News Bulletin Archive

By Kevin Delaney.

John Sweeney is, as was the late Jimmy Saville, empowered and protected by the BBC which has given him a license to be above the BBC’s own rules, the Ofcom guidelines and any normal standards of behaviour.

At Mr Sweeney’s most recent visit to Sark, he again attempted to hunt down the editor of the Sark Newsletter, Sark’s only free press and only voice of opposition to a feudal regime reminiscent of 1930s Germany, in spite of the fact that he was told I would not be available for an interview. At a previous visit, Mr Sweeney invaded my offices and intimidated my office staff, barging in demanding to know if I was there whilst keeping the cameras focused on the office door in the hope that he would be able to film one of his infamous ambushes; again despite that I had declined his invitation to be interviewed beforehand and in writing. He invaded people’s privacy and filmed them without consent.

During his stay on the Island, Mr Sweeney was drunk and made a nuisance of himself in the pub with the younger ladies. Whilst filming there, one of the Panorama team urinated in Sark’s high street in broad daylight. If it was not Mr Sweeney, it was certainly a member of his crew but although numerous witnesses have come forward with accounts of what they saw, Mr Sweeney denies the incident ever took place.

Mr Sweeney believes in free speech but only for himself. The purpose of his three visits to Sark - with a full Panorama crew - was not to support free speech but rather to support Sark’s feudal regime and that regime’s urgent wish to close down the Sark Newsletter to stop its coverage of the abuse of power that takes place on an Island that is fraudulently proclaimed to be a democracy.

Readers might wonder why a prominent journalist of the Panorama programme should use the might and the resources of the BBC to support an oppressive feudal regime and ask whether Mr John Sweeney has become the unacceptable face of the BBC.

Under the pretext of ‘public interest’, Mr Sweeney, a loud-mouthed thug, a bully and a storm-trooper of the BBC, came to Sark filming people whilst demanding answers to his questions - but only interviewing those with views supporting his own objective on film which Mr Sweeney then edits.

When filming his infamous Panorama “investigation” on Scientology, during which Mr Sweeney was caught on camera losing his temper in a widely circulated film sequence, he relied on information obtained from a former male prostitute with convictions for soliciting sex with adult men and drug related offences to make his “sensational” programme. When “investigating” on Sark - which also illustrates what lengths Mr Sweeney will go to - he gathered “information” from a well known criminal fraudster and blackmailer, Mr Craig Tuck, who calls himself Lord de Chanson - along with feudal hardliners who will likewise go to any length to discredit those who fight for true democracy on Sark, be it those who challenge the Island’s feudal laws through the courts or the Sark Newsletter and its exposure of the abuse of power and lack of democracy under the feudal regime which they wish to uphold.

By all accounts, Mr Sweeney did not interview Sark’s feudal lord Michael Beaumont about his feudal powers and privileges which give him complete ownership of the Fief of Sark; its parliament, its constitution, its judiciary, its law enforcement, its airspace and its 48 miles of foreshore and beaches. Mr Sweeney did not challenge Mr Beaumont on his involvement in Sark’s particular form of “offshore financial services”, the Sark Lark, or how he came to be registered as director of 650 letterbox companies in Panama alone. We can be absolutely certain that John Sweeney did not run after Sark’s feudal lord down the Avenue backed by his camera crew whilst shouting questions about how many more such directorships Mr Beaumont had in other shady offshore jurisdictions and whether the letterbox companies he signed on with by any chance were involved in tax avoidance.

Instead, Mr Sweeney spent his time with those who want to close down the Sark Newsletter as well as tourism and inward investment on Sark; people eager to spread their anti-investment and anti-employment propaganda such as his friend member of parliament / Island official Roseanne Guille Byrne, whose desire to close down the Sark Newsletter is based on wanting to retain her own and her prominent family’s position of power and privilege obtained through feudal patronage; a desire strong enough for her to have organised a march on the publication’s offices earlier this year in an effort to achieve this goal. Just like Mr Sweeney is empowered and protected by the BBC, his friend Roseanne Guille Byrne is empowered and protected by her inclusion in the feudal Establishment through her uncle, who is appointed by feudal lord Michael Beaumont to sit as unelected president of parliament and unqualified Island Judge Reg Guille.

There is no hope therefore of Mr Sweeney, in the true public interest, spending the BBC’s diminishing resources on investigating how in Sark one hereditary feudal lord controls everything in a regime with clear parallels to 1930s Germany. Neither will Mr Sweeney acknowledge that he, the Panorama programme and the BBC, with their witch hunt on the Sark Newsletter, are acting with clear parallels to 1930s Germany, where the State broadcaster was also defender of a totalitarian regime in which there was no room for the free press and all opposition was silenced, just like Mr Sweeney would like to do with the Sark Newsletter.

Mr Sweeney refused my request to appear on his forthcoming Panorama programme without being subjected to his censorship. The man is devoid of any moral compass. Applying his own standard of rules, Mr Sweeney is out of control and accountable to no one. He is a thug and a bully known to breach the law and lie whenever it suits him, and, like Jimmy Saville, he is allowed to carry on under the protection of the BBC.

On YouTube, Mr Sweeney’s fanatical and uncontrolled rage at a member of the Scientology movement is there for all to see (www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI). Mr Sweeney also laid bare his ignorance when he irately shouted, again to a Scientologist, that “I am a British subject, not an American citizen, and in my country we have a freedom of speech”, ignoring the fact that the US has a far greater freedom of speech written into their constitution than the UK and, consequently, anyone wishing to be a member of a church or a particular sect, including Scientology, is at liberty to do so. Moreover, at the Scientologists’ museum, where it was demonstrated how fascism brainwashed its followers, Mr Sweeney soon walked out. Doesn’t he believe in the horrors of fascist Germany? One wonders why he was not interested in witnessing a fact of history that many people do not want the world to forget. No doubt Mr Sweeney again has his own agenda. Afterwards he apologised for his behaviour and said that he had lost his voice but not his mind. Viewers will make up their own mind about that but it is clear for all to see he lost both.

The BBC needs an enquiry, not only into Jimmy Saville but also into the unaccountable behaviour of John Sweeney who clearly is unfit to represent the State broadcaster.

Copy of this bulletin has been forwarded to the following:

President of the European Court of Human Rights, Sir Nicolas Bratza

President of the European Commission, Mr José Manuel Barroso

The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights Mr Nils Muižnieks

Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon

Lord President of the Privy Council, The Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg

Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, The Rt. Hon. William Hague

Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice, The Rt. Hon. Lord McNally

Home Secretary, The Rt. Hon. Theresa May

Reviewer of Sark’s Administration, Ms Belinda Crowe

Chairman of the BBC Trust, The Rt. Hon. Lord Patten of Barnes

Director General of the BBC, Mr George Entwistle

Editor of the Panorama programme, Mr Tom Giles

His Excellency the Lt-Governor of Guernsey, Air Marshall Peter Walker, CB CBE

By Kevin Delaney.

Just as the word on the street confirms that the blackmailer, fantasist and convicted fraudster Lord de Chanson / Mr Craig Tuck paid the Island a rare visit to coincide with Mr John Sweeney and the Panorama team being here for the second time last month, Mr Sweeney and his television cameras are today back here yet again.

Is Mr Sweeney acting on “information” obtained during the interview that Lord de Chanson / Craig Tuck claims took place? Surely not even John Sweeney is desperate enough to base his programme on the words of a man whose criminal record shows him to be a convicted fraudster.

No, it is highly likely indeed that this third visit by the BBC’s Panorama team is orchestrated by Mr Sweeney’s other friend, State official Roseanne Guille Byrne, who is well known for calling in the national media to further her own ends. It goes without saying, of course, that it would be an impossibility for her to arrange any such media visit without the explicit approval of her uncle Reg Guille, unelected president of Sark’s parliament and unqualified judge or, of course, without the agreement of the man who appointed Mr Guille to his powerful position, feudal lord Michael Beaumont.

But what is Ms Rosanne Guille Byrne, her feudal masters and her ally Mr Sweeney hoping to achieve by once again spending the UK’s hard pressed license payers’ money on freighting the Panorama team and all their equipment to Sark for a third time and, not to forget, putting them up somewhere on the Island for the night.

There is one thing that Mr Sweeney did not achieve during his earlier two visits. Despite harassing the staff at Sark Estate Management Ltd, despite having his cameras trained on the office door, despite hanging around in the Avenue to such an extent that someone in his team saw fit to relieve himself there and then, despite barging into my office demanding to see me (although he had been informed in writing beforehand that I did not want to be interviewed by him), Mr Sweeney did not succeed in filming his (and Ms Guille Byrne’s) intended verbal assault on me.

It is well known on the Island that I, in my capacity as the editor of the Sark Newsletter, without fail attend the meetings of Sark’s parliament in order to report to my readers what takes place there. No doubt Mr Sweeney had been informed by Ms Roseanne Guille Byrne that today’s parliamentary meeting would at last present him with an opportunity to stage one of his infamous, aggressively hostile and sensationalist set-ups. After all, she was seen and heard during a parliamentary recess where Kevin Delaney was. (Anyone wondering why I declined being interviewed by Mr John Sweeney should watch him in action on youtube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI.)

As Ms Sweeney’s luck would have it, an urgent operational matter cropped up this morning and I was unexpectedly unable to attend the meeting as planned. As a result, in spite of Mr Sweeney sending over a scout to track me down, in spite of lying in wait for me with his cameras and in spite of his attempts at hunting me down like some common criminal, his, and Ms Roseanne Guille Byrne’s, goal remains unachieved.

Mr Sweeney’s behaviour amounts to pure harassment and his behaviour is unacceptable for a representative of the BBC, the State broadcaster. Equally unacceptable is Ms Roseanne Guille Byrne’s behind the scenes manipulation of the BBC to further her own ends and her own family’s continued position of power and privilege under Sark’s feudal system; a system which is reminiscent of 1930s Germany and which Mr Sweeney is here to support.

By Kevin Delaney.

Back in April 2010, in Issue no. 22 of the Sark Newsletter, we ran a story headed “Open House”, in which we highlighted how Sark continues to remain vulnerable as an open house to those of no fixed abode, fraudsters, phonies and those who live off and cheat others. In that article, details were given on two gentlemen who, in addition to being fraudsters, fantasists and blackmailers, also found Sark to be a convenient bolt hole.

One of them was Mr Alexander Chichester alias Mr A Pargetter who, when it was found out that he was using La Moinerie as the address for his “investment business”, attempted to blackmail SEM before resurfacing in Guernsey where he soon came to the attention of the GFSC as a result of his activities there.

At that time, in April 2010, another fraudster still laid claim to living in Sark, namely Lord de Chanson, otherwise known as Mr Craig Tuck. Mr Tuck, a convicted fraudster and a known blackmailer, has since left Sark with present abode unknown. However, rumour has it that he has recently been spotted back on the Island of Sark.

The Sark Newsletter therefore reminds its readers of Mr Tuck / Lord de Chanson’s less than illustrious CV:

Address prior to Sark: Council flat, Mixenden nr Halifax. Evicted for non payment of rent.

First address on Sark: Petit Valette. Evicted for using residential address for running a business, contrary to terms of lease.

Later address on Sark: The Flat, The Bakery, The Avenue, to which his “business”, Global Investors Research, was registered.

Present address: Unknown.

Previous convictions:
1985: conviction for 4 cases of deception.
1998: imprisonment for accounting irregularities

Business history:
1990: first bankruptcy
2004: another bankruptcy
1999 - 2005: director of Lord de Chanson Ltd., company dissolved. Sole shareholder of Eaton-Lowndes Publications Ltd, Publications Ltd., company dissolved 2005. Further failed ventures and bankruptcies are reported.
2005 - ? Global Investors Research, which he volunteered to close down against a “fee” of £1.5 million.

What, one wonders, brings this convicted fraudster back to Sark? Who would be welcoming this criminal back to the Island? Could it be certain well known feudal Establishment supporters desperate for support for their cause?

By Kevin Delaney.

A 21st CENTURY FASCIST STATE AND A UK CROWN DEPENDENCY:

Two men, namely the feudal lord Michael Beaumont and his appointed (and unqualified) Island judge / unelected president of parliament Reg Guille together control, directly and indirectly, absolutely everything on the Island of Sark; in breach of international and European laws, a British Crown Dependency is the last remaining feudal system in the Western world.

These two men control Sark’s constitution, its judiciary and its jurisdiction, including Sark’s airspace, the foreshore and beaches and six miles of the surrounding seas including fishing rights.

They control the parliament, over which they preside from a raised dais flanked by the other members of Sark’s judiciary, all of whom are also appointed by the feudal lord. Feudal appointee Reg Guille sets the agenda, directs the proceedings and controls the debate by deciding who speaks and when. If all else fails, they can rely on ‘the named vote’, which functions as a system to mark the cards of any dissenters amongst the elected body of the Assembly.

They control the Island’s only lifeline to the outside world, the Isle of Sark Shipping Company, of which the feudal lord holds 99.9% of the shares, and for which they have, through their control of parliament, ensured an increasingly draconian monopoly, to the detriment of the Island’s economy and employment.

Over the last 5 years, Islanders have witness how, like fascism in 1930s Germany, Sark’s feudal regime has infiltrated every aspect of the Island’s administration. Feudal authority trickles down through the parliament by ensuring that the feudal supporters become elected and sit as Chairmen and members of key parliamentary committees, through which they have the power to implement and administer the legislation they vote through without any separation of powers. Their support is then rewarded with financial benefit in the form of Island employment and inclusion in the feudal Establishment; all with the approval of Seneschal / Island judge / president of Chief Pleas Reg Guille.

JUSTICE, THE FEUDAL WAY

The Island Constables are appointed, after a mock election in parliament, but always with the prior approval of Michael Beaumont and Reg Guille. As a result, Islanders can be arrested by the Constable and judged by the man who appointed him, the same untrained and unqualified judge who the Constable reports to and seeks advice from on matters of law, Mr Reg Guille.

The feudal lord is the only one who can approve the involvement of Guernsey’s professional police force to investigate crime on the Island of Sark. In other words, he alone can decide what criminal offences committed by whom should be investigated.

By Kevin Delaney.

Listen to the BBC's Sarah Montague's disgracefully biased interview of Lord McNally on the subject of the need for good governance for Sark.: [ click here ]

By Kevin Delaney and Claire Wiseman.

DISGRACEFUL REPORTING THAT MISSES THE POINT - JUST GOSSIP AND INNUENDO ACCEPTED AS TRUTH WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED:

The Guardian is known for its investigative journalism, for holding politicians and governments to account and for being upholders of the freedom of the press. Yet the Guardian fails to support free speech and a free press on the Island of Sark.

Instead of supporting democracy, and the Sark Newsletter’s tireless campaign for true democracy on Sark, the Guardian tries to do a hatchet job on this campaign by publishing stories that are cooked up from selected parts of old and new statements made by Lord McNally along with the by now tiresomely familiar litany of gossip, innuendo and complaints from those who have a lot to gain from Sark remaining a feudal society and who therefore vehemently oppose the end to feudalism, transparency and accountability that we campaign for.

THE SOVEREIGN OF SARK

Even more important, the Guardian’s journalists accepted without question Lord McNally’s statement about Sark that: "They have a constitution. They are sovereign in a whole range of areas."

It appears that neither the Guardian nor Lord McNally know the difference between a sovereign state and a mediaeval feudal one. It should be plain for all to see that Sark’s unelected feudal lord, Michael Beaumont, owns the constitution of Sark courtesy of his Crown lease. It is not the Island of Sark that is ‘sovereign in a whole range of areas’, it is Michael Beaumont who is sovereign - and in all areas. It is his constitution, his jurisdiction, his judiciary, his foreshore, his air space and his ‘lifeline’ shipping monopoly. If that isn’t ownership, the Guardian might ask themselves what is and whether such an ownership is compatible with democracy of any kind.

The Guardian fails to understand - and to explain to its readers - is that ‘peace in our time’ Lord McNally is, by his own admission, unable to reduce or take away Mr Beaumont’s sovereignty - the ownership of Sark and its constitution by the last remaining feudal lord in the Western world. And it is astonishing that a national newspaper that is famous for its left-wing views and support for democratic rights has allowed itself to be aligned with an oppressive system of governance that is akin to fascist Germany in the 1930s.

What, one wonders, would the Guardian say if they were presented with the prospect of someone unelected with all the powers and privileges of Michael Beaumont becoming the UK’s autocratic sovereign?

IN THE HANDS OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL

In an attempt to bring home to its readers how dangerous the economic influence of the Barclays is for Sark, the Guardian also quotes Lord McNally’s comment that "One of the things that I’ve got to keep in mind is if Sark was in the hands of a single company or a set of individuals, would that be a threat to governance? I do not think the British government could simply accept such a state of affairs."

Well, the British government - and Lord McNally are in fact accepting such a state of affairs. Sark is in the hands of a single individual, Michael Beaumont, with the help of the set of individuals known as the feudal Establishment.

Lord McNally’s comment is, furthermore, totally at odds with his own support of the recent Crowe report (read it on line through the link on the Sark Newsletter’s website), which recommends sweeping and drastic reforms to the governance of Sark in order to introduce transparency, accountability, separation of powers and consultation with the people - which implies that both Ms Crowe, a former high-flier at the Ministry of Justice, and Lord McNally agree that in Sark there is at present no transparency, accountability, separation of powers or consultation with the people by those who govern.

THE BARCLAYS HAVE FOUGHT FOR DEMOCRACY

It appears the Guardian, in its eagerness to have a go at the owners of the Telegraph newspapers, has conveniently turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the fact that this particular pair of capitalists have been fighting a long battle for democracy on Sark.

To put their considerable efforts in a bad light, the Guardian states that "the Barclays have consistently put pressure on Sark’s tiny parliament, known as the Chief Pleas, over various issues".

The newspaper’s journalists conveniently forget to mention that these "various issues" include the abolition of the feudal law of primogeniture, which ensured that only the oldest son could inherit property on the Island. (How does that sit with the Guardian’s feminist readers?) They include the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the Channel Islands - including Sark - domestic law. They include the abolition of the feudal lord’s right to claim for himself (as opposed to the community) a personal, feudal tax of 7.69% on property transactions. They include the litigation that eventually will force Sark to split the role of the Seneschal, who is personally appointed by the feudal lord to act both as president of the parliament (although unelected) and principal Judge (although unqualified and untrained in legal matters) because it is in breach of ECHR. They include the current application to the European Court in Strasbourg which claims that Sark’s feudal lord’s powers and privileges also are in breach of ECHR.

Indeed, many a Guardian reader will be rather surprised to find their favourite paper, considered a staunch supporter of democracy and the rights of the man in the street, supporting a feudal regime that is in breach of ECHR.

ACTING AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER

The Guardian will have its readers believe that "around a dozen Sarkees" have received legal letters from the Barclay’s lawyer and that most of these have been firmly and successfully rebuffed by Sark’s legal knight in shining armour, Mr Paul Arditti.

Legal letters have indeed been sent, from the Advocate who is also acting for the editor of the Sark Newsletter and Sark Estate Management Ltd. Not to "Sarkees" but, invariably, to Sark Island officials, very few of whom are Sarkees indeed, taking them to task for abusing their power.

What would the journalists of the Guardian do if they received threats of imprisonment or legal action from UK State officials for breaking laws that don’t exist?

As to Mr Arditti’s claims to success, the Sark Newsletter is at a loss. No letters have been received that he has put his name to. His name has, however, appeared regularly on the pages of this publication for a number of reasons: Mr Arditti is unqualified to practice law in the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Yet, he is retained by his friend and “Chief Minister” of Sark Charles Maitland on behalf of the Island’s taxpayers at £25,000 a year, for unspecified services. (The Guardian has now solved this mystery for us, clearly Mr Arditti writes the threatening letters which all too often are sent out by Sark’s Island / State officials to keep the population under control.) Also, Mr Arditti’s position is deeply conflicted because he is a sitting member of the States of Alderney and the States of Guernsey whilst advising the parliament of Sark.

WILLING SELLERS

The Guardian reports that "many on Sark ... say they fear for the Island’s future" because the Barclays have "snapped up almost a quarter of the Island’s land". That is an odd way to describe transactions between willing sellers (most of whom were non-local property speculators anyway) and willing buyers paying the market value.

What is there to fear from this? The property owned by the Barclay family remains on the Island; they can’t take it with them. Moreover, it can be taxed and it can be legislated against to reduce its influence and its value - a fact that Sark’s parliament is infinitely more alert to than the Guardian’s journalists.

A GIFT TO THE ISLAND

The Guardian claims that the Barclays offered Michael Beaumont " £2 million in return for his feudal lease and title" and once again they are guilty of a misrepresentation of the facts.

The correspondence published in issue no. 74 of the Sark Newsletter, on 25th February 2011, makes it abundantly clear that £1 million was offered for Mr Beaumont’s Crown lease in order for his feudal powers and privileges to be transferred to the Island’s parliament, in order that the Island could gain control of its own destiny freed of the shackles of feudalism.

A further £1 million was offered, not for Mr Beaumont’s title but to buy out his entitlement to the taxpayer funded, index linked annual stipend, presently around £30,000, which Mr Beaumont secured for himself for life and for his descendants in perpetuity when it became clear to him that the Barclays’ legal challenge to his feudal treizieme would be successful. With their offer, the Barclays sought to relieve the people of Sark of that considerable financial burden.

Why does the Guardian see a need to put a negative spin on what amounted to a genuine and generous offer?

UNRELIABLE SOURCES

Clearly the journalists did not check their sources and this is clear throughout their coverage:

They quote "local artist and elected politician Rosanne Guille", who accuses the Sark Newsletter of printing "insults and allegations", thereby causing her stress and blotchy skin. Ms Rosanne Guille (who uses her married name Byrne when acting as an Island official) is the niece of the second-most powerful man on Sark, Seneschal Reg Guille, who was appointed by Sark’s feudal lord to be president (unelected) of Sark’s “democratic” parliament as well as principal Judge in charge of Sark’s court although untrained in legal matters. This is neither insult nor allegation; it is fact.

It is neither insult nor allegation to state that the Guille family is very powerful on Sark due to patronage by the feudal lord and it is true that they are known for being the Island’s biggest bullies.

It is neither insult nor allegation to point out that Ms Guille Byrne’s meteoric career as an Island official owes much to that feudal patronage. Everyone who lives in Sark knows that to be true.

It is certainly neither insult nor allegation to say that Ms Rosanne Guille Byrne and her sister Stephanie Guille in February this year led a march against free speech and the free press in an effort to close down the Sark Newsletter. (Under the guise of "save our doctor" who, the Guardian failed to grasp, had decided to leave Sark before the Sark Newsletter asked whether it was professional misconduct or wilful negligence to subject an elderly stroke patient to a horrendous sea journey on the floor of the lifeboat in gale force wind and 2-3 metre head seas, thereby delaying her arrival in hospital by two and a half hours when it would have taken 15 minutes by a freely available air lift.)

Why would the Guardian, of all newspapers, want to lend credibility to Ms Rosanne Guille Byrne, who wishes the Guardian to believe that detonating explosive devises outside the offices of the editor of the Sark Newsletter was some kind of joke and not an act of criminality?

Conseiller / member of Sark’s parliament Mr Paul Armogie was also interviewed by the Guardian. Would the journalists attach as much credibility to his views on the Barclays’ fears and intentions if they had bothered to find out that Mr Armogie is in debt to the shipping company 99.9% owned by Sark’s feudal lord and therefore could not say otherwise?

The Guardian even goes to the defence of Conseiller / member of Sark’s parliament Mr John Hunt and trivialises the poster campaign that Mr Hunt in fact was arrested and then warned by the Guernsey police for being part of. Did the journalists ask the Guernsey police about the boxful of abusive material they collected from Mr Delaney, all part of a very real harassment campaign? No.

What would the Guardian have to say for itself if a Westminster MP was arrested and warned by the police for harassing one of his own constituents - without losing his seat or even a word of condemnation from his peers in the House?

THE BARCLAYS HAVE NO VOTE

The Barclays have no vote and no representation in Sark’s parliament. They cannot influence the legislation that parliament makes and they have no influence with the powers of Michael Beaumont’s feudal / fascist state. The only mistake the Barclays made was to invest in the Island of Sark and create permanent jobs for 120 people who would otherwise be out of work - which Sark’s feudal lord sees as a challenge to his supreme authority.

NO QUESTIONS ASKED

The Guardian’s journalists unquestioningly accepted as the truth what "those who spoke to the Guardian" told them when a little research would have shown them that "those who spoke to the Guardian" are members of a select group who are merely repeating variations of the same old gossip and innuendo that they have served up to any member of the media willing to listen for the past five years or so. Why didn’t the Guardian question their motives?

If they really wanted to find out what goes on in Sark, why didn’t the Guardian hang around the front door of Michael Beaumont’s house, and pester him for an interview or a quote?

Why didn’t they get a statement from unelected president of parliament / unqualified Island Judge Reg Guille as to why he, the upholder of the Sark’s law, is happy to be in breach of international law?

Why didn’t they ask Col Reg Guille - or his niece and protégée Rosanne Guille Byrne - why they have not passed a law to protect the innocent and the victims of Sark’s infamous culture of bullying, harassment and intimidation; a culture which has earned the Island comparison with 1930s Germany?

HYPOCRISY INDEED

In its coverage on Sark, the Guardian (of the free press and democratic rights) hypocritically ignored the seriousness of the Island’s lack of democracy.

Their reporting, which boils down to facile conclusions and appalling gossip, does not stand up to scrutiny.

The Guardian knows very well that those who seek power over others must be accountable and transparent but it appears happy to accept that such principles do not apply those who govern Sark, many of whom were amongst "those who spoke to the Guardian".

So eager was the Guardian to have a go at the owners of the Telegraph that it seems to have forgotten everything it is supposed to stand for. One must ask what the purpose - or the agenda behind - this reporting was. What does the Guardian have to achieve by supporting a mediaeval feudal system? Does the Guardian really believe that it is wrong for the free press to question a corrupt feudal system of government?

AND WHO’S BULLYING WHOM?

The Guardian even allows column space for judgments on the Sark Newsletter’s "primitive" look and lay-out. As opposed to the Guardian and its editor Mr Rusbridger, the Sark Newsletter does not have the luxury of a trust such as the one that backs the Guardian with, apparently, unlimited funds. Unlike the Guardian, which operates from posh offices, the Sark Newsletter is a ‘two man and his dog’ enterprise operating out of the basement of its editor’s house. Who’s bullying whom now?

Download the above in PDF format here >

By Kevin Delaney.

SARK NEEDS PROPER GOVERNANCE AND A UK GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR:

In 1948, in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1950, the Council of Europe signed up to this, by drafting the international treaty called The European Convention on Human Rights, which came into force three years later.

The treaty is overseen by the independent European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the signatories were “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”.

It was considered a fundamental principle of democracy to protect the individual against the power of the State and the rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930s was much in the minds of the leaders of those countries that drafted and signed up to these agreements. If certain countries wish to abolish ECHR, they would replace it with a Bill of Rights encompassing the same Articles but to be adjudicated in their own jurisdiction, as is the case with the United States.

The UK was a founder member of the Council of Europe and was the first country to ratify the ECHR in 1950. In 1953 the Convention was extended to the Channel Islands by the UK. Although Sark had been bound by the Convention for almost 60 years, the Island did not vote to bring it into domestic law until year 2000 and they waited a further six years before bringing it into force. But that does not alter the fact that Sark has been obligated by law to comply with ECHR since 1953.

Sark, however, is an unlawful state in breach of international law. Its feudal system of government does not abide by the laws that ensure those fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world. In Sark, these freedoms are not 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. Sark’s feudal system of government deprives the people of their fundamental right to self-determination. It deprives people of natural justice. It is unlawful and unacceptable in a democracy for one man to own the Island’s constitution, its jurisdiction and its judiciary with powers to overrule an elected Parliament, with power to appoint the president of that parliament and to have his own Court where he appoints his own judge and Court officials.

Seigneur Michael Beaumont is the undisputed leader of Sark’s feudal system, having inherited the Crown lease of the Fief of Sark. Courtesy of this lease, Mr Beaumont owns the constitution, the jurisdiction and the judiciary of the Island and the undemocratic powers vested in him are there for all to see. The citizens of Sark have no right to determine their own future, it is already determined and the future belongs to the one who inherits the feudal lease on the Island and all its powers and privileges with it - Michael Beaumont’s son and future generations of Beaumonts not even born yet.

There is no natural justice or democratic rule of law on Sark. There is no separation of powers, no distinction, between the elected members of the parliament - the Island’s law-makers - and Island / State officials with the executive powers to enact the law. Sark’s 18 parliamentary committees are controlled by the elected law-makers wearing the hat of Island / State officials, the majority of whom depend on the Island / State for employment or financial benefit.

In other words, the executive powers of the Island officials that sit on the Committees and the legislative powers of the elected members of parliament are held by the very same people - and those people are ultimately in the hands of and answerable to the autocratic feudal leader Michael Beaumont and his appointed feudal Establishment, without whose approval they would not be elected in the first place.

It follows that the body of Sark’s parliament is compromised. Its members are not independent and cannot afford to go against what is proposed on the parliamentary Agenda which is compiled and published by Mr Beaumont’s personal appointee and unelected president of parliament Mr Reg Guille, who also controls parliamentary proceedings and decides who can speak and when.

Mr Guille is also appointed for life by feudal lord Michael Beamont to be Sark’s principal Judge, although he is untrained and unqualified in legal matters. Mr Guille is fully aware, and has been for years, that his control over the Island’s parliament as well its judiciary is in breach of ECHR, yet he is unwilling to embrace reform; so unwilling, in fact, that he has broken Sark’s own Reform Law of 2008 - the law which he and Mr Beaumont foisted upon the People of Sark and the law Mr Guille is supposed to uphold as Judge - by standing up in parliament making a highly political speech against the reform of his own unlawful dual role.

Another reason why we, the people, need human rights laws or, indeed, a Bill of Rights to protect us against abuse of power by the Island / State, is the behaviour of many of Sark’s members of parliament and Island / State officials. Conseiller Rosanne Guille Byrne is a prime example. She sits on three different committees; the Public Health Committee, the Shipping Committee and the Agriculture Committee - despite having no relevant qualifications or experience that justifies a position of power other than being related to the second-most powerful man in Sark’s Feudal establishment, namely the unelected leader of parliament and principal Judge Reg Guille. As an Island official serving on these three committees, Ms Guille Byrne and her fellow committee members administer any number of laws, all of which could be used against their perceived enemies and some of which carry severe penalties, even imprisonment.

It follows that Ms Rosanne Guille Byrne, a member of parliament with executive power as an Island official, is in a position of power and authority; she is an Island / State official with potential to bring about or conjure up unlawful legal proceedings, be it against fellow citizens against whom she bears a grudge or against those she perceives as, and has already publicly proclaimed to be, her enemies. The most noticeable of her proclaimed adversaries is the Editor of the Sark Newsletter, against whom Ms Guille Byrne along with other Island officials and members of her family continues her malicious campaign on the anonymous internet blogs.

The publication of the Sark Newsletter is a matter of free speech, a right enshrined by ECHR, and its purpose is to publish what is in the public interest. Equally, the people have a right to receive it. The Sark Newsletter holds to account those who are elected, people like “Chief Minister” Charles Maitland, Conseiller Rosanne Guille Byrne, Conseiller Edric Baker, Conseiller John Hunt, Conseiller Janet Guy and Conseiller Andy Cook, to mention but a few, and remind them that they were elected to represent all the people of Sark rather than their own vested interest and that of Michael Beaumont’s feudal system, which is in breach of international law.

As enshrined in international law, the Sark Newsletter has every right to publish information exposing the lack of transparency and accountability of those who hold public office on Sark. Equally as important, every citizen of Sark has, enshrined in international law, the right to be kept informed by receiving information exposing the lack of transparency and accountability of those who hold public office on Sark.

As enshrined in international law, the Sark Newsletter has every right to publish information exposing the corrupt practices of those who hold public office on Sark. Equally as important, every citizen of Sark has, enshrined in international law, the right to be kept informed by receiving information exposing the corrupt practices of those who hold public office on Sark.

As enshrined in international law, the Sark Newsletter has every right to publish information exposing the actions of those who hold public office on Sark and who habitually break the law. Equally as important, every citizen of Sark has, enshrined in international law, the right to be kept informed by receiving information exposing the actions of those who hold public office on Sark and who habitually break the law.

By Claire Wiseman.

GUERNSEY POLICE POWERLESS TO ACT: CRIMINALITY WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED

Sark’s Constable delayed calling the Guernsey Police for 36 hours after she experienced for herself an explosion from the device that was mounted on the tree on the Avenue.

The word on the street is that the reason for this is that the Constable was reporting to Mr Reg Guille and by waiting 36 hours she gave the person or persons involved enough time to eliminate any incriminating evidence.

Alarmingly, the Guernsey Police were slow to react and had to be persuaded to come to the Island to investigate the incident. They spent an hour and a half with the Editor of the Sark Newsletter, during which time they inferred that the contents of his publication will have prompted someone to set off an explosive device in what is Sark’s main road. They made no attempt to interview or investigate anybody else on the Island, despite indications that Conseiller Rosanne Guille and her sister Stephanie Guille, both nieces of Sark’s principal Judge Reg Guille, might well have something to tell them.

In July 2010 the Guernsey Police came to Sark to interview Conseiller John Hunt with regard to his involvement in the poster campaign against Mr Delaney. Mr Hunt was subsequently arrested and cautioned by the Guernsey Police for harassment. Then as now, the Guernsey Police failed to interview others and they did not seize Mr Hunt’s computer, which would have supplied them with all the evidence they could ever need to prove who Mr Hunt’s accomplices were.

The Guernsey Police are powerless to act; Sark is outside their jurisdiction. It requires Michael Beaumont’s permission for them to even come to the Island and although it seems he has given his consent in this instance, that is as far as it goes. Without the feudal lord’s agreement the Guernsey Police can do nothing. The Court on Sark is a feudal court - it belongs to Michael Beaumont. The Judge on Sark is Mr Beaumont’s personal appointee. When the Police visited Mr Delaney’s office to inquire about the explosive device, they were sympathetic and discreet but their advice tells us all one needs to know about Sark. In as many words, they said that: We can’t protect you. Make sure you increase your security. Put CCTV cameras outside your home.

It has since transpired that Conseiller Rosanne Guille Byrne was later interviewed by the Guernsey Police over the telephone from their office in Guernsey with regard to the explosives. Clearly, they did not have the power to call in and see her whilst they were on the Island. Where in the Western world does one man hold the power of the constitution and the jurisdiction of 600 people in his hands?

Islanders are quite rightly asking themselves and each other what protection they have under Sark’s law. Very little indeed, it would seem, if everyone is treated like Mr Delaney.

During Mr Delaney’s interview with the Guernsey Police, the Sark Constable was also present. When Mr Delaney, out of concern, asked her how many guns there are on the Island, he received the answer that she did not know. If that isn’t disturbing, nothing is..

By John Donnelly Deputy Editor.

In order to progress towards a true and inclusive democracy Sark politicians would firstly need to appreciate the 'other man's path'. Unfortunately, what is accepted by tradition and habit in Sark is not necessarily what could be interpreted as free and fair. There is also the old and valid saying "Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done". The same could be said for democracy, from the election process right up to full and proper disclosure of members’ interests.

Why has the Sark Newsletter been campaigning week in week out for democracy when many believe that we achieved this with the 2008 elections and the advent of a Chief Pleas comprised of 28 conseillers? Well, at first sight all appears fine but on closer inspection it becomes clear that the Island’s democracy is only a skin deep illusion. If we are honest and examine the real composition and function of Chief Pleas, we can see that it in fact is less effective than before 2008 when it comes to debate and the exercise of democratic government for a variety of reasons:

• Although the feudal system was supposed to be replaced by democracy, the feudal lord still presides above the elected members, physically and metaphorically, instead of just performing a ceremonial role at the opening of a session. Although the feudal system was supposed to be replaced by democracy, the speaker of the House, who sets the Agenda and dominates proceedings, is still not elected but remains a personal appointee of the feudal lord as well as Principal Judge in charge of Sark’s judiciary.

• The present composition of Chief Pleas was arrived at under considerable time pressure and under various threats of serious consequences from both the UK Government and Guernsey (since Guernsey had a requirement to tidy up their back yard in order to achieve various criteria for signing up to commitments perceived as necessary). In simple terms, Chief Pleas comprises husbands, wives, sons, fathers, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins etc etc etc. Add to this the fact that a very high proportion of them are benefiting financially from the Island directly or indirectly, be they or their relatives employed by the Island or by virtue of housing or other tangible dependence. As if this opaque recipe was not enough, this whole 'democratic assembly' is carefully directed and guided by an autocratic feudal overseer complete with judicial and administrative privilege. Such protection as exists for judicial appeal is limited and, just to put the icing on the cake, the entire enterprise stands with the benefit of unswerving legal support from the Guernsey Law Officers of the Crown.

• As a result of what many still believe was a lack of 'checks and balances' in Sark’s constitutional reforms, there is no protection whatsoever for the electorate to counter unethical or partiality in the collective behaviour of Chief Pleas. There is for example no constituency base whatsoever and as a consequence of this and other factors there is a complete absence of representation for minority interests.

• There little or no consultation with the public prior to the planning and formulation of new legislation which affects ALL stakeholders; not just residents of Sark but in many cases businesses, visitors, our neighbouring islands as well as the U.K. and certain parties along the French coast with whom Sark has dealings.

Chief Pleas made no meaningful move to carry forward any of the pledges in respect of for example recording and making available to the public unedited transcripts of debate. Why, after Chief Pleas having voted to implement such reforms, hasn’t the GP&A come up with proposals for the division of the dual role of the Seneschal?

• A number of members of our so called 'democratic assembly' are clearly frustrated when confronted by a free press (not known on Sark since the era of the German occupation when G.U.N.S. the Guernsey underground news service was in operation with the help of some extremely brave islanders). However, we all know from the lessons of history that the priority of any dictatorship or growing totalitarian regime is to silence the free press and we have now witnessed that Sark is no exception.

The question on everyone's lips is how to resuscitate what was enthusiastically welcomed as the new democratic era in Sark's history. Well, the answer to that question is highly unlikely to be found in the review of the way Sark is administered by the ex-Ministry of Justice official Belinda Crowe, acquired at a cost of £8,000 to Sark’s taxpayers. It should be patently obvious to most of us that necessary reforms are most unlikely to take place, given the entirely predictable series of recent actions by Chief Pleas. It seems the People of Sark have found their voice, but as so often in failed and faltering regimes around the world, they have limited or no opportunity to use it. Given the web of interrelated interests in Chief Pleas, the dominance of an autocracy and the interwoven administrative judicial functions, there is little light on the horizon. Oh, and you have guessed it, come election time, the Returning Officer is none other than the one and same feudal leader's appointed principal Judge, President of Chief Pleas and chief bottle washer. Call in his deputy for a bit of reassurance and don't be disappointed if he turns out to be the feudal leader's brother-in-law.

Let's hope the Sark Newsletter is not foolhardy enough to publish this article or it is likely once again to be besieged by all manner of the principal Judge's relatives calling for an outright and immediate ban on such a threat to freedom. Whose freedom? Need we ask!

By Kevin Delaney

On Friday 17th February, the Guernsey Press once again wheeled out Ms Margaret Le Page to fill their letters column. Ms Le Page, from Australia of all places, always has much to say but little to contribute and this letter, motivated as usual by spite and malice, implies that the management of the Brecqhou helicopter operation is incompetent and unreliable. The Brecqhou Island manager’s response speaks for itself.

In printing Ms Le Page’s letter without giving the manager of the Brecqhou helicopter operation an opportunity to respond, the Guernsey missed an opportunity to inform their readers of the facts of the matter.

As is so often the case with the Guernsey Press, they didn’t check the facts and consequently end up misleading their readers. How many times has the Guernsey Press insisted in its coverage that Mrs Beaumont was evacuated from Sark by the Flying Christine when she in fact was taken to Guernsey by the Lifeboat? How many times has the Guernsey Press misquoted the Sark Newsletter’s coverage on the matter, printing the line fed to them by those in Sark opposed to the free press? In short, every time they have reported on it.

In the aftermath of the march that took place on Sark Saturday two weeks ago, did it occur to the Guernsey Press that by and large it was a march by paid Island officials, members of Sark’s parliament and members of the feudal Establishment against the free press on the Island? No, not even when publishing a photo of Conseiller Rosanne Guille Byrne and Ms Stephanie Guille (both nieces of the Island’s untrained and unqualified Principal Judge Reg. Guille, who is appointed for life by the feudal lord Michael Beaumont) marching with a banner demanding the closure of the Island’s only voice of opposition did that occur to them. For the vast majority of those marching it had precious little to with “save our doctor” and much to do with wishing to be able to continue conducting Island affairs in the manner they always have been doing it; without democratic process, without transparency and without being accountable to the People of Sark.

But the Guernsey Press didn’t get it, they were fooled once again.

“STOP THE EVIL SARK NEWSLETTER LET US LIVE IN PEACE”

Was this banner about “save our doctor” or “close down the free press”?

By Kevin Delaney.

Phil Falle writes for the Guernsey Press and consistently tells us what a good and clever chap he is. Last week he reluctantly told us he had an MBE for journalism. In his column in today’s Guernsey Press he states that he can claim to know something about journalistic practice. Overlooking the fact that he so often gets his facts wrong, how reliable is his estimate of 100 people protesting outside of the Island Hall when several people have reported no more than 50?

Meanwhile he says he has been accused of being a Feudal Fundamentalist but does not know what that means. So, once again, we will explain it for him.

It is someone who knows the truth but through lack of courage refuses to acknowledge it. It is someone who maintains the strict doctrine of Feudalism on Sark by means of the following;

Endorsing the intimidation and bullying against those that step out of line by the establishment committees and endorsing the status quo.

Supporting the Feudal Lord Michael Beaumont’s powers and privileges and above all never questioning the lack of transparency and accountability on Sark, or indeed matters such as the missing £50’000 donated to the island in December 2008 of which no trace can be found.

So much for Phil Falle’s claim that that he knows something about journalistic practices.

In other words a true Feudal Fundamentalist.

By Kevin Delaney.

Like all autocratic leaders throughout history, Michael Beaumont is the architect of his own destruction.

Mr Beaumont’s big mistake was for the first time to be seen to be the one who makes the decisions on Sark, namely the decision about the welfare of Mrs Beaumont and refusing an airlift which would have brought her to hospital in minutes, “preferring” instead to delay her access to hospital treatment for two and a half hours and subjecting her to being bounced around being towed behind a tractor along the Island’s potholed roads and then on the floor of the lifeboat in gale force weather conditions and 2 - 3 metre head seas.

Throughout his 37 years of feudal rule, Michael Beaumont has till now been able to make the decisions in secrecy, be it laws against a helicopter pad for medical emergencies or planning laws to prevent inward investment and development, and have his wishes carried out by his numerous Committees led by feudal supporters such as “Chief Minister” Charles Maitland, Douzaine Chairman Edric Baker and Development Control Chairman Antony Dunks and others before them. Naturally Mr Beaumont sees inward investment and development as a threat to his authority. As a result, all building work has stopped and there is very little employment other than by the state / Island.

Mr Beaumont has now been seen to be a ruthless, uncaring and unforgiving character and his big concern is that the Sark Newsletter has exposed his abuse of power, the Island’s inherent culture of bullying and intimidation and its lack of laws to protect the innocent and the vulnerable - like Ms Sue Groves and many others over the past 37 years.

Free speech and the free press have arrived on Sark after 450 years of silence under feudal rule, and there is no going back. The game is up and Mr Beaumont knows it.

By Kevin Delaney.

Saturday’s finely orchestrated protest March against the free press / the Sark Newsletter was led by Conseiller Paul Williams, an elected member of Chief Pleas / parliament, flanked by Conseiller Rosanne Guille Byrne, also an elected member of Chief Pleas / parliament - who also happens to be the niece of Feudal Lord Michael Beaumont’s personal appointee Lt Col Reg. Guille, Sark’s unqualified principal Judge as well as unelected leader of the parliament.

Where in the free world would a politician protest against free speech and a free press, the only ‘crime’ of which is to write about matters of great public interest, the lack of democracy in Sark, the abuse of power on the Island, the culture of bullying and intimidation associated with feudalism and how the victims of that culture have no protection under the Island’s law?

More worrying yet for the Island’s citizens, what is offensive to Conseillers Paul Williams and Rosanne Guille Byrne is that The Sark Newsletter reported the lack of concern and the neglect of their duty of care shown by the doctor and Michael Beaumont in allowing or permitting that on a stormy January night, an en elderly stroke patient had to wait two and a half hours before getting hospital treatment when she could have been airlifted to Guernsey in a matter of minutes. Even worse, the weather conditions were so bad that the Flying Christine could not go, which meant that after being towed behind a tractor on Sark’s bumpy roads and down the Harbour Hill, the seriously ill patient had to endure a dreadful ride being thrown about on the floor of the lifeboat in gale force winds and 2 - 3 metre head seas.

If reporting on the events that night and putting question marks by the decisions made by those in charge is not in the public interest, what is? In seeking to close down the free press for doing so, Conseillers Paul Williams and Rosanne Guille Byrne prove, once and for all, that there is no true democracy on Sark. Indeed, it is more like Germany in the 1930s.

The Sark Newsletter does not bully anyone. It has no power to do so. People have a choice to read it, return it, or destroy it. But the banner that Conseiller Rosanne Guille was carrying and which was left outside of The Sark Newsletter’s Editor’s office for all to see called for Islanders to be denied that choice.

The Sark Newsletter prints 400 copies of each edition and very few are returned. It has become a must read for people who want to be informed of the Island’s Feudal Establishment’s conduct and how the island is governed. After 450 years of Feudal oppression a vast number of Islanders now feel they have someone who will listen to their concerns, albeit confidentially through fear of the Feudal Fundamentalist. They have a voice, and somewhere they will be heard.

By John Donnelly.

On page 4 of yesterday’s Guernsey Press, under the headline “Sark ‘will struggle’ to find a doctor as good”, Dr Brian Parkin, Guernsey’s local representative of the British Medical Association (BMA), praises Sark’s resigned doctor, Dr Peter Counsell and assures the Guernsey Press readership that a replacement will be hard to find.

Dr Parkin says that “Dr Counsell is an excellent doctor” and that “he has done and excellent job for the island”, but in the same sentence he makes it clear that this is “from what I’ve heard”. From whom? What qualifies Dr Parkin to make such statements without knowing the man?

Dr Parkin is a representative of the BMA, which could be seen as the doctors’ trade union, an organisation that protects doctors’ interests. That is the basis for Dr Parkin’s public show of support for Dr Counsell. It is therefore very odd that Dr Parkin goes on to say that “It’s always very difficult to replace anyone of quality” as this statement rather undermines the members of Dr Parkin’s own organisation; he actually says that doctors “of quality” are hard to find.

Does the local BMA representative suggest that it is appropriate for the Sark doctor to be part of a political committee which introduces a monopoly for himself to practice?

Does the local BMA representative suggest that Sark’s Medical Committee is competent when it makes defamatory statements in parliament and confirms that such a statement has the support of ALL its members, including, therefore, the doctor?

Dr Counsell’s statement reads more like a political declaration than a carefully considered professional appraisal of what he considers his duty to be and why he feels vindicated in making the decisions he has made in respect of emergency medical evacuations. In view of this, could the local BMA representative perhaps confirm whether he approves of the remedy as suggested by a group consisting of paid Island officials, elected members of Sark’s parliament and members of the Island’s feudal Establishment (amongst whom, notably, are numerous members of the Island’s Judge’s family); namely to gag the free press?

This whole issue, including Dr Counsell’s resignation, erupted because The Sark Newsletter, in the public interest, pointed out the seemingly inhumane manner of Mrs Beaumont’s emergency evacuation from Sark. Seriously ill, frail and elderly, she had to wait two and a half hours for emergency hospital treatment, before which she was subjected to a bumpy ride towed behind a tractor on Sark’s potholed roads, being manhandled down the harbour steps and onto the floor of a lifeboat and a horrendous boat trip across to Guernsey in gale force winds and 2 - 3 metre head seas - when a 6-minutes’ emergency airlift was readily available. Does the local BMA representative approve of that decision? Does the local BMA representative really think the Sark Newsletter is “evil” and should be shut down for asking, in the public interest, whether an emergency airlift would be permitted if a normal, mortal, Sark citizen should be unlucky enough to need hospitalisation on a stormy night when it was denied to the wife of the Island’s Feudal Lord?

That, Dr Parkin, is the crux of the matter and a question which the vociferous group that wants to close the Sark Newsletter down, including Dr Counsell, still have not answered.