Monday, October 6, 2014


Dear Rob Rose,

         In your column in the Sunday Times you told us that the media is kept on a tight leash in South Africa by the Press Ombudsman Johan Retief who is the main adjudicator for the Press Council.
         Well I’m sorry to have to tell you that’s not true. For a start he only considers complaints, so if a newspaper misbehaves the Ombudsman does nothing unless he gets one.
         The other disturbing aspect is this. In my experience complaints get put into two categories – those from the somebodies and those from nobodies.
         If you are a somebody such as a member of the government, a prominent businessman or a member of the legal profession he is far more likely to find in your favour against an offending newspaper than if you are a nobody like me.
         What happened when I complained that the business section of your paper (Business Times) that you write for continued to use a freelance after he had been exposed as a crook under a Noseweek magazine headline High on the Hogg: How Jim Jones ripped off his website employers and then spun the story?


         Worse still he spun the story in your Business Times to make his former employer Moneyweb look bad (See Press Council’s Brand of Justice – Parts I & II).
         The answer is nothing. My complaint was dismissed by Retief.
         What happened when I complained that the Sunday Times continued to publish clearly dubious get-rich-quick advertisements? Alright I know that the Press Ombudsman conveniently doesn’t deal with advertising complains , but in this case your paper’s internal ombudsman had given an editorial undertaking that something would be done about these.
         I was vindicated completely when people responsible for some of the ads were subsequently exposed by Carte Blanche, the TV investigative channel for defrauding investors out of millions.       
The answer again is nothing. My complaint was dismissed by Retief.
         And when I tried to appeal against his rulings former Judge Ralph Zulman, head of the Council’s Appeals panel, decided my cases did not merit further consideration.
         You mentioned a perfect example of how a somebody gets treated. In winding up the estate of Barry Tannenbaum, who perpetrated the country’s biggest Ponzi scheme, the lawyers and liquidators took more than half of the R100-million collected as their fees and costs. As you know the lawyer for the liquidators complained about the general tone of the Business Times report headed Lawyers gorge on Ponzi cash.
The Ombudsman dismissed most of the complaint but decided that the use of the word gorge had been inappropriate. His absurd explanation, which you reported was that even though the trustees may have been ‘gorging’, it was not for the paper to state this as a fact when the phrase ‘drained money’ should have sufficed.
         Talk about splitting hairs. It appears that he felt he had to give the lawyer something.
         In the column he used to write for Business Times Steve Mulholland accused one of the somebodies the Deputy Director of the Department of Public Enterprise of wrong doing without giving the proof.  After the Director complained to the Ombudsman your paper was ordered to apologise.
         I’m not criticising this decision, but what I am saying is that basically this complaint was no different from my ones which were dismissed. In all the cases what your paper did was obviously wrong.
         In your puff for the Ombudsman you wrote If a publication errs even in one tiny respect the Ombudsman forces it to publish a prominent apology.
         Again this is not true as my complaints alone show and I’m sure there are many other examples.
         Also from what I’ve seen apologies are seldom if ever given the same prominence in papers as the original story.That in itself is immoral. Publications usually do their best to place them where as few people as possible will see them.
          The main part of the Sunday Times had the correction below tucked away on Page 4 whereas the So Many Questions column that it appeared in took up about a quarter of a page on Page 21 the previous week. As this is a regular feature my feeling is that this correction should have been in the column.

         I know this was not something the Ombudsman ordered, but it illustrates how corrections are often handled.
         Your high handed assumption that it’s a common refrain from halfwits and crooks that the press is unaccountable and sensationalist, a third force bent on abusing its self-appointed position as the fourth estate, suggests that it’s perfect.   Well I’m not a crook so there’s only one other category I and anybody else like me who has a beef about the way the press behaves can fit into, in your opinion.
         In the days before blogs and social media the only avenues available to the average person who believed a paper was abusing its position was to write a letter to the editor, complain to the Ombudsman or in extreme cases take costly legal action.  
         Letters however could be easily censored or not even published. And anybody who tried the Ombudsman’s route had to bear in mind that the Press Council’s slogan is: Effective self-regulation is the best system for promoting high standards in the media.
         They would think that wouldn’t they? It’s like appointing and paying the judge at your own trial. How they have been allowed to get away with this as long as they have I don’t know.
         If that’s not abusing its self-appointed position as the fourth estate I don’t know what is.
         Now halfwits like me can take to a blog to tell the world about the shenanigans in the newspaper business that papers don’t want anybody to know.
         Like the results of my complaints to the Ombudsman that I have already mentioned.
         Like Johannesburg’s The Citizen that is making money out of cock (literally) and bull advertisements that even its own Editor agrees are not believable (See The Citizen’s Aladdin’s Cave of Unbelievable adverts).
         Like the refusal of the Caxton Group, the owner of this paper; the Print & Digital Media SA, to which most newspaper publishers belong and the South African Editor’s Forum to even acknowledge that this abuse of the press exists, even though I have brought it to their attention (See Caxton’s Bosses duck dubious adverting issue; Print and Digital Media’s appalling hypocrisy and Editors’ questionable ethics).
         Like the Advertising Standards Authority, the adverting equivalent of the Press Council, that refused to take my complaints about the Citizen’s ads that are exploiting the poor and unsophisticated with promises such as penus enlargement and instant wealth (See Ridiculous Adverting Standards Authority).
         Halfwits like me can even extend their blog tentacles across the world to tell everyone who is interested what the dicey members of the fourth estate are up to in Britain.
         Like the National Union of Journalists, that claims to be the largest organisation of its kind in the world with about 38 000 members, that has given up policing its bad eggs. It did take complaints from the public about its members some years ago until they became so numerous it could no longer afford to do this (See National Union of Journalists’ protection racket).
         You can understand why it was that in this environment the 168 year old News of the World that was once the biggest selling English paper anywhere had to close after its phone hacking scandal final burst into the open.
         No doubt it was brought down by other halfwits like me.
         When it comes to halfwits, as Editor of the Business Times it’s hardly the brightest thing to do to promote fiction as fact in your column in a paper that is read by millions.
         Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman who tells it like it is and not like some of the papers would have it.

P.S. If only I was a somebody I would have a prima facie case to submit to the Press Ombudsman about all the incorrect statements you have given as fact in this column of yours.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014


Dear Readers,
          Given a bit of power some people just can’t help abusing it. Such a person is Murray Norton, a former BBC Radio Jersey presenter, who is standing in the October election for the States of Jersey, as the parliament in this Channel Island is called.
          My son Simon Abbott died of a heart attack in Jersey aged 47 having been relentlessly cyber-bullied in the last two years of his life. And there is ample evidence to show what stress does to your heart.
Norton led the charge ably assisted by his photographer friend Ian le Sueur.
          Simon’s crime in the eyes of Norton and his followers was that he unsuccessfully tried to raise money for the trust he established to help women suffering from post natal depression. He did this in memory of his sister Samantha who committed suicide a few months after the birth of her first child.
         Norton had the power of the BBC behind him at the time the cyber-bullying occurred. And after Simon and I complained the Corporation’s highest authority the BBC Trust took the absurd decision that although its top executives had made Norton stop what he was doing, he had not been a cyber-bully (See BBC’s FINAL WHITEWASH JOB).
          It now turns out that Norton’s bullying extends to more than just social media. He is versatile when it comes to this most cowardly of activities.
          Norton says he has now retired from broadcasting after being a presenter for BBC Radio Jersey and Channel 103 FM. He claims credit for having been involved in charity fund raising for more than 30 years.
          On his blog Stuart Syvret, a former Minister of Health, who was forced out of office for trying to expose corruption by the powerful feudal Establishment that controls the Island, had this to say about Norton.
          Murray is a tireless charity fundraiser even to the extent of taking part in the cyber-bullying campaign of a less successful charity fund raiser in the hope that the unfortunate Simon Abbott would put the donated goods he received into Murray’s far more capable hands (See DID CYBER-BULLIES KILL SIMON ABBOTT).
          We understand that Murray took an active part in the campaign even to the extent of tricking the ill Mr Abbott out of hiding so that Murray’s photographer friend Ian Le Sueur could take an illicit picture of him.
          If Murray has ever expressed contrition for his part in this I have yet to see it.          

          Murray was joined in his efforts by some of the usual suspects including the voluptuous and colourful Maureen Morgan, who is a fortune teller and dildo saleswoman (See JERSEY’S SU-MO WITCH MORGAN GETS THE BOOT).
   Unlike the flaky Morgan, Murray is surely a shoe in with the dopey electorate of middle Jersey. With Murray the Establishment’s future will be in safe hands and the ill-informed will continue to enjoy the government they deserve.
          I always thought Norton was part of the Establishment. That explained why he was protected by the BBC and why the Police refused to take any action against him when Simon complained about being cyber-bullied (See JERSEY’S TWO FACED COPS).
          It also told me why the Establishment’s newspaper the Jersey Evening Post failed to report a line about the cyber-bullying libel case Simon brought in Jersey’s Royal Court against Norton, Le Sueur, Morgan and several others (See JERSEY EVENING POST – THE ONE EYED PAPER).
Norton owns two restaurants on the Island, Murray’s and Mash. And it was his fascist, Jackboot treatment of his staff that was recently exposed in the blog of Nick Le Cornu, a member of the Island’s parliament.
          As a lawyer Le Cornu represented some of Norton’s bullied staff at the local Employment Tribunal. They were what Le Cornu described as disgruntled Romanians complaining of poor employment practices and an arbitrary hire and fire culture.
          Apparently Norton had complained that the locals were work-shy and that was evidently why he employed immigrants from Rumania.
          Blaming locals and saying they don’t have the work ethic to work hard, is a way of disguising the fact that employers want a workforce that does not complain about poor treatment, low wages and long and often anti social hours, Le Cornu claimed.

          Here are examples of what it is like to work for a serial bully.
          Eduard Brailescu, a chef, was summarily dismissed in September 2013 after not turning up for a morning shift at Murray’s. He had contacted the manager the previous evening saying that his landlord required him to vacate his room and the new accommodation he had found fell through, obliging him to search again urgently.
          His shift was easily covered between the head chef and another one.
          However this was not good enough for our serial bully. When Norton, who was on holiday in France, heard what had happened he instructed his manager to immediately fire the Romanian and employ another chef who had worked there before.
          To rub it in our power hungry serial bully refused to pay Eduard his month’s wages to the date of his dismissal.

          The Tribunal only awarded Eduard his unpaid wages and holiday pay, but significantly Le Cornu added, At the time of writing this remains unpaid.
          Another case involved a Romanian kitchen porter working at Mash who over slept and missed his morning shift when his mobile alarm failed to go off because the battery was flat. He charged it and rang to apologise only to be told to come in the next morning. He was then sacked and received no wages for hours worked or in lieu of notice. This was settled out of court.
          A Romanian waitress employed on a full time permanent contract at Murray’s also got the bully’s Nazi treatment when she refused to sign a new short term contract that would have terminated at the end of the season. She was given notice and dismissed on the same day as her proposed temporary contract would have ended.
          But as other people have proved in Jersey if you are part of the Establishment you can virtually get away with murder.

          Hopefully when it comes to the election the locals will remember that Norton doesn’t think much of them as a work force and that they will cast their votes accordingly.

P.S. Morgan recently stood unsuccessfully for the Jersey parliament, but with the backing of the Establishment the serial bully will unfortunately probably have better luck. But that’s the ‘Jersey Way’ as they say in this cyber-bullying capital of the world where a brave few are battling to get a semblance of justice from the administration.



Tuesday, September 2, 2014


Dear Readers,

          It all looked very fair and proper. The BBC Trust, which is the governing body of the British Broadcasting Corporation, would consider my appeal. It was against the decisions of three of the BBC’s top executives that its Jersey Radio presenter Murray Norton had not engaged in or incited cyber-bullying against my son Simon Abbott when I believed he had.
          The Corporation would also appoint an Independent Editorial Adviser to examine the entire case and present a report to aid the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee (Committee) in considering my appeal.
          To make it even more just I was to be given a copy of the report to comment on and my views would then form part of my appeal.
          The complaint was initially made by my son, who died aged 47 after being relentlessly cyber-bullied during the last two years of his life. I took it up after his death.    
            It went through the chain of command from Jon Gripton, Editor, BBC Radio Jersey & BBC Channel Islands TV to Leo Divine, Head of the BBC South West Region and then to David Holdsworth, Controller, English Region, BBC News.
        The background to this story is in various posts of mine such as Did Cyber-bullies kill Simon Abbott? BBC’s Dilemma – Defining cyber-bulling and Defending Murray Norton etc.         

 The BBC's appeal process seemed perfect until a host of secrecy issues arose. Bias raised its ugly head when the Corporation refused to name the Adviser leaving me with the uncomfortable feeling that this was a BBC lackey.          
          I complained that as a pillar of British society the BBC had forgotten one of the main principles of fair justice and that was that Not only must it be done, but it must be seen to be done.
          The Independent whitewash specialist obliterated the names of the three executives, referring to them only by their titles. What reason could there be for this?    

The fishy business didn’t end there, it got worse, a lot worse. In the Adviser’s report references to information that would be given to the Committee, but not shared with the parties kept cropping up.
          What kind of justice is this? I asked. How am I supposed to comment on something that is being kept from me?
          The result of my son’s cyber-bullying allegations that came to naught after being given to the Jersey Police were outlined in the report with this rider The Police statement will be provided to the Committee but it has not been shared with the parties to protect the privacy of the individuals referred to (See my post JERSEY’S TWO FACED COPS).         

The same reason was given for only allowing the Committee to see some public postings relating to Norton which have some relevance to this appeal.
           I was kept out of the picture again when the Adviser referred to private posts on Norton’s Facebook wall. Only this time the Adviser went further by acting as the judge as to what even the Committee should be allowed to see when he/she stated The most relevant ones will be shown to the Committee.       

   The Adviser also went to the absurd lengths of removing the names of people in privileged court documents. I commented that this kind of unnecessary censorship tended to tarnish the veracity of the entire report because it makes one wonder what else the Adviser left out to protect somebody or other.
          The people who were seen by the Adviser were listed. But nowhere was my name mentioned. He/she visited Jersey and had a two and half hour meeting with Norton. He had already given his version to both Gripton and Devine, and Holdsworth had sanctioned it yet the Adviser felt it necessary to spend this amount of time speaking to Norton personally. How independent was this, I wanted to know, if the Adviser never even contacted the only surviving complainant?         
          How could all this secrecy possibly comply with the BBC’s Openness undertaking on its website?
          This tells us: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
          I sent all my concerns mentioned above to the BBC and I was assured they were submitted to the Committee. So far I have never been given any reasons to justify the way the Adviser’s investigation was conducted or why this person had to remain anonymous.

          Were things kept from me in the interest of the wider public or more importantly the BBC?
          Eventually I was given the Committee’s findings. First I got a draft with a  warning that these remain strictly confidential until they are published.
Inevitably when the final version arrived for publication on 1 July, that recurring theme some of the wording has been amended to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned cropped up again.
 But only the Committee would know how it could have been changed to protect anybody when, as far as I could see, neither version named a single person.
          Even my son and I were referred to as Complainants 1 and 2 and Norton was an anonymous BBC radio presenter.
          The Trustee members of the Committee who dealt with my appeal were Alison Hastings (Chairman), Sonita Alleyne, Richard Ayre, Bill Matthews and Nicholas Prettejohn. They were not named in their findings; I had to establish this myself.
          They read into my complaint things that were not there; conveniently ignored very important points; came to conclusions not supported by the evidence; contradicted themselves and put forward a very convoluted argument.
          It was such a sloppy job that they must have spilt whitewash all over themselves by the time they had finished.

          They incorrectly read the following into my complaint and decided (I have taken the liberty of inserting the missing names):

·      that “Norton had said nothing on air about Simon which contravened the BBC’s Editorial Guideline” when I had never suggested this. When I made my initial complaint to Gripton he told me that the BBC had not initiated or endorsed cyber-bullying. I replied that he protesteth too much as I was not alleging this. I told him my concern was about what Norton had done on social media and that it was warped morality for him to say that it wasn’t the BBC’s problem, if Norton, who was a freelance, did this in his spare time.
·      that “Norton’s charity work did not imply the BBC endorsement for one charity or cause above others and neither did it undermine the presenter’s on-air role or the public’s perception of the integrity of the BBC.” Again this was not part of my complaint. My point was that as a charity fund raiser himself he could not be impartial when he attacked the way my son was trying to raise money for the post natal cause after his sister committed suicide while suffering from this affliction.

They ignored these very important points:

·      They dismissed one of two reasons I gave as to why Gripton could not have judge my complaint impartially.

     They did not consider it relevant that Gripton was one of Norton’s Facebook friends and ruled that there had been no need for him to declare this when he replied to me. Conveniently they ignored the other much more important one that Gripton had shown that he regarded cyber-bullying as a joke. In an unrelated matter he Tweeted it was very amusing when somebody was cyber-bullying Shona Pitman, a member of the Jersey parliament with particularly offensive comments. In the same Tweet Gripton mocked her husband Trevor. After a complaint was made to the BBC Gripton disappeared from Twitter for months, even though the Corporation took no action against him.

·      They didn’t even consider my evidence that Norton had incited his photographer friend Ian le Sueur to cyber-bully my son. Norton admitted to the Adviser that when he arranged to meet Simon at a church he got Le Sueur to snatch a picture of my son without his knowledge. Le Sueur then used this to spice up Tweets in which he called Simon a con man, conning items out of celebs and duping people of hard earned money.  There was ample evidence to show that Norton and Le Sueur were working together to discredit my son. But the whitewash Five decided that they should only concern themselves with Norton’s actions and not anybody unconnected to the BBC. To justify the use of their brush once again they quoted this from the Corporation’s conflicts of interest guideline: The external activities of BBC editorial staff, reporters and presenters should not undermine the public’s perception of the impartiality, integrity or independence of BBC output. But far from supporting their case I believe it only fortified mine. What Norton did with Le Sueur was very much part of his external activities and as such should not have just been painted out.

Contrary to the facts they concluded the following:

·      that “Norton’s social media comments amounted to no more than a firm questioning of Simon’s motives and credibility for seeking charitable donations for the charity he had set up.” Threatening my son by saying The Police, the press and possibly the taxation authorities must be sent all complaints with hard evidence that Simons has actually done something wrong was definitely not firm questioning. And nor were the following libellous comments that made Simon out to be a crook. I will once again ask the Jersey Police if they have any further thoughts on him. Simon, if you are reading this, which my friends he might be, give it up, put the items you claim to have from the famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some people in real need – instead of fake events that help no one, even those of us trying to raise funds. There were other Norton comments that made nonsense of the Committee’s firm questioning label.
·      that “on a small island like Jersey it was impossible for a well-known person like Norton to have a private life or for his social media to be private, but Norton had been careful to ensure that his various roles did not cross over in a way that brought the BBC into disrepute.” This was NOT TRUE. He was sued for libel by my son in Jersey’s Royal Court because of his slanderous cyber-bullying together with his friend Le Sueur and five other people. This was widely reported on social media and Britain’s Mail on Sunday, which has a readership of over two million. It carried a page lead story headlined ‘BBC man’s Twitter bullying campaign killed my son’ Devastated father claims offensive comments contributed to son’s heart attack. This was repeated in the MailOnline, which is said to be the most widely read website in the world. Inexplicably in the Committee’s eyes this did not tarnish the BBC’s name. 

They contradicted themselves by stating:

·      that “there was no evidence that the BBC presenter had behaved inappropriately on social media.” Again this was NOT TRUE.
·      that “the advice the BBC presenter had been given by the BBC regarding his involvement in the matter had been appropriate and although the actions could potentially have brought the BBC into disrepute, they did not actually do so.” This was the Committee itself contradicting its conclusion immediately above.
It was a watered down version of what the Adviser revealed. 
This was that Devine made it very clear to Murray that his involvement in this matter was ill judged and could, potentially bring the BBC into disrepute, even if, as he thought, he was acting in his private capacity. Furthermore, his freelance status made no difference to how his comments could be viewed. He was told not to make any further comment on any website concerning Simon Abbott.  In my appeal I stated It is absolutely clear that Devine decided that what Norton was doing was wrong and what Norton was doing was cyber-bullying Simon. There can be no other conclusion from the action Devine took and that’s the gist of this case. But in spite of the action Devine took both he, Gripton and Holdworth stuck to what they had claimed all along and that was that Norton had not cyber-bullied my son.

         In their wisdom the Five rejected my appeal and accepted the very convoluted argument of the BBC’s top brass.
          The Committee capped its findings by emptying the rest of its whitewash onto the BBC by saying it acted in good faith and dealt fairly and openly with both complainants. There was no breach of the Accountability guidelines.
          Jon, a disgusted father who had initially been impressed with the BBC’s apparently very fair appeal procedure, only to find that it was a window dressing illusion.

P.S. While my BBC complaint, which received considerable publicity, was going on Norton announced on his three hour Radio Jersey slot that this would be his last show for the foreseeable future. DOESN’T THAT SPEAK VOLUMNS?

Tuesday, August 26, 2014


Dear Readers, 
         Being unfamiliar with that picturesque island of 

Jersey in the Channel Islands I thought the States of Jersey Police(Moto: Making Jersey Safer) would be very helpful in my efforts to unravel the circumstances surrounding the death of my son Simon Abbott.
How wrong I was. Simon, who had lived on the island for 20 years, died last year aged 47. All the indications are that the heart attack that killed him was brought on by the stress of being relentlessly cyber-bullied in the last two years of his life (See my post did-cyber-bullies-kill-simon-abbott)
Here I was sitting in South Africa, half a world away thinking that Police Chief Mike Bowron would be the right person to contact.
         Simon’s problems began after he set up the Samantha Abbott Trust in memory of his sister to help women suffering from postnatal depression. This was what caused Samantha’s suicide in 2009.
         He had plenty of unusual charity, money making ideas, but it seems that because he had never done this kind of thing before his inexperience resulted in one failure after another. After his first few schemes didn’t work the following ones had no chance because by then the island’s cyber-bullies had warned everyone off by accusing of him being a con man without any evidence to support this allegation.
The best known names among the bullies were Murray Norton a BBC Jersey Radio presenter for many years and a substantial charity fund organiser. His bullying partner was his freelance photographer friend Ian le Sueur, who was also a member of the National Union of Journalists. He arranged for Le Sueur to snatch a picture of Simon, which Le Sueur then used to further malign Simon on social media by calling him a con man and making out he was generally dishonest.
         Norton’s boss Jon Gripton, the Managing Editor of Radio Jersey had this to say about my son, We investigated some of the ‘Simon Abbott saga’ – however we decided against broadcast, partly because we were advised that the States of Jersey Police was investigating and partly because we thought this was more likely a tragic story of a grief-stricken, well-meaning individual who ultimately couldn’t deliver the events he dreamed up.
          Below is part of a letter sent in July this year to Bowron by Rico Sorda one of Jersey’s many anti- establishment blogggers (                
          He and particularly his wife have been getting the same kind of cyber-bullying treatment as my son got. The bully in this case is Jon Sharrock Haworth, a 44 year old convicted petty criminal who has been used by the establishment to do its dirty work. He now appears to be protected game. Here's the gist of one episode revealed in Britian's parliament because Jersey's Data Protection law prevented it from being disclosed on the Island.

         As you will see from my earlier experience with Bowron which I will tell you about below he runs true to form protecting certain people connected to Jersey’s elite. Sorda got much the same dismissive treatment from Bowron as I got.  
               In an email I sent in October last year I put six questions to Bowron and he replied through his Deputy Barry Taylor.
         He confirmed that Simon had made two complaints to the Police about being cyber-bullied, but legal opinion was that no offence had been committed. He refused to name the individuals Simon claimed to be involved as he maintained I am unable to provide details of third parties to you under the Data Protection Law.
         This is a notorious piece of legislation that the authorities in Jersey use to cover a multitude of sins.
         At one stage it was given to me by an ambulance official as a reason why he couldn’t name the paramedics who had attended to my son when he collapsed at a cafĂ©.

         Taylor confirmed that my son had complained to the police about being assaulted and having his cell phone stolen. But he refused to name the person Simon named presumably because of that secrecy law. There were no independent witnesses so nobody was prosecuted.
         The fifth question I put to Bowron was: Did Simon ever complain to you personally about being cyber-bullied or assaulted? If so what action did you take?
         Taylor answered: Your son did introduce himself to Mr Bowron on one occasion in St Helier (the capital of Jersey) town centre when he gave Mr Bowron one of his business cards. Mr Bowron has no recollection of Simon discussing these particular matters with him.
         In my replying email to Taylor I said: Mr Bowron comes across as extremely vague for Jersey’s most senior policemen. What reason could Simon possibly have had in handing Mr Bowron his business card other than to get him to investigate Simon’s cyber-bullying allegations and perhaps also the assault incident? People don’t walk up to the Chief of Police just for the hell of it and say: ‘Wouldn’t you like my business card?’ without a very good reason.

         In my final question to Bowron I asked if Le Sueur, who has a business called Kandidprints was ever an honorary policeman.
         In keeping with the very unhelpful nature of his replies Taylor stated that as the States of Jersey Police was independent of the Honorary Police that operated in each of the 12 Parishes in the Island they had no details of these officers.
         My comment to him was: This makes the Jersey Police akin to the Keystone Cops. Are you telling me that the Honorary Police are so independent from your Force that you would be unable to establish if a particular person is, or was an Honorary policeman by merely picking up the phone.
         I wanted to know if Le Sueur, who Simon sued for libel together with Norton and various others in relation to cyber-bullying, had any Police connection because if so it appeared that this was why he was getting favourable treatment.
         He was also the person Simon claimed had assaulted him.
         That was my Bowron experience. He certainly seems to have adapted well to the entrenched code of secrecy that pervades the Island to protect those with influence. He was previously head of the City of London Police where I’m sure this kind of behaviour would have made headlines had it existed.

         Around the middle of last year I appealed to the BBC Trust against a decision made by its senior executives to dismiss my complain that Norton had cyber-bullied my son. As part of this appeal the BBC appointed an unnamed, so called Independent Editorial Adviser to look into the matter. I was given the adviser’s findings to comment on.
         The Adviser reported that the Jersey Police were asked if there had been any police investigation into Simon, his charitable affairs or his allegation of cyber-bullying made against him. Instead of telling the Adviser that this could not be disclosed under the Data Protection Law the Police replied:
         Between September 2009 and December 2012 Mr Abbott made a number of complaints (5) to the States of Jersey Police, and a similar number (6) were made against him by various people, some of which related to concerns about financial handling of charity affairs, as well as harassment-related complaints made both by and against him.
         Charges were not brought against any individual. In general this was owing to a lack of evidence regarding criminality and it included those concerns relating to financial dealings.
         Investigations into allegations that Mr Abbott was a victim of cyber-bullying and/or harassment were reviewed by legal advisers and it was determined that there was no evidence of criminality.
         There is no specific offence in Jersey relating to cyber-bullying but we would look at whether the activity constituted harassment. For the purposes of this Article a person ought to know that his or her course of conduct amounts to harassment of another person if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think it amounted to harassment.
         The BBC’s Adviser reported that Le Sueur had been a member of Jersey’s Honorary Police since April 2012.
         But one of the most sinister aspects of the report was this: The Police statement will be provided to the Committee (the people hearing my appeal) but it has not been shared with the parties to protect the privacy of the individuals referred to.
        That showed just how 'independent' the BBC's Adviser was. No wonder they wouldn't tell me his name.
        So the Two Faced Cops evidently disclosed a lot more to the BBC, with names as well, than the Corporation was prepared to let me see.   

The Police conveniently ignored examples of harassment by both Norton and Le Sueur that complied perfectly with the definition of the law. And the proof was there for all to see on social media.
         Here are a couple of examples:
Norton: I have pretty much run out of patience with this guy. I’ve met him, tried to help him and he has even had the cheek to complain to the BBC that I’m harassing him. The Police and the press and possibly the taxation authorities must be sent all the complaints with hard evidence that Simon has actually done something wrong if they are to do something. In Surrey, where his late sister lived, the local Sutton newspaper is tracking him and have been in touch. In Devon the press are following him. I got this the other day. Damien Mills: Hi! I’m a journalist in Exeter where Simon Abbott it staging another of his infamous fashion shows. Give him a shout and tell him your stories and concerns.
         My concern is his constant appealing to the ‘wannabe’ mentality of young girls asking for models for events that do not exist. I will once again ask Jersey Police if they have any further thoughts on him.
         Simon, if you are reading this, which my friends he might be, give it up, come clean on the finances of the Trust, put the items you claim to have from the famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some people in real need, instead of fake events that help no-one, even those of us trying to raise funds.
         It was perhaps no coincidence that Norton had a reputation as Jersey’s top charity fund organiser and was best known for coordinating the annual Jersey Charity Auction which he had done since 1984. This was broadcast live on BBC Radio Jersey.
         In addition he had been a Radio Jersey presenter for many years and was the owner of two restaurants on the Island. So he was an entrenched personality who the Police would be unlikely to go against on the basis of a complaint from a nobody like my son.
         In court documents Simon claimed that Stop the Con Simon @NOTJERSEYFASHION was set up by Le Sueur. I know this, he stated, because he sent me an email by mistake saying he was the driving force behind the group of trolls. If someone Tweets anything positive about the Samantha Abbott Trust @NOTJERSEYFASHION will tell them not to help. He will Tweet ‘Question his past bullying actions’; ‘Discrepancies in the account’ (Yet he has never seen them); ‘Being investigated by Devon & Cornwall Police and Jersey Police’ (This is not true) and ‘Simon Abbott con artist and serial duper.’
         ‘Fashion Juice @Fashion_Juice is Ian le Sueur because of the same comments and because the picture that was taken of me in the church was put on this profile. Again he posts libel comments and has tweeted to dozens of celebrities telling them not to support the Samantha Abbott Trust.
         When the BBC’s adviser asked Le Sueur if he had put the photograph of Simon, that he snatched in a church at Norton’s behest, on social media he said he could not remember.
         Le Sueur’s Norton connection plus his close association with the Police no doubt ensured his immunity from prosecution in this case.
         Jon, a member of the Clean Up Jersey's Dirty Policing campaign.