Web bulletin 12th November 2012
Fascism in
Germany 1930s
Feudalism in
Sark 2012
THE TIMES
DID NOT REPORT THE FACTS
By Kevin Delaney
Amongst many members of the Jewish community, The Times has always been believed
to be anti-Semitic which may or may not be true but nevertheless, in view of this, it
would not be surprising at all that this newspaper on Saturday 10th November
published an article supportive of Feudalism in Sark and its regime reminiscent fascism
in 1930s’ Germany.
THE DAME’S COLLABORATION WITH THE GERMANS
(The Times got it wrong)
This is what Times journalists Catherine Smith and Simon de Bruxelles, apologists for
Sark’s Feudal Establishment, wrote:
“Mr Beaumont, an octogenarian former engineer, inherited his title from his
grandmother, the Dame of Sark, who negotiated an uneasy truce with the island’s German
occupiers.”
An uneasy truce? These journalists conveniently did not report the fact that the Dame
of Sark was a collaborator and a quisling. Proof of this can be found in the Home
Office archives as well as in John Nettles’ recently published book “Jewels and
Jackboots” about the German occupation of the Channel Islands.
In the Home Office archives contains this report, written in 1945 by the British
Intelligence:
“The Dame of Sark, Mrs R.W. Hathaway, has also been guilty of friendly and ingratiating
behaviour towards the Germans. Major Albrecht Lanz, the first German Commandant of
Guernsey, in his report on the Channel Islands, says that when he arrived for the first time
on Sark, he was formally and politely received by the Dame, who explained that a large
proportion of the Sark people were descendents of the Vikings who had come from the far
North. After settling official business, Major Lanz and his staff were invited to a good
lunch. The Dame was a particular friend of Dr Mass, Prince von Oettingen and General
von Schmettow, who were frequent visitors at weekends. At Easter 1945 Zachau,
Schneeberger and others were invited to a lobster lunch. The Dame of Sark has preserved
her property and privileges intact throughout the Occupation: her gardens have not even
been modified by wartime agriculture.”
And not only was her land and garden untouched whilst the land of the rest of the
Islanders was confiscated for the German Occupation, the Dame of Sark was also
permitted to buy a case of whisky and a case of gin per week, at a time when “all spirits
must be locked up immediately and no spirits may be supplied, obtained or consumed
henceforth” in accordance with the German Commandant’s orders.
Dame Sybil son and Michael Beaumont’s father, Francis William Lionel Collings
Beaumont in 1937 reportedly met with Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of
Fascists, to discuss the opening of a private radio station on Sark, something that may
well explain why Dame Sybil was treated so well by the German occupiers. That, and
the fact that she in the 1930s went to live in Germany to learn to speak German fluently.
In “Jewels and Jackboots” John Nettles inform us as follows with regard to events after
the war was over:
“Next up for censure was Sybil Hathaway the Dame of Sark. Victory Carey had behaved
in such an un-British fashion as to actually invite the Germans to take wine with him. The
Dame went several steps further down the unpatriotic road for she invited the Hun to
dinner and not just once but several times! German Generals, German aristocrats and
German intellectuals eating at the same table as a British ruler! Wasn’t this “ingratiating
and friendly behaviour towards the Germans” a form of collaboration deserving of
punishment? Stopford, d’Egville and Dening certainly thought so.”
However, charges of treason and collaboration were never brought, neither to the Dame
of Sark nor others in the Channel Islands because, as Mr Nettles says, “Appeasement
and reconciliation was the name of the Home Office game and anything that ran counter
to that would be kicked into the long grass and largely ignored”. Whatever The Times
may say, her relationship with the German occupiers was, however, certainly no
“uneasy truce” but, unquestionably, collaboration.
MICHAEL BEAUMONT WAS NEVER STRIPPED OF HIS POWER
AND PRIVILEGES
(The Times got it wrong again)
The Times’ article goes on to state that Michael Beaumont “has gradually been stripped
of his feudal rights”. Where on earth did they get that from? He may have lost his right
to be the only one on the Island entitled to own an un-spayed bitch but in accordance
with Sark’s so-called “democratic” Reform Laws of 2008 and 2010, Sark’s Feudal Lord
has the following and very real powers and privileges, unequalled since 1930s’
Germany:

Power to appoint the Seneschal Judge for life via a Committee chaired by and
specifically chosen by himself. Newly enhanced power also to fire the Seneschal
Judge figure.

Power to appoint the Deputy Seneschal, after consulting the Seneschal, with
approval of Lt-Governor

Immunity from liability for any act carried out on behalf of Chief Pleas, in good

faith and with approval
Automatic membership of Chief Pleas

Newly enhanced power through his role as possible Deputy President of Chief Pleas.

Power to appoint Deputy Seigneur from amongst Island residents and his own
family

Power to revoke appointment of Deputy Seigneur

Entitlement to vote in elections

Power to give or withhold consent to the summoning by the Seneschal of
extraordinary Chief Pleas meetings

Immunity from legal proceedings for defamation (in common with elected members)
for statements made during Chief Pleas meetings

Right to speak at Chief Pleas meetings


Temporary power to veto Ordinances made by Chief Pleas
Right to put propositions to Chief Pleas

Power to appoint Island official the Prévôt, with the approval of the Lt-Governor

Power to appoint Island official the Greffier, with the approval of the Lt-Governor

Power to appoint Island official the Deputy Prévôt

Power to appoint Island official the Deputy Greffier

Power to remove Island official the Deputy Prévôt from office

Power to remove Island official the Deputy Greffier from office

Right to give or withhold consent to the removal from office of a special constable

Right ex officio to be a trustee of a publicly owned Sark property, including its
management and disposal, all on the direction of Chief Pleas

Power to sign contracts on behalf of Chief Pleas

Right to give or withhold consent to the Chief Officer of the Guernsey Police to send
Guernsey police officers to Sark

Entitlement to feudal theft in the form of seizing the property and assets of Island
residents dying intestate.

Entitlement to feudal theft from the taxpayers in the form of the stipend - for life for
Mr Beaumont and then to his descendants forever into the future.

Ownership of Sark’s foreshore and any public parts of Sark not in private
ownership of Chief Pleas; the whole basis of Sark land law depends upon the feudal
lease that is held by Mr Beaumont personally.
Michael Beaumont was not stripped of his feudal right to claim a Treizieme – a 7.69%
personal tax that went straight into his own pocket – on Sark property transactions.
When he was advised that this personal feudal tax, not a penny of which benefited the
community, was in breach of ECHR law, he “gave” it to Sark’s parliament in return for
an annual, index-linked stipend – presently over £30,000 – paid to himself for life and to
his descendants in perpetuity. In addition, he is entitled to undisclosed expenses for
unspecified services, all to be paid to him by Sark’s taxpayers.
Courtesy of the mediaeval Crown lease he inherited from his grandmother, Michael
Beaumont owns the Fief of Sark, including its parliament, its constitution, its judiciary
and its jurisdiction including the airspace, the foreshore and beaches and policing. He
has very real power which affects all aspects of the Islanders’ life. It is not only
ignorant but also positively flippant of the Times to suggest that he has been stripped of
his power.
WHY DID MICHAEL BEAUMONT MOVE OUT OF THE
SEIGNEURIE?
(Yet again the Times got it wrong)
“He has now moved out of the Seigneurie, his ancestral home, to look after his ailing
wife”, The Times article continues, when in reality it appears that Mr Beaumont moved
out of that ancestral home because he saw an opportunity to have it renovated for free
by Mr & Mrs David Synnott, the present occupiers. The details of the deal made
between Mr Beaumont and Mr Synnott are shrouded in the deepest, darkest Sark
secrecy and Mr Synnott’s own account of it varies wildly: To the Islanders he has
announced that he is possession of a 10-year lease on the property although no such
lease is registered at Sark’s Greffe. To the Guernsey Press he said that he rents it. To
the New Yorker magazine, he declared that he lives there free of charge in return for
undertaking renovations.
Although La Seigneurie is Sark’s equivalent to Buckingham Palace, Mr Beaumont has
not deemed it expedient to inform the people of the details but one thing is for certain:
Although Mrs Beaumont has been unwell for some time, using a mobility scooter to get
around, the serious stroke that caused her to be evacuated (in a horrendous journey in
the middle of the night, on the floor of the lifeboat, in gale force winds and 3-4 metre
head sea, resulting in a two and a half hours’ delay in her hospitalisation, all because
her husband Michael Beaumont could not bring himself to use the freely available
Brecqhou helicopter) and consequently left her in need of full time care did not occur
until January last year, a long time after the ancestral home had been sold / leased / let
to Mr & Mr Synnott on highly obscure terms.
PARTISANSHIP, RACISM AND ETHNIC CLEANSING
(The Times should know better)
By inserting one single word, “Latvian” when mentioning the tractor driver with whom
Dr Axton is supposed to have been pleading “with tears in his eyes”, Times journalists
Catherine Smith and Simon de Bruxelles manage to convey several things:
The driver was not Latvian at all but by labelling him as such, they show their
partisanship with Sark’s feudal Establishment and its campaign against SEM’s
investment and efforts at creating an economy for Sark by implying, in accordance with
the Establishment myth, that the company does not employ Sark Islanders. But more
important, they saw a need to label that driver when there was no need. It was meant to
be a racist remark. In 1930s’ Germany those who opposed the regime were also given
labels, if not a yellow star, and labelled Jews, even if they were not.
Two paragraphs down the Times quotes “Roseanne Guille, a member of Chief Pleas,
who has condemned the vandalism” as having said “We feel like we are being ethnically
cleansed.” Member of Sark’s parliament Rosanne Guille Byrne is usually very careful
to use the name Byrne in connection with that membership but it was obviously more
important in this instance to make sure that suitable distance was created between her
“peaceful protest” against the vineyards and the criminal act that her very own
propaganda and scaremongering no doubt incited.
But more to the point, here we have the woman who is the ringleader of a campaign that
aims to perpetuate a feudal regime reminiscent of 1930s’ Germany and to ensure that
no one except the privileged few, including the feudally privileged and powerful Guille
family who have been on the Island since 1565, can make a living on Sark - and she
complains about “ethnic cleansing”!
AIDING AND ABETTING THE CRIMINALS
(Again, the Times should know better)
It beggars belief that the Times publishes an article suggesting that the vandalism to
SEM’s vineyards, a criminal act that caused tens of thousands of pounds-worth of
damage, was “an “inside job” intended to discredit the protesters”, thereby aiding and
abetting the criminals responsible by suggesting that there is no need for this to be
investigated properly. You would expect the Times, once a trustworthy British
institution, to know better. It would appear that those who claim that the Times, like
that other venerable British institution the BBC, has ‘lost it’ are absolutely right.
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