Search This Blog

Saturday, 29 June 2013

"Max Igan Explains The Edward Snowdon Saga And The Opportunity Presented To Humanity"

"Peacefully Fighting Back With
Non Compliance"


Non-compliance means not paying tax, not paying social security (as we never get any anyways) not doing what government tells us, ignoring the commands and demands of the police, refusing to pay parking tickets for parking on the roads we already own! Go to jail if you have to, but tell them....

"NO MORE!!!"






Friday, 28 June 2013

"New Law Has Sweet F.A To Do With 'IMMIGRATION' - But It Has Everything To Do With 'CONTROL'?"

New law tackles immigration control




A new law which sets out work and housing rights in Jersey takes effect from next Monday.

Islanders who buy or lease a new property, or start work with a new employer, will have to apply for a registration card.


The new law aims to bring in a more effective system of immigration control and it will also change the system for residential qualifications, replacing it with four new categories:


Entitled - someone who has lived in Jersey for 10 years. 


Licensed - someone who is an 'essential employee'​.


Entitled to Work - someone who has lived in Jersey for five consecutive years immediately before the date the card is issued, or is married to someone who is Entitled, Licensed, or Entitled to Work​.


Registered - Someone who does not qualify under the other categories.


People moving to Jersey will have to pay £75 to get a registration card from Social Security before they take a job or move into accommodation.

Islanders who are Entitled or Entitled to Work will not have to pay for a card if they need to apply for one. The registration cards will replace Social Security cards.



Now the truth of the last paragraph is that the law left matters about charges, to the Minister, Francis Le Gresley's discretion. Mr le Gresley, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that the charge for islanders who are entitled, will be £35.00 thus earning the States of Jersey a cool £2 Million plus at the stroke of the tax paying mugs pen!!!




"Deconstructing The Garbage Above"



Honestly Sheeple, if you believe this shyte, you will believe anything.

Let us look at the E.C.H.R Preamble


The European Convention on Human Rights


The Governments signatory hereto, being Members of the Council of Europe,

Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948;

Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its Members and that one of the methods by which the aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realization of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend;

Being resolved, as the Governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the Rights stated in the Universal Declaration;

Have agreed as follows:

At the third line it says; "Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

Black's Law Dictionary; 'CONSIDER'

"To entertain or give heed to."

This is telling us that everyone must entertain/give heed to the U.D.H.R

The very first line of the U.D.H.R preamble states;

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

This clearly establishes that we have inalienable rights, something that the Jersey Government, and Sam Mezec, would rather you didn't know!

Inalienable rights cannot be taken away from us as they are inherent, they are ours, we were born with them, they were endowed to us by our creator.

To clarify the above, let us take a look at Articles one, two, and seven.

Article 1.

  • All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

  • Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

  • All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

So....what of our U.D.H.R rights to rent/buy property, and work?

Article 13.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
  • (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 17.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 23.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
  • (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
  • (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
  • (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

  • Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  • (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Myself and Le Squirrel, if we have time, are going to attempt to deconstruct the nonsense that is the "Work and Housing Law" and which is due to be forced onto the unsuspecting tax paying mugs of the island of Jersey on the 1st of July 2013.


If we cannot accomplish this in time, and you feel you are obliged to "SUBMIT" an "APPLICATION" for "REGIS-TRATION" to our Nazi Government before we accomplish a full deconstruction of this, err, "LAW" then at least write V-C before your signature....

V.C means "Via Coercion"

It is a safeguard when being forced or pressured into signing something you think you must, but are not sure if you have to sign!!!

REMEMBER ONE THING

"Ignorance of the Law is no excuse"



"Another Freebie For The Freak Brothers"

Gorst goes to China

& so does the Whiner!!!

Dumb and Dumber
but not as dumb
as the tax paying Yummer!
Jersey's Chief Minister and his deputy are off to China next week.


Amongst the stops on Senators Ian Gorst and Sir Philip Bailhache tour will be Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing.


In Beijing, the Chief Minister will attend meetings at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Agriculture and the People’s Bank of China.


The idea is to promote the island's finance industry in one of the world's fastest growing markets.


Senator Gorst said: "It is important that Jersey is properly represented in fast-growing markets such as China. 


"This will be a busy visit and I am confident that strengthening 27 June 2013 business and diplomatic relations with the world’s second largest economy will deliver long term benefits for the Island."

When are the mugs going to learn?

Keep paying Sheeple :)



Thursday, 27 June 2013

"How The States of Jersey Police Cover Up Machine Really Works" PART 5

"Deputy Chief Officer Barry Taylor
Still Suppressing Report Into
Jersey Police Corruption"

D.C.O Barry Taylor refusing to hand over independent report
into police corruption compiled by outside investigators!
PART 1

PART 2

PART 4


So....another off island investigation report being suppressed, isn't it about time the people of Jersey started asking why it is always the independent reports that never see the light of day?

Just as that crook, Sir Michael Birt did with the Avon & Somerset Police Report back in the late nineties, yet another report is being kept from me. This report concerns the beating I received from four officers on the 21st June 2006, all of whom denied any wrongdoing, lied in their witness statements, then all four went on to commit perjury at my trial.

I had tried to record the beating on my mobile phone, yet could not locate the short cut to the recording device as I had only just bought the phone. Accidentally, and without my knowledge, I had inadvertently somehow rang an acquaintances home phone number stored in the phones memory bank. The phone rang at his home but he never answered, thus the whole incident was recorded on his answerphone :)

It was only a week before my trial that I actually found out about the recording, when confronted in the street as to whether I had been beaten by the police some months earlier, was I informed of the existence of the recording. The trial judge, Ian Le Marquand, heard this recording through at trial, yet astonishingly dismissed this damning evidence because he said he could not hear the recording. From the long faces in the courtroom, it was abundantly clear that everyone else in the courtroom heard it.

Crook and Fruitcake, Ian Le Marquand

I was fined £500 by the Fruitcake Le Marquand and I appealed immediately, this did not go down well with the Establishment but because I had been fined £500 I was not entitled to legal aid, the threshold to qualify for legal aid for an appeal was any fine "EXCEEDING" £500. Can anyone guess why the Fruitcake Le Marquand fined me exactly £500?

This case went to appeal (conducted by myself) where the Commissioner and the two Ju-Rats all agreed that I had been badly treated, and on two occasions in their judgement, had agreed that the police had lied about the events that night. After retiring for two hours to consider their judgement, they came back and declared that despite the police lies and the ill treatment meted out to me, I was still guilty!!!

Of course, they had absolutely no evidence whatsoever that I had done anything wrong, but that little inconvenience was not going to stop them from protecting four of Jersey's finest! The only bonus, if one can call it that, was they never awarded costs against me, how kind of them....

Barry Taylor has, on a number of occasions, refused me a copy of the independent report that was commissioned into this State sponsored criminality, he has also denied my ex lawyer a copy of this report. Three months ago, I wrote to D.C.O Barry Taylor, yet again requesting a copy of the report as I wished to compile a civil case against the officers, Mr Taylor has completely ignored this letter which was hand delivered to the police station, and which a receipt was issued for it's delivery.

Yesterday, I yet again wrote to Barry Taylor inviting him to do his job properly and issue me with a copy of the report, both letters requesting this report are below.


Ian-Leslie:Evans
c/o 


Jersey
D.C.O Barry Taylor
Police Headquarters
Rouge Bouillon, St Helier
18/03/2013

Dear Sir

I find myself, yet again, writing to request a copy of the report compiled by Mr William Little and his colleague into the case of 21/06/2006 where I was grave and criminally assaulted by four of your officers, and which officers then went on to commit perjury at my subsequent trial. I have no legal representation now as my Advocate has all but abandoned my cases, so again I am requesting a copy of this report.

If you believe that there is any lawful justification why I cannot be given a copy of this report, could you please state that reason for the record. I find it utterly incomprehensible that I cannot have access to material related to my own complaint, and which lack of disclosure of such material is preventing me from progressing in a civil case against these officers.

I look forward to a positive response from yourself at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely



Ian-Leslie:Evans
All Inherent Inalienable Rights Reserved.


"Latest Letter Below and 3 Months Later"


Ian-Leslie:Evans
c/o 

DCO Barry Taylor
Police Headquarters
Rouge Bouillon, St Helier
26/06/2013


Dear Sir

Further to my letter of the 18th March 2013 addressed to yourself, a copy of which is enclosed, and which has to date gone completely ignored, I write to ask why you are ignoring my request therein?

I wrote to you to request a copy of the report compiled by Mr William Little and his colleague into the case of 21/06/2006 as I wish to pursue a civil claim in this matter. If there is any lawful reason why I cannot have a copy of that report into my own case, could you please state that reason for and on the public record?

I hereby notify you that if you have no lawful excuse for withholding this document which is vital to my civil claim, then I will commence proceedings against you in your capacity as a police officer, and against you personally. You have until Friday the 5th of July 2012 to respond to this letter and to produce the document that I ask for.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity



Ian-Leslie:Evans

All Inherent Inalienable Rights Reserved



Is it not utterly ridiculous that I have to threaten a Deputy Chief Officer with a civil case and a commercial lien just to get hold of a genuine investigation report into one of my own cases?

People must sit back and ask themselves, why would Taylor still not produce the report?

The answers are really very simple.

1. It shows all four police officers to be utter lying bullying perjuring criminals.
2. It shows the judge, Ian Le Marquand up for the corrupt cheating bigot that he is.
3. It shows the Royal Court up for the disgustingly corrupt entity it is.
4. It shows all the cover up that went on after the appeal during the complaints process.


Tomorrow we will delve into the other criminal entities in this case, some of which are regarded as our highest dignitaries sitting on the throne of Jersey.




Wednesday, 26 June 2013

"How The States of Jersey Police Cover Up Machine Really Works" PART 4

"Questions Without Answers
Jersey Police Style"


Below is the letter I sent to D.C.O Barry Taylor in response to yesterday's
questions without answers!


Ian-Leslie:Evans
c/o 


26/06/2013
DCO Barry Taylor
Police Headquarters
Rouge Bouillon, St Helier

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter dated 16th May 2013 to which I now respond. I must first state my abhorrence at the timescale for this response which has been exactly eight months, and which you put down to an administrative misunderstanding. Am I to deduce by this that the Jersey Police do not, in fact, realise that they are all public servants with a duty to the people? Are they not also aware that letters from the public are to be responded to in a swift and comprehensive manner?

I confess, I find this a very poor excuse which is further compounded by the fact that the unknown officer actually rang me back to tell me I would not receive a response to my letter, clearly someone had told him to relay this message to me, and in my view, we need to find out who that someone is?

Turning now to your response to my questions, I find many of your answers incomplete, and in some cases, evasive. These are very simple questions that require very simple answers which have not been forthcoming, I did ask for comprehensive answers Sir. I list the questions below for your ease of reference.

Questions in black.
Answers in blue.
Problem with answers in red.

1. I was arrested for suspicion of contempt of court, I would like to know who it was who initially made the complaint to the police in this regard?
1. The initial referral to Police was made by staff at the Magistrate’s Court.
1. With respect Sir, “staff at the Magistrates Court” does not cut the mustard? This is not an answer, I need a name so I can ascertain why this particular individual felt compelled to make a criminal complaint when no crime had been committed? Then to decide by any answer they may give, whether or not a civil action is called for against them.

2. I would like to know the exact date that this complaint came to the attention of the police?
2. The complaint was made to the Police on 10 February 2012.
2. Answer is fine.

3. I would like to know who took this complaint?
3. On receipt, the complaint was recorded as an incident log by a Civilian Support Officer.
3. Again Sir, your answer does not answer my question, I need a name please.

4. I would like to know who they passed it to for further action?
4. The file was then created and enquiries made by two uniformed officers before being referred to the Response Investigation Unit for attention.
4. Again Sir, who were the two officers? And who was/were the officer/s of the Response Investigation Unit? I need names Sir.

5. I would like to know who authorised the alleged warrant for my arrest and the consequent ransacking of the above address?
5. Following your arrest on 9 March 2012, your home was searched under the provisions of Article 20 (i) of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 which was authorised by the Duty Officer. There was no requirement to apply for a warrant to search as this statutory power was utilised.
5. Yet again Sir, you have refused to give me the name of the Officer involved, why is this? Furthermore, must I not be a criminal for the Police Procedure and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 to be utilised against me? Also, this being a statute, are the police not obliged to ask my consent for this law to be used against me given that a statute “CAN” only be given the force of law “WITH” my consent? If your officers had taken the time and spoken with me before running off to ransack my home, they would have been able to establish that I had not, in fact, committed any crime as was later established as being the case, and therefore my heart attack could have been avoided entirely.

6. I would like to know why this alleged warrant was not signed by a judge (operating under their Oath of Office at the time of signing) and why there was no court stamp on the alleged warrant?
6. As above – there is no requirement for a warrant as an Article 20 (i) power was used.
6. As above, my same questions apply.

7. I would like to know why I was not read my rights when allegedly arrested?
7. At the time of your arrest by the arresting officer you were cautioned and gave a reply – “I don’t understand” at which point the officer explained again the reason for your arrest. You were made aware of your ‘rights’ when you were presented to the Custody Officer which is shown on your custody record number 201200543.
7. Answer is fine as I do not recollect vividly.

8. I would like to know why a simple phone call would not have sufficed, asking me to attend the police station?
8. A voluntary attendance at the Police Station was not considered appropriate in order to save and preserve any evidence relevant to the alleged offence.
8. That is acceptable under the circumstances, yet there is still the fact that your officers marched off to my home without establishing, or even attempting to establish that any crime had actually been committed. This only leaves the strong impression that the ransacking of my home was completely unavoidable through due process of law, and which is totally unacceptable.

9. I would like to know why I was not informed that * ********* ******** was going to be ransacked?
9. Your home was not ransacked. A detailed search was conducted and property seized for examination. It is not routine to notify individuals when under arrest that their property is to be searched.
9. I was not notified of any search, there was no independent witness to the search, and your officers did not have my consent to enter my home as required under statutory law. All things considered Sir, I would describe this as a ransacking with total disregard for my rights and the law. Again Sir, your officers made no attempt to ascertain whether or not a crime had actually been committed, why not? I would also point out that at the time of my arrest I had the device on me with which I recorded proceedings in the magistrate’s court. That beggars the simple question, why on earth would my computer need to be seized when the alleged evidence was on my phone?

10. I would like to know why there was no independent witness to the ransacking of this property?
10. Your property was searched by two uniformed Police Officers thereby providing corroboration of what was done, searched and seized. There was no requirement to involve an ‘independent’ witness.
10. I take it by this, that you are saying that all your officers are upstanding honest trustworthy public servants? With my experience of your police officers Sir, I can categorically state that this is most definitely not the case, they could have planted anything in my home, including bugs. This search is also the reason why my good (female) friend who was living with me, left, and which caused much hardship to me as a result.

11. I would like to know the names of the officers who arrested me?
11. The arresting officers were DC 310 Du Feu and DS 272 Ryan. You were transported to the Police Station by PC 252 O’Neill and PC 384 Gibson.
11. Thank you Sir, at last we have some names, and a couple of interesting names at that. PC 252 O’Neill, the man who committed perjury against Cyril Vibert!  DC 310 Du Feu, is this not the same chap who beat me in 2006 along with three of his colleagues? Who then went on to lie in his statement of the incident, and rounded his corrupt actions off with a prolonged bout of perjury in the Magistrate’s Court? This same individual having been protected by certain members of the establishment? Why is he still in the force? He should be in prison Sir, as you are well aware.

12. I would like to know the names of the officers who entered the premises addressed above?
12. The officers who searched your property were PC 710 Pouillequen and PC 386 Richardson.
12. Thank you Sir.

13. I would like to know under what authority items were removed from this address?
13. Items were seized under the authority of Article 21 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003.
13. Again Sir, as this is statutory, does it not require my consent to be used against me? This Law also states the following….
"20 Entry and search after arrest
(1) Subject to this Article, a police officer may enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for a serious offence or for any other offence the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of one year or more.”

“21      General power of seizure etc.
(1)     The powers conferred by paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) are exercisable by a police officer who is lawfully on any premises.”

Judging by what is written above, does anyone believe for the slightest moment that this alleged offence was serious, or that it carried a sentence of more than one year? Or, as in 21, that the officers were lawfully on the premises?

14. I would like to know the names of everyone who came into contact with the (seized) property?
14. Persons who came into contact with the seized property were predominantly the searching officers. The Property Officer would have been involved when moving the items from the temporary property store to the main store room.
14. As two of my pieces of equipment were damaged Sir, I would like to know who the Property Officer was?

15. I would like to know why some of this property was damaged?
15. It is unclear as to what property you are claiming has been damaged. There is no evidence that any damage was caused to any item. However, if you can provide additional details this would be helpful.
15. Sir, at the time my property was handed back to me at the police station, I made complaint there and then to the lady who handled my property, informing her about my camera not working and that my mouse antenna had been bent and broken. She stated she would log the damage on file.

16. I would like to know how long it took to collate the data from the (seized) property?
16. Your property was retained whilst awaiting a decision from Force Legal Advisors (FLA) on the actions to be taken. Evidence of the alleged offence was obtained from two audio recordings which had been posted on a blog site (therighttoreply.blogspot.com).
16. With respect Sir, your answer has nothing to do with the question that I posed at this particular juncture. Indeed, I wish to know how long it took to collate the evidence from my computer?

17. I would like to know who had the final authorisation to return this property?
17. The authority to retain all items of property was given by the Force Legal Advisors and the investigating officer in the Response Investigation Unit.
17. So who exactly were the Force Legal Advisors in this case? And also, who was the investigating officer of the RIU?

18. I would like to know why this property was not returned immediately after the alleged evidence was gathered?
18. The seized property was retained for forensic examination / download if required. Your ‘phone was retained longer than other property as it was the most ‘evidential’. I accept that there should not have been any undue delay in returning your property to you.
18. In actual fact Sir, all my property was retained for longer than my phone was!

19. I would like to know why my mobile phone could not be returned to me after the data was extracted from it, as this resulted in my business being restricted which is a very serious matter?
19. Your mobile ‘phone was retained on the advice of the Force Legal Advisors. On 5th April 1013 the FLA confirmed that your ‘phone could be returned to you.
19. Again Sir, you have not answered my question.

20. I would like to know who had the authority, and did in fact order this property to be detained a whole month?
20. The investigation was conducted as expeditiously as possible. As explained above, your property was retained until such time as the Force Legal Advisors had determined whether prosecution action should follow. I understand the inconvenience that this has caused, but your property was returned as soon as was possible.
20. Sir, I asked “who” had the authority, and “did” order this property to be detained a whole month? Again, I need a name Sir.

21. I would like to know why I was given two days of the run around treatment when simply trying to find out who I could ask for my property back?
21. There are records of emails and calls made by you in respect of your property which were referred to the investigating officer for attention.
21. Again, who was the investigating officer to whom you refer to above? I fail to see how the police could have emails from me as you have stated above, as the police had both of my computers! Again Sir, you have failed to answer my question.

22. I would like to know why I have still not been charged with any offence in connection with this arrest and seizure?
22. A file in respect of your case was submitted by the Police to the Force Legal Advisors on 23 March 2012. On 31 October 2012, the Law Officers’ Department confirmed that you would not be prosecuted. You were notified of this decision on 1 November 2012.
22. I was bringing to attention, the amount of time that had passed at the time of writing my letter to Inspector Le Hegerat.

23. I would like to know what reparations the police force intend to make regarding the disgraceful and shabby treatment I received.
23. I note your concerns about your treatment in this case. The case was a legitimate investigation following receipt of a complaint from the Court. I am aware that you have made complaints about Police actions which will be examined accordingly and addressed as part of the complaint enquiry.
23. “The case was a legitimate investigation” Forgive me Sir, but I beg to differ. The complainant (still unnamed) must have been aware of the recording posted on my blog, that recording will have been listened to by any investigating officer before any Police action was taken. Any officer that isn’t tone deaf would have clearly heard me tell the Court that “I am recording this administrative process” and those in Court would have seen me hold my phone at head height when I made this statement, Bridget Shaw was looking directly at me at the time I held my phone aloft. The Court could have, there and then if it chose, dealt with this matter by either asking me to stop recording, or by seizing my phone, the Court did neither!

You finish by stating “I hope these answers provide you with the information you require”. No Sir, they do not, as most of the questions have not been answered. I am fully aware that it is standard police practice in Jersey to give people like myself, who question authority, the long run around, but this is getting rather ridiculous even by Jersey standards. Again Sir, I would like full and complete answers to ‘all’ of my questions, and without waiting another eight months.

I will eventually be bringing a civil case against the States of Jersey Inc with regard to the disgraceful and criminal treatment I have had to endure over the last twenty five years. Anyone wishing to withhold information from me with regard to this pending civil action will be met with a commercial lien in the future.

Again Sir, I look forward to your full cooperation in this matter.

Yours sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity




Ian-Leslie:Evans
All Inherent Inalienable Rights Reserved





Tuesday, 25 June 2013

"How The States of Jersey Police Cover Up Machine Really Works" PART 3

"When Cases & Conflicts Overlap"


Below is a quick recap from my last postings which are linked below.

So....To sum matters up.

I have lodged a complaint against Mike Bowron, to Mike Bowron. He in turn has allocated the investigation of this complaint against himself to his deputy Barry Taylor, whom Mike Bowron himself is investigating for perverting the course of justice & dereliction of duty, and who has recently found himself not guilty of any wrongdoing in the case that VFC has reported at the link above. This complaint will then be sent to Ian Le Marquand who was the judge in the first case of the four cops, and who was then the Home Affairs Minister in that same case who dismissed my complaints against himself as the judge in the case, my complaints against David Warcup, and my complaints against Barry Taylor. This nonsense is further compounded by the fact that these complaints will eventually fall at the foot of the Jersey Police Complaints Authority who have brazenly dismissed all my complaints against all concerned in all my previous complaints. The very same government 'rubber stamp' outfit that, along with the Attorney General Tim Le Cocq and the Jersey Police, have conspired to cover up the perjury in Cyril's case, and the grave and criminal assault by policemen in Maria's case....

PART 1

PART 2

D.C.O Barry Taylor

"The Conflict Of Interest Continues,
And So Does The Nonsense"

So....still dealing with the request for information in regard to the events last year that led to my arrest, my home being ransacked, my property being stolen, and my subsequent heart attack induced by the actions of the police and the judiciary, I have now received a letter from Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand.

Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand

This letter informs me that I am about to receive a letter from D.C.O Barry Taylor which will answer all of my 23 questions posed in the letter to Inspector Mary Le Hegerat.

It also brings up another case which is yet unresolved, or so I thought, but Mr Le Marquand and his merry men appear to have resolved some of it without even informing me?

This was the case in June of 2006 where four brave Jersey policemen Grave & Criminally assaulted me, lied in their statements, committed perjury at my trial, and have so far evaded justice thanks to the Maleficent Seven's intervention. The letter is below.




My response to this letter is below.







Following this, is the letter that I received from Deputy Chief Officer, Barry Taylor, purporting to answer my 23 questions. Unfortunately, this letter has taken exactly 8 months to be compiled and does not answer many of the questions posed in my original letter.

However, I shall be dealing with that aspect in tomorrow's posting.














Monday, 24 June 2013

"Jersey Police Finally Given Enough Rope!"

Jersey Police begins trial of police body cameras







Insp Sarah Henderson said the cameras would only
record when officers were dealing with an incident.

But will any parts of the recordings suddenly fail to
work at a later date as in the Nathanial Le Corre case?

http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2011/05/this-case-cannot-be-won-you-owe-us-6000.html

The States of Jersey Police is to begin a trial which will see officers wearing mini video cameras when on duty.
Police officers are being trained in the next few days and the trial will begin on 1 July.
Jersey's Police Chief Mike Bowron announced the plans earlier this year as part of a review of the technology the force uses.
The £400 cameras are fixed to officer's uniforms but only record when dealing with an incident.
The police say suspects tend to admit guilt earlier when confronted with video evidence, saving police and court time and that "ultimately results in less of a cost to the taxpayer".


Insp Sarah Henderson, who is leading the project, said they had been used in the UK for a number of years.
She said using recordings can increase police professionalism and be used to review and improve the way officers deal with incidents.
"The use of body worn cameras has been commonplace in the UK for many years and it is something we think we can benefit from here," she said.
"It will provide independent evidence to support the prosecution of offenders, deter anti-social behaviour and ultimately improve community safety."


"Not In Jersey To Hear The Views Of The Public On Corruption"

MPs to meet States Members today


Liberal Democrat MP Sir Alan Beith is among the visitors

JERSEY’S constitutional relationship with the UK will be in the spotlight today when three MPs visit the Island to meet States Members.
Liberal Democrat MP Sir Alan Beith, Plaid Cymru MP Elfyn Llywd and Conservative MP Nick de Bois are members of the UK’s Justice Select Committee, which scrutinises the work of the Ministry of Justice, under whose remit matters concerning Crown Dependencies fall.
Their visit is part of an inquiry to find out the extent to which recommendations made by a previous committee following a report in 2010 on the Crown Dependencies have been implemented.
Chief Minister Ian Gorst submitted written evidence to the panel on behalf of the Island earlier this year which touched on a number of areas, including royal assent and international representation.