Which is why we can't look at certain of the supposedly more 'caring' and 'progressive' candidates without experiencing a degree of cynicism as to their real motivations: the public good of child protection – or a quick round of free publicity ahead of the general election next year by piggy-backing on the issue?

Of course – on the platform – there will not be one single candidate who will not proclaim from the rooftops their commitment to child protection.

But how do you, as a voting member of the public, decide just how serious and strong is such a generally proclaimed wish to protect children – when every single member of the current States assembly – would make exactly the very same claim – but largely fail to match such easily given words – with real action?

How do you know that the people on the election platform won't all be largely the same as most of the current assembly – once elected?

For example – if many of the current States members were truly serious in their claims to want to stop the child protection failures of the past – the Chief Constable, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal, would, by now, have been restored to the post he was unlawfully suspended from.

And the Chief Executive to the States, Bill Ogley – who unlawfully conspired with other civil servants to conceal child protection failures – would have been sacked.

But no – as those two examples show – talk is cheap.

If you – as an ordinary member of the public – are serious about the need to protect vulnerable children – and you recognise the absolute overriding and fundamental importance of ensuring that such protection is real, and not just make-believe – there will only be one candidate on that platform who has shown absolute commitment.

The first ever States member – in all the post-war years – to recognise, and speak out against the child protection failures. Me.

A subject I feel so strongly about – I have given up my political seat, when I need not have done so – in order to take the matter to the public – for them to vote upon.

And I have a very – very – clear and honest message to voters as they approach the by-election.

That message is this.

If you disagree with me – if you do not support my purpose in bringing about this by-election - I do not want your vote.

Please – do not vote for me.

If you do not agree with me that the many decades of child protection failures – and the disastrous breakdown in responsible governance that permits such things – must finally be faced - and the rot removed – then vote for one of the other candidates.

If you believe – that in the year 2010 – the traditional “Jersey Way” of dealing with scandals – waiting until the dust has settled, then just brushing it all under the carpet when no one is looking – is the correct approach, then do not place your cross next to my name.

I do not want your vote.

If – on the other hand – you share my view that the disgraceful failures to properly protect vulnerable children must be addressed – and that a clear message needs to be sent to those who have failed – then you will vote for me.

I feel I must, in the interests of honesty, state the situation that starkly because unless the people of Jersey share my priorities and endorse my views – then, frankly, there would be no point in me being a States member. That is why I will not be going to the public with any kind of toned-down, diluted message.

On the contrary.

Should I be re-elected – what you will get from me is more of the same – only more so.

I have nothing to be apologetic about.

If – like a lot of Jersey traditionalists – you prefer “politeness” - over the truth – then my advice is cast your vote elsewhere; I'm not your man.

And should the public not want that which it is I bring to the political table – then all well and good. I will be released – to no small personal relief – my conscience satisfied. I will not seek re-election at a future date.

But if islanders want Jersey politics to be given a long overdue clean-out, then I'm prepared to lead that task – beginning with that highest of priorities – proper standards of governance and accountability for our child protection systems.

Given the experiences of the last three years, I will explain what needs doing, and why, in further postings during the coming days and weeks.

Many people reading this blog may be genuinely confused as to the real, underlying issues behind the child protection controversy of the last few years. And it is very easy to understand why that should be – given how little of the evidence that I have uncovered and placed in the public domain, has been reported by the local mainstream media.

To those people, who may be uncertain about the issues – who may not really understand the arguments concerning the States of Jersey's child protection failures – I ask you to come to the public meeting, which is taking place at 7.30 pm on Monday 17th May, at the Town Hall in St. Helier. Anyone with an open mind will gain a new understanding of the issues.

And as grave and as dramatic as the child protection failures are – the same, underlying weaknesses in our systems of governance cause us as a community many other serious problems – be those problems of economics, of unemployment, of public finance, of environmental destruction, of cronyism, of corruption. Of course - there are no miracle cures – but we can make things a great deal better. And if we are to do that – then we have to make a start.

And what more important subject can there be - what higher priority can we, as a decent community have – with which to begin fixing the failures in our systems of governance, than to ensure the proper protections of vulnerable children?

As I wrote above - if a society cannot protect its children – then it cannot protect anything – including itself.

Posted by Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret at 14:38


Taken from the Telegraph 18th July 2009

Why does Jack Straw need hundreds in HR?
While the private sector tightens its belt in the recession, at least one area of Westminster has undergone an astonishing expansion. Mandrake has discovered that more than 25 per cent of the civil servants at the Ministry of Justice work in "human resources".

By Richard Eden
Published: 9:54PM BST 18 Jul 2009

According to a Parliamentary Answer, Jack Straw's department, which was created only two years ago, employs a staggering 970 personnel staff, out of a total of 3,680 officials.

Robert Blevin, of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, tells me that a private company with a similar number of staff would be expected to employ about 40 people in human resources. "These figures do sound like a lot," he says.

The Justice Ministry is not the only offender. Four hundred of the Department for Work and Pensions's 5,650 staff work in HR. A similar-sized private company would employ around 60.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice says it is "unable to reconcile" the figures, which were compiled by the Office for National Statistics, with its own "management information".

The Ministry of Justice was created by merging the Department for Constitutional Affairs (formerly known as the Lord Chancellor's Department) with parts of the Home Office responsible for criminal justice policy, sentencing policy, probation, prisons and prevention of re-offending in England and Wales.

Tuesday, 11 May 2010


Any of us who have been through the secret family court will understand exactly how they set about isolating and destroying people. Please pray for this man, they are round him like vultures.

Saturday, 8 May 2010


With more than a little bit of help from his trusty assistant Diane Smith, David Kidney has lost his seat in Stafford.

NOW will you people realise that the Lord does not take too kindly to those who oppress His children? Yes, and He is not too happy about politicians who PRETEND to support people who have been oppressed, but in reality mock and snigger about them behind their backs, and call them nasty names.

Oh, Glory, praise the Lord, His justice is as sweet as honey!