Search This Blog

Wednesday, 15 June 2011


Monday the 13th of June 2011, we copied and published an article from the Jersey Evening Post website. It was not the full article, but merely a copy of their online propaganda machine. I was swiftly contacted this evening by a Mr Robert Weston, who was party to the article, and had clear association with it.

Mr Weston kindly and respectfully asked me to delete the aforementioned article, OR, post his letter of complaint to the JEP, and the subsequent response from the JEP.
I thought long and hard about his proposal (around 12 seconds in total) then opted for the latter. So, here we are!!!

Below, is the article we posted in accordance with the JEP online propaganda machine.
Following that is the correspondence from this evening's shenanigans, which appear to be more than truthful!!!
Any offence we have caused to Mr Robert Weston, or Associates,
we can only blame on the JERSEY EVENING POST :)

"Decision On Cost Is First Of Its Kind"

Mr Robert Weston

LEGAL history was created last week when a Jersey company director was ordered to pay the costs of a legal action lost by a company he represented in court.
The Jersey Court of Appeal made a landmark ruling when it ordered local hotelier Robert Weston to pay the costs of an action brought against the Phone-In Trading Post, which traded under the name of Admatch.
Mr Weston represented the company in a long running dispute with Leeds United Football Club, which was represented by Advocate Philip Sinel.
During the court proceedings, it was repeatedly submitted by Mr Weston that the defendant company was a shell company with no assets to meet any financial orders made against it.

Mr Weston's email to me

Subject: INCORRECT JEP REPORT, reproduced on your website
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:42:37 +0100

Dear Mr Evans

You have picked up and reproduced, from yesterday’s JEP, a report about me which is unfortunately very inaccurate and misleading.  I should be grateful if you would remedy the situation please by removing it or publishing with it the letter of apology and retraction received earlier today from Harry McRandle. (see below).  I also attach an abridged copy of my own letter of complaint to the JEP.

You are welcome, if you prefer, to publish my complaint and the letter of apology in place of the JEP report if you wish; but preferably with the JEP photo of me – so that people who read the inaccurate report may now notice and read the update – especially if it were headed “CORRECTION OF JEP ERRONEOUS REPORT”


Robert Weston

My response to Mr Weston's email

Subject: RE: INCORRECT JEP REPORT, reproduced on your website
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:17:08 +0000

Dear Mr Weston

Thank you for alerting me to this little oversight, I am utterly astounded that the JEP has reported a "story" in a manner that was "inaccurate & misleading". Has the JEP ever done this before? :)

And there was me relying on our (accredited) media for a well written and informative article covering this story across the whole spectrum! No stone left unturned, if you know what I mean.

Robert, I am happy to do whatever suits you with this article Sir. If I have a choice, I would like to republish the whole thing, lock, stock, and two smoking barrels so to speak. And with a nice big picture of your good-self to boot.

I look forward to your response Sir

Yours sincerely in hope

Ian Evans

Mr Weston's Letter Of Complaint To The Jersey Evening Post

From: Robert Weston []
Sent: 14 June 2011 14:16
To: Harry McRandle; Corinne Wiseman; Chris Bright
Cc: 'William Redgrave'
Subject: Erroneous JEP report by Harry McRandle, dated 13th June 2011 - page 21 - FORMAL COMPLAINT

Tuesday 14th June 2011

To:  Mr H McRandle
Cc:  Mr C Bright, Editor, Jersey Evening Post

Dear Mr McRandle (and Mr Bright)


I write to complain strenuously about the seriously inaccurate, misleading and personally damaging report, published under your byline, at the top of page 21 of the Jersey Evening Post dated Monday 13th June 2011.  There is also a similar but shorter article on

Your article refers to the Appeal Court’s judgment [2011 JCA110] dated 9th June 2011,  At paragraph seven thereof, the Court said:

We have carefully considered all of the arguments put forwards [sic] by the defendant in its written submissions in opposition to the plaintiffs' application for an award of costs against Mr Weston. In our view, however, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, it is both just and reasonable that Mr Weston should be found personally liable for the costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, and we so find.  (my emphasis)

The same information is repeated twice more by the Court at paragraph 15 of its same judgment, which paragraph begins:

What we were asked to determine at the hearting on 22nd March was, as we have noted, an application for leave to appeal, not an appeal, as the plaintiffs appear to recognise elsewhere in their written contentions. Having decided to award the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to that application against Mr Weston, the ……….. (my emphasis)

Nowhere in the 5-page, 20 paragraph judgment does it say that I should be held personally responsible for the costs of the substantive action (Leeds United-v-AdMatch), which is how you have prominently misreported it, in both your first and second paragraphs.  It is completely inappropriate to pre-empt future decisions of the Court, for which no application has even been made yet and in respect of which, if ever made, completely different parameters will apply.

Then, to be quite sure that your readers could not fail to understand exactly what you were saying (albeit incorrectly), you went on, at your sixth paragraph, to speculate that the Plaintiffs’ costs, to which you were referring, were understood to exceed £0.5million.  Your inappropriate, irresponsible and commercially damaging suggestion, to the world at large, is plain.  Without any justification whatever, you speculate that I will personally have to pay out a very substantial six-figure sum as a result of this judgment.

The application for leave to appeal, to which the judgment refers, lasted only about 45 minutes.  Consequently, the taxed costs thereof, which I have actually been ordered to pay, will be nearer to a few HUNDRED pounds than to a few HUNDRED THOUSAND pounds.  I imagine that my business creditors would have preferred to have been told the truth by the JEP; and I wouldn’t blame them - so would I.


Over the last twenty years, you and I have spoken many times on newsworthy matters.  So far as I can recall, I have NEVER refused you an interview or declined to respond openly and frankly to your professional questions.  My number is still in the phone book but, in this instance, you made no attempt whatever to communicate with me in order to verify the accuracy of your story or to ask for my comment.  On the other hand, your article clearly drew heavily on information and self-serving comment supplied by Sinels.  This is, of course, an unacceptably biased and unprofessional practice, which could hardly be expected to result in a professionally balanced and accurate report.


As the longterm “business editor” of the JEP, you (of all people) will surely be aware that British businesses, including those in Jersey, have been experiencing difficult enough economic times for the last three years, without having wildly inaccurate financial information published about them in the local press.  In this case, your report, if not fully corrected immediately may cause me and my family serious financial harm, the extent of which cannot realistically be assessed at this early stage.  It could, however, hopefully be stemmed by prompt remedial action on your part.


Robert Weston

Jersey Evening Post response to Mr Weston's letter of complaint 

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 5:29 PM
To:; Corinne Wiseman; Chris Bright
Cc: William Redgrave
Subject: RE: Erroneous JEP report by Harry McRandle, dated 13th June 2011 - page 21 - FORMAL COMPLAINT

Dear Mr Weston,
Thank you for your email.
Chris Bright is away on holiday and returns to work on Monday 20 June. The matter will be referred to him at that point.
In the meantime, I can only apologise for making the error. It was a genuine mistake and I am truly sorry it has happened. It has been a complicated on-going series of legal developments and I have endeavoured to cover them accurately. I do not believe you have had grounds for complaint about reports about the action that I have previously compiled.
As you have pointed out the error as of today’s date, we intend to print a correction tomorrow to say that the costs are limited to the application for leave to appeal and the court order does not relate to the substantive action.
As per the coverage of the report where the error was made, this will be published in the business section, the same section of the paper as the erroneous report appeared in. It would assist me in writing the correction if you could indicate if you have been given an approximation of the amount in costs that you have been advised you will have to pay.
We have also removed the online version of the report from the www, website.
I hope the above is clear and of some assistance.

Kind regards

Harry McRandle


What a pisser hey Harry!!!

Remember when I was suicidal Harry?
I came up to Five Oak's to meet you,
begging 'YOU' for some help, and some strength?
I was in pieces Harry, and you knew that!
You went away with all my evidence, then came back and said,
sorry Ian, but no go with the Boss!
You didn't have be sorry Harry, you could have just said "fcuk it"
As an honourable reporter of the news, "Gonna do it anyway"!!!




There are three treasures which I hold and keep.
"The first is mercy, for from mercy comes courage.The second is frugality from which comes generosity to others. The third is humility, for from it, comes leadership."



    Dear Ian

    Thank you for your help.

    I think the issue has a little more to play out yet with the JEP before it will be deemed as resolved satisfactorily.

    I imagine you will appreciate that announcing to the world that any businessman (who obviously relies on his creditworthy name) has been ordered to pay up to half a million pounds instead of a few hundred pounds, has the potential to destroy him. It’s hardly a tiny mistake, such as if they had made a ten percent error. This mistake involves a difference factor of three zeroes (ie £500 versus £500,000). Within an hour or so of publication my bank manager rang me to ask where I was going to get half a million pounds from !!!

    Anyway, I never mind what anybody writes about me so long as it’s truthful and relevant. I leave it to your own sympathetic discretion but would be grateful if you would temper what you may have to say, so as not to make matters any worse for me.

    You may care to suggest in your own correction, for example, that such an error by the JEP (seriously involving a person’s financial integrity) can only have a reasonable hope of being fairly put right, if their retraction and apology is prompt and receives no less prominence than the original article. As you can see from Harry M’s response, they are proposing to put a correction on the business page and I imagine it’s likely to be half a dozen lines as compared with the original half page which included a huge photo.


    Robert Weston

  2. hahaha, screw the JEP Robert, they are finished!!! PERIOD!

  3. And....if it is any consolation, I couldn't even afford 500 quid to attend the Rally Against Child Abuse in London last week!

    An event I would dearly have loved to attend, as I did last year with that victim of abuse, and fabulously courageous woman, Carrie Modral :)

  4. We'll see how this complaint is dealt with - and that will shed a light on just how "accredited" and responsible the JEP media is!

  5. What!!?? The Rag not getting and publishing both sides of a story before putting the story to bed?

    Surely shome mishtake? :-)

    Anyone else notice the prevalence of people being away on holiday at the most inopportune time?

    The Beano is not the Rag

  6. Ian.

    What was it that Rob Shipley was saying about Bloggers and "journalists?" You couldn't make this stuff up, unless of course you worked for the JEP!

    How much damage could that "story" do to Mr. Weston's business/family reputation? Sloppy "journalism"..................... at best!

  7. Come on, we've all made mistakes. An acknowledgement and immediate apology is the way to go. Well done Harry. I hope the correction is appropriately visible.

  8. Oh it was visible - on page 21

  9. The utter dick head that left a comment about Harry McRandle tonight, it is not getting published.

    If you have a personal gripe with Harry, sort it out yourself, don't drag me into your shyte.

    Harry pissed on me, that is my personal, no-one elses, it is not an open invitation for all readers of this blog to lay into him through this blog!!!

    GO HOME and sleep it off!!!