Video Content
This box contains video content. In order to view the video you require Flash Player Version 9 or above.
Download Flash Player here
An independent UK report says Senator Stuart Syvret is a bully.
Christopher Chapman was brought in by the States Employment Board to consider the extent of alleged harassment of states employees and the effect it's had on staff in general.
His conclusion is that Senator Syvret's blog has trespassed 'far beyond legitimate expression of concern' and is a torrent of bullying and intimidation.
On his blog Senator Syvret maintains that some senior civil servants are, 'demonstrably incompetent, idle, over-promoted, unethical, a danger to service clients, utterly ineffectual and provably criminal - and yet completely invulnerable.'
Allegations about individuals range from branding one a 'scum-bucket' to claiming another is a 'child rapist', despite no charges even being brought against them.
Mr Chapman interviewed 15 people here in Jersey for his investigation in to the Senator's conduct.
Employees said they were having difficulty sleeping, concentrating at work, socialising and maintaining normal family life. Some had sought medical advice.
Children have been bullied at school or subjected to a campaign of whispering and two employees been arrested without any charges being laid as a direct result of claims made on the blog.
The report doesn't just point the finger at the Senator.
Mr Chapmand told us: 'I think the surprising thing that I've found is that insufficient attention had been given to assessing the extent of the bullying and harassment and then obviously putting in place the measures that need to be taken to the extent to which the employers can to address it and deal with it.
The judge says the States Employment Board could be found to have condoned Senator Syvret's actions by not responding to or challenging the his behaviour.
Mr Chapman's report points out that the States response so far has been to ignore the problem in the vain hope that eventually it would go away.
The bullying issue will now be referred to the Privileges and Procedures Committee.
Senator Stuart Syvret says everything he's claimed on his blog can be substantiated. He claims that Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has seen evidence.
Senator Syvret said the Howard League for Penal Reform's publication last year underlined many of the concerns he has expressed.
Posted By: Jason on 02-Dec-2009
Syvret is now a total disgrace and this is one of the final nails in the coffin. If some of these people really support the minister then I hope they are never a victim of bullying themselves, just for their sanity.
Posted By: Harry St Helier on 01-Dec-2009
I seem to remember that when Syvret had the audacity to suggest that a Senior Politician was using his own law firm to draft a law - for the States to rubber stamp - Syvret was bullied out of the assembly by the old guard...
Posted By: Harry St Helier on 01-Dec-2009
people would not have been arrested simply on the basis of what is put on Syvret's blog... as is contended in your article. The police must have had reasonable grounds other than tittle tattle on a blog. That so many people in Jersey are arrested but never put before a court says more about our legal system and or the police than it says about Syvret.
Posted By: Stan on 01-Dec-2009
"Syvret is a disgrace. He should now show "all" this evidence in order to stop legal proceedings." Matt (and others)
Do try to keep up.
A lot of the evidence he refers to is independent and contained in the Sharp, Howard League and Dylan Southern Reports. It is predominantly these reports which have set Syvret on his misson. If you cannot be bothered to read these reports than you should not be commenting. To re-iterate, the evidence is out there, it is available and - contrary to some posters beliefs - it is not his, it is independent.
Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that the Chapman report is actually recommending that SEB put up or shut up. It is they who should be challenging and refuting - with evidence - any allegations Syvret has made.
Read the reports please.
Posted By: James on 30-Nov-2009
There seems to be some confusion about the remit for Chapman’s investigation. It was not to question the veracity of Syvret’s various campaigns, nor to test the substance of any charges already levied against him by a court of law, nor to second guess the validity of the various claims of abuse he claims to have suffered at the hands of various State departments . It was to establish, plain and simple, whether his comments were abusive, and if so, whether they had been to the detriment of those to whom they were directed. The question of whether these individuals deserved these comments, or indeed even whether the comments were based on factual events which are alleged to have taken place, is irrelevant. Even those who support every aspect of Syvret’s campaigns must realise that the comments were abusive, and were intended to, and did cause distress. That is what the report set out to investigate, nothing else.
Posted By: Harry St Helier on 30-Nov-2009
I think before the policy and proceedures cmt decide to sanction Syvret we should hear the finding of the Veita report.
I suspect that the report will confirm much of what Syvret has said about some of the protagonists.
Then let the public decide if Syvret was right to name and shame.
Posted By: Hannah Planet Earth on 30-Nov-2009
Hmmm so - since this was all in the public domain via Hansard long before Stuart actually started his blog - are the States not guilty of printing emails relating to this?
The title of Judge - in this situation - since he is not a 'Judge' in law anyone of us could add the said title, ie Judge of the Local Flower Show, Judge in sporting events, etc.,etc., before the 'media' hype this man's title up - should they not clarify that this is NOT a judge of law.
Judge Hannah (judge of vegetable produce in a local flower show once) oops also judged between my two children when they were squabbling on regular occasions. I have more strings to my bow than I realised.
Posted By: Denise Zakky - St Saviour on 30-Nov-2009
Mr Chapman's report had a very narrow remit; however, the most important recommendation includes this extract:
"it is the responsibility of the SEB as the employer to refute publicly any such allegation that is made in clear, unequivocal and firm but moderate language that the allegation is baseless. On each occasion the statement
should be backed up wherever possible with the evidence refuting the allegation. In addition to making the denial as widely available as possible staff should be made aware it has been done and the material widely disseminated. "
If there is no truth in the allegations, why have the SEB not yet responded?
I also assume that any evidence that Mr Stuart Syvret has to counter any rebuttal will equally publicised in the same manner.
Posted By: Harry St Helier on 30-Nov-2009
True Syvret should not be bullying alleged child abusers and rapists and murderers. He should not be bullying civil servants who he alleges - cover up such acts.
But surely when the States dismiss or suspend staff for years on end without timely reolution is that not also a gross form of bullying?
Posted By: Sam, St Pierre on 30-Nov-2009
So, Michael, regardless of the extremely high cost you would take legal action, would you? Any reasonable person has only to consider Syvret's intemperate language to form a reasoned opinion of the man's baseless lies. If you believe his diatribe you must be as daft as he is.
Posted By: Nick - St Saviour on 29-Nov-2009
I'm not really buying that.....
Most of the folks that he's attacked wouldn't be in a position to hire a lawyer as its so expensive. If someone did have the cash, and take him to court another problem would be SS using his blog for propaganda, whilst the victim has to abide by the law - the last think you'd want to see is hi poison directed to them ...again
Posted By: Matt on 29-Nov-2009
Syvret uses a blog from the USA so you would have to go through the USA courts to take action (so I understand), but you then have to ask why he is putting these accusations through a USA blog when he should be using the proper local media, if he is so sure of himself.
Posted By: Peter St Saviour on 29-Nov-2009
Why should the individuals named by Senator Syvret be assumed guilty if they are not able to commit tens of thousands of pounds to fund a legal action?
Surely the burden of proof should lie with the accusor and we have seen very little of that so far.
Posted By: Michael St Brelade on 29-Nov-2009
Matt coments a reply
To date none of the persons named on Senator Syvrets blog have taken legal action aginst him why? could the Senator be telling the truth?
If I had allegations made aginst me of the type alledged by the Senator and was innocent I would not hesitate to take action against that person
The fact that to date no actions have been taken speaks volumes to me
Posted By: Tom Newcastle on 29-Nov-2009
Chapman a judge? No he is not! Mr Chapman clearly did not read the Sharp report, and this is just one explanation for his opinion?
.gif)
.jpg)
27/11/2009
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Twitter
Comment on this article