Monday, 21 September 2015

The Propaganda Hour.

After the latest so-called "Hot Seat" programme broadcast on State Radio, Friday just gone, Team Voice were appalled at the inadequate questioning (again) of Jersey's Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Every month the Chief Minister is invited on to the show supposedly to be challenged on his policies, actions, and in-actions, but the reality is, there is no challenge, and the programme is little more than a Party Political Broadcast for The Establishment Party, or according to the leader of Jersey's only political party REFORM JERSEY  Deputy SAM MEZEC A "propaganda Hour."

The Chief Minister is NOT joined on the show by any politician with alternative views or policies, he holds court, and listeners could be led to believe there are no alternatives to his policies including the Medium Term Financial Plan and the austerity measures being implemented by the government. How is this a balanced view for State Radio listeners? In the interest of fairness and balance the Chief Minister should be joined on the show by somebody/ANYBODY with an alternative view or a researched/challenging compare/host. Unfortunately the BBC looks to have adopted a policy where there can be no robust political debate and politicians/people with differing views cannot be live on-air together.

If the leader of the incumbent ruling party is afforded an hour-long show every month then the same should be offered to the only official opposition party but the BBC is resisting this.

VFC spoke with Deputy Sam Mezec (video below) about the continued BBC bias, the inadequacy of the "Hot Seat" (propaganda Hour) show and much more.

Team Voice has offered to fill the void left by the (un-challenging) State Media and offered to host an online live and interactive head-to-head debate with the Chief Minister and opposition party leader Deputy Sam Mezec. Deputy Mezec has agreed to the offer and we will be e-mailing the Chief Minister to invite him on "the show."

Details of the Chief Minister's response, and hopefully the show, will follow shortly.

Friday, 11 September 2015

Statement from Francis Oldham QC.

The Chair of the IJCI Frances Oldham QC has made a statement on the progress of the Inquiry. Mrs Oldham was speaking at the close of Phase 1 of the hearings during which evidence was heard from former residents of Jersey's care system, those who worked in child care services and those accused of abuse.  

00:05 "I explained at the start of this inquiry that the intention was to hear the evidence in three phases, each of which would aim to cover specific terms of reference.
00:14 “In Phase 1 we heard evidence from those who gave accounts of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. We heard from those who worked in, or were in contact with, child care services - there will be some more evidence to hear on that. We also heard in Phase 1 from those accused of abuse.
00:32 “In October the Inquiry will begin hearings in relation to Phase 2. At that stage we will look at the decisions taken in relation to the timing of the police investigation and subsequent decisions to prosecute alleged abusers. Did those responsible for deciding which cases to prosecute take a professional approach? Was that process free from political or other interference at any level?
01:12 “Phase 3 is the final phase of the Inquiry. We will examine whether the child care system since the war was adequate. What went wrong? Has the system changed for the better and what is the way forward? As part of that process the Panel will invite views and recommendations from the community at large about the future of Jersey's children - details will shortly be published on the website.
01:40 “Let us have your views on what needs to change. What are the barriers to change in Jersey? What could you or your agency contribute to that process? We want to ensure that Jersey has a high quality and cohesive care system for its children and your contribution will assist us."
02:01 END

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

ITV/CTV To be Banned from Reporting at Child Abuse Inquiry?

In an attempt to undo some damage possibly caused by discredited, and disgraced, ITV/CTV (Jersey's ITV franchise) we publish an e-mail below sent from VFC to the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.

It is inaccurate (and burying of) stories from the State Media that  allowed the Jersey Child Abuse cover-up to continue and it looks like ITV/CTV wishes to carry on its time honoured tradition of, at best, sloppy "journalism" and at worst down-right lies in order to frighten victims/witnesses from coming forward to the Committee of Inquiry to give evidence.

The e-mail (below) was sent on Friday 6 August 2015.

"Dear Inquiry Team.

I'd like to bring to your attention yet more inaccurate reporting and sloppy "journalism" from the discredited and disgraced ITV/CTV.

On its 6 o'clock alleged "news" programme yesterday (Friday 7 August 2015) it reported on the testimony of Morag and Tony Jordan. Twice during the report it was stated that the Jordan's were "cross-examined" By Patrick Saad.

I (unaccredited) (and just about anybody with the slightest interest in your Inquiry) am aware that there is NO "cross-examination" of witnesses and to the credit of the Inquiry it has gone to great lengths to stress this fact. Indeed from the very outset of the Inquiry on April 3rd 2014 Judge Oldham QC, at her opening address, at which (I believe) ITV/CTV was present she stated;

"This is an inquiry: no individual or institution is on trial. This does not mean that the Inquiry will avoid making criticisms, but it does mean that there are no parties and no sides; no scoring of points. Every witness will have a valuable perspective. There will be no cross-examination of witnesses."

Judge Oldham went on to reiterate the point that there will be NO cross examination of witnesses in her opening address here;

"I turn now to legal representation. I repeat this is an Inquiry, not a trial. You do not need a lawyer to provide your evidence to the Inquiry. The Inquiry’s legal team will assist anyone asked to give evidence or produce documents. You will be taken through your evidence by Counsel to the Inquiry and will not be cross examined by anyone else. Most of those who give evidence to us will therefore not require legal representation. They will give evidence to the Inquiry and may have no further role to play." 

I argue (as does the Inquiry) that witnesses believing they will be cross-examined while giving evidence could be deterred  from coming forward. Sloppy inaccurate "journalism" like that of ITV/CTV could be extremely detrimental to the aims and objectives of the Inquiry in attempting to gather as much evidence from as many witnesses as possible.

This is not the first time ITV/CTV has mis-represented the proceedings of the Inquiry. It also misquoted a recent witness/transcript when it reported that a witness "accused" former Health Minister, and Whistleblower, Stuart Syvret of encouraging residents of homes to make "allegations" against staff at the homes. The witness/transcript actually said that Mr. Syvret encouraged residents to make "complaints." The connotation could be seen as residents being encouraged to tell lies. When the fact is that Mr. Syvret was doing the right thing as Health Minister by encouraging victims to voice their "complaints" of abuse and wasn't "accused" of doing anything.

It must be said that the Panel itself should take some responsibility for the sloppy "journalism" peddled by ITV/CTV who have a long history of this when it concerns the Child Abuse scandal and subsequent cover-up. If the Panel had done just the slightest of research into ITV/CTV's reporting (or not) of the Child Abuse scandal then I am confident it would not have granted it accreditation and banned it from the Inquiry's Media room instead of banning Bloggers. (Jersey's only independent media)

It is a waste of time me contacting ITV/CTV (copied in) directly because it has a complete disregard for the English Language as demonstrated HERE. Further has a complete disregard for the facts as demonstrated HERE  and no matter how inaccurate its reporting is ITV/CTV always believes everything it broadcasts is "entirely accurate" as demonstrated in the above links and HERE.

Could I ask the Panel, in an attempt to undo any of the damage ITV/CTV might have caused the Inquiry by possibly deterring witnesses from coming forward to ask ITV/CTV to correct its latest misreporting by broadcasting an apology and correcting its misrepresentation of the facts? To make it clear that witnesses are NOT cross-examined?

Could I then please ask the Panel/Inquiry Team what sanctions are open to it should an "accredited" media outlet continue to misrepresent proceeding of the Hearings, and which, if any, of those sanctions will ITV/CTV incur?

Kind Regards.

VFC. (Unaccredited)"(END)

It is inconceivable to believe ITV/CTV was unaware that witnesses ARE NOT subject to cross examination. How is it, at all, possible to make that kind of "mistake?"

The Inquiry has been doing a good job of its expert questioning of witnesses without cross examining them. Information is coming to light from documents acquired by the Inquiry that shows it (Inquiry Team) is doing some serious homework/research in some areas.

Some good work is being done by the Inquiry (and some not so good) but when the "accredited" media continues to peddle inaccuracies/untruths it does the Inquiry no good and can prevent witnesses from coming forward.

We hope witnesses will still come forward to the Inquiry who can be contacted through its website HERE. It is not too late for Victims and Survivors to come forward.

Hopefully readers will be assured, by this Blog Posting, that witnesses ARE NOT cross examined and will have a flavour (by clicking on the links provided) of ITV/CTV's history of making up its own stories rather than reporting the facts.

As well as Victims and Survivors coming forward we'd like to reassure the likes of Bill Ogley, Ian Critch, Jon Richardson, Ian Le Marquand, Emma Martins, David Warcup, Mick Gradwell, Frank Walker and with the latest revelations coming from the Child Abuse Inquiry, and State Media PHILIP BAILHACHE. Not forgetting the notorious ANDREW LEWIS that you will not be cross examined and that your testimony is eagerly awaited.

We will keep readers posted as to what sanctions (if any) the serial offender ITV/CTV incur from the Inquiry for this latest, potentially dangerous, crock of (not even) Churnalism. 

Tuesday, 4 August 2015

Ted Heath Might Be "The Headline" But He Is NOT The Story.

On November 10th 2008 Jersey’s Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, was (possibly illegally) suspended from duty by the then Home Affairs Minister (above) discredited and disgraced ANDREW LEWIS.

He was suspended under very dubious circumstances where the official version of events that led to his suspension did not, does not, stand up to scrutiny so he had to be suspended again with an official line that (for the Establishment) would look a little more credible to the gullible public.

The former Chief of Police, it should be mentioned, was (illegally?) suspended from duty during the biggest Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) this island has ever seen, or is likely to see.

A matter of weeks after (illegally?) suspending the Chief Officer, Andrew Lewis stepped away from political life and didn’t stand for re-election until 2014 where he was re-elected as a Deputy in St Helier District 3/4. The equally disgraced (former Magistrate) Ian Le Marquand was elected as Senator and took over the role as Home Affairs Minister where he too dubiously suspended Mr. Power with a story that was little more credible than that of Andrew Lewis' but did not, does not, stand up to scrutiny either.

The now (or then) Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand claimed he was going to bring Chief Officer Power to a disciplinary hearing and employed (at huge expense) an outside police force to gather the evidence against Mr. Power. That UK Police Force was The Wiltshire Constabulary.

Wiltshire’s alleged “investigation” (Operation Haven 1) subsequently went on to miss just about every deadline it was set, went way over budget, and didn’t bring a single disciplinary charge against Mr. Power. But that didn’t matter, its job was done. Wiltshire were able to give the Home Affairs Minister some unproven, untested allegations against Mr. Power (the prosecution case) to which Mr. Le Marquand duly (possibly illegally) published, with the help of the State Media. Neither he, nor the local State Media, who are all in possession of Mr. Power's defence case, to this day, have published/broadcast a SINGLE WORD OF IT.

The day disgraced former Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, published parts of the prosecution case against Mr. Power was a day that set a very DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. He has some very serious questions to answer including THOSE ASKED by Jersey's former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of the Child Abuse investigation (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper (above).

The Wiltshire Constabulary were very "helpful" to the Jersey Authorities by dragging out their investigation for so long that it would be impossible to test their evidence against Mr. Power's.

But what we didn't know (because Wiltshire kept it quiet) was that they look to have covered up claims of abuse made against former Prime Minister Ted Heath, who was a regular visitor to Jersey. The disgraced Wiltshire Constabulary, who stand accused of complicity in the Jersey Child Abuse cover-up, are, or have been, under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission for a number of alleged "offences" due to its handling, (or lack of) abuse claims HERE and the Ted Heath claims HERE.

Brian Moore Senior Investigating Officer (Operation Haven 1) was then seconded, from Wilts, to become interim head of the UK Boarder Agency, with the apparent intention of taking up the full time post. He then stepped down IN DISGRACE from the UKBA.

Regular readers of this Blog will remember Best-Selling author and Journalist Leah McGrath Goodman was BANNED from the UK and Jersey after it became apparent she was investigating the child abuse, and POSSIBLE MURDER at Haut De la Garenne. She was detained at Heathrow Airport on 11 September 2011 where she was held in a cell for 12 hours, not allowed to contact ANYBODY in that time, it was eight hours before she was even asked a question. Terrorists/criminals do not get treated so appallingly, and who was at that time the Interim Head at the UKBA (a month before he stood down)? None other than Brian Moore former Chief of Wilts police and Senior Investigating Officer Operation Haven 1.

There is a large amount of media attention surrounding the allegations against former Prime Minister Edward Heath. As mentioned earlier in this posting he was a regular visitor to Jersey and guest of former President of Jersey Defence Committee (in charge of the police) Mike Wavell who ran, or owned, the Waters Edge Hotel at Bouley Bay where Heath's yacht would be moored up in the bay.

Indeed Heath was such a regular visitor to the island, in the final months of his life, we can exclusively reveal, that the States Of Jersey Police were involved with plans for his security and the arrangements which would have to be made should he die in Jersey.

The Heath story will sell "news"papers and make for attention grabbing headlines in the media. But for those who are interested in getting to the bottom of what is increasingly looking like a powerful UK (including Jersey) paedophile ring and how they are able to operate with impunity, then looking at the actions, and in-actions, of police forces like Wiltshire (and Jersey pre November 2008 and post November 2008).

Heath might be "The Headline" but he is NOT the story.

Monday, 13 July 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Adopts "The Jersey Way."

Suspected paedophiles and Child Abusers are being given protection by the Jersey Child Abuse INQUIRY. Protection that is NOT afforded to their Victims/Survivors.

Victim/Survivor witnesses who wish to give evidence, or a statement, to the Inquiry are given three options which are;

1) Publicly. (under their own name)

2) Privately. Where their statement, or their name, is not made public and they do not give public oral evidence to the Panel/Inquiry.

3) Anonymously. Where the Victim/Survivor is given a cipher number/alias.

So in practice the Victim/Survivor who wishes to appear at the Inquiry, and give evidence, only has two options, which are either Anonymously (Cipher Number/alias) or under their own name.

The alleged perpetrators/paedophiles/abusers also have those three options but have the ability to combine No.1 with No. 3. That is to say they are able to appear to the public to be at least 2 (possibly 3) different people as far as the proceedings of the Inquiry is concerned.

What this means in practice is that on a Monday a Child "Care" worker can come and give evidence to the Inquiry and attack the Police Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) and/or Abuse Victims/Survivors. The Child "Care" Officer will be questioned on policy, procedure, the law of the time they were in employment and the such like. 

What the public will not be aware of (nor will the Professional "Care" Worker be questioned on) is that he/she is also a suspected paedophile/abuser who was investigated by Operation Rectangle.

So on the Tuesday, this professional "Care worker" can turn up as an alias. On Monday he was "professional Care Worker Joe Bloggs" and Tuesday he is Witness "Mr. XYZ" or "Cipher number 123"

On Monday Joe Bloggs (professional "care" worker) criticises the police investigation and/or Abuse Victims/Survivors, and nobody knows that Mr. Bloggs has, or could have, a vindictive motive for attacking the cops and Survivors. As far as the public is aware this is a professional person with no axe to grind, no abuse to cover up and no allegations against them.

But on Tuesday when he turns up as "Witness XYZ" or "cipher number 123" and IS questioned about his alleged paedophilia/abuse the public have no idea it is the same person that was giving evidence the day before. 

Witness "XYZ" goes on to agree with what was said by "Joe Bloggs" the day before when attacking the cops/Survivors. So as far as the public is concerned, a suspected paedophile and a professional  "care" worker both agree with each others  criticisms of Operation Rectangle and Survivors. What the public DOESN'T know is that the suspected paedophile and professional "care" worker are the same person. They can attack Victims, and the public DOESN'T know it is/was they who allegedly abused them. 

It is an absolute bonkers situation and one that the COI refuses to deal with and just puts its head in the sand. (The Jersey Way)

Suspected paedophiles/abusers who either worked, or still work, in the "care" industry are NOT questioned about their alleged abuse under their own name, that means the public have no idea they could STILL be working in the "care" industry........Does the public not have the right to know?

But what about the discredited, and disgraced, Chapman Report when that "nasty man" former Health Minister, and Senator, Stuart Syvret was saying horrible things about these alleged abusers/paedophiles, on his Blog, they wanted their names cleared didn't they? Indeed Chapman recommended that the States Employment Board/Council of Ministers refuted the allegations with evidence and published it on social media, to include, Mr. Syvret's Blog. But that recommendation wasn't adopted by the then Chief Minister, discredited, and disgraced, Terry Le Sueur...........Why not? Further, now that these people have the opportunity to publicly refute Mr. Syvret's allegations, they reject the offer and will only answer these allegations, and others, anonymously at the COI. what happened to wanting their names cleared?

All witnesses should (and do) have the opportunity to give their evidence anonymously but the alleged victims should not be denied equality of arms. If the alleged abusers want to give their evidence anonymously, then so be it, but they shouldn't be able to have it both ways..................The Victims/Survivors are not able to have it both ways.

The COI has got this terribly wrong and are giving protection to alleged paedophiles/abusers and are not offering the same protection to the alleged Victims/Survivors. That is how the paedophilia was able to thrive for so long on the island. This is "The Jersey Way."

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Jersey Continues to Fail Abuse (Rape) Victims?

Below is a (redacted) complaint against two Senior Officers of the States of Jersey Police over the way they appear to have handled a recent allegation of Rape/Sexual Assault and look to have treated the victim as the perpetrator and vice versa.

This is a harrowing story, which serves to demonstrate that nothing has changed in Jersey, regarding abuse complaints, despite assurances from the Establishment to the contrary. Victims look to be STILL persecuted, disbelieved, and threatened while the alleged perpetrators are protected by the system (and friends in high places).

The alleged victim of recent rape/sexual Assault has been threatened with arrest, been portrayed as the perpetrator, and ignored by authorities, to the point where she has attempted to take her own life.

Police have downgraded this attack as a “sexual assault” and are not treating it as rape. Again this looks to be contrary to their own PR spin (photo of police van above) “SEX WITHOUT CONSENT IS RAPE.”

Extracts from complaint against police.

We encourage victims to come forward, we will help you. ( we won't help you if I have a working relationship with your attacker, in fact, I will threaten to arrest you).”

“Treatment by the police further traumatised me to the point of suicide.”

“The treatment I received from the police, i.e. Having the tables turned so that the attacker was the victim and I was the criminal”

“It leaves Society with a Police force unfit for purpose.”

Redacted Complaint Against Police.

I was sexually assaulted on the night of the (redacted). I was in a state of shock, distress and torment both physically and emotionally for the months that followed thereafter when this heinous crime was committed against me. The emotional scarring and turbulence to my life had a devastating debilitating effect and most upsetting to me that of my family's life thereafter. I could no longer communicate on a healthy balanced level as the emotional damage took it's course over the subsequent months that followed. Naive as it was (in hindsight) and reasonable to assume my thinking process had also been severely curtailed my immediate reaction was to protect my family.  I felt at the time of this crime, if I did not tell those I loved what had happened to me, I was protecting them and had tried with great difficulty to continue my life.  In my mistaken and emotionally misguided thought process this approach was unhealthy with pernicious and serious consequences for the stability and well being of my husband, children and myself as I clearly was vulnerable and not in a position to 'departmentalise' this violation to myself. I eventually found the courage to open up to my husband as to what had occurred the night of (redacted).  It was, to say the very least a very upsetting and shocking disclosure to my husband however he was very supportive and understood my reasons for my misguided interpretation of trying to protect him and the children.  It helped him to understand and empathise with the previous months behaviour on my part as I was often found crying combined with no emotional engagement.  With his love and considerate understanding he gave me the courage to now approach the Jersey Police and report this heinous crime. From the reporting of this crime,  I have had the support and guidance on this matter from highly qualified bodies of authority; CPS, Rape Crisis England to name but two and a host of other leading authorities on this matter.

In a letter I received from the law office explaining to me why the case didn't go to court, it stated that 'the police investigating were 'unclear' as to why there was a delay'.  Importantly, if the police were 'unclear' about anything,

(1). I'd like to know why they didn't simply ask me to clarify? This raises alarm bells as to the thoroughness of this investigation.

In fact I only gave one statement to the 2 uniformed police officers on the night I reported. I was extremely distressed however, I was categorically  told that I would be able to go over it again at a later date with an experienced officer, which given my extreme distress and the circumstances, this information was reassuring.  It has to date never happened.  I was informed with some coolness that I could get in touch with Victim Support.

(2). I would like to know why I was only ever interviewed once especially given that the investigating officer/s was 'unclear' on any issue that I could have instantly clarified?

Finally 3 days later on the (redacted) I received a phone call from (officer No.1). It was an abrupt call whereby he asked if I had told my GP about this?.  I had not been out of the house since speaking to the Police on (redacted).  I replied no and he ended the call as abruptly as he had started. That was my first contact and introduction as a victim of a sexual crime to the investigating officer, (Officer No1). It was completely lacking in empathy or compassion for the position that I was in. I would also like the SOJP to be aware that at no time from the first point of contact to the last, did any officer ever enquire as to my well being.

(3). Is this the standard way in which the SOJP are trained to deal with victims of sexual crime?

Within this time period, I phoned Victim Support. They informed me that they did not receive a 'referral' for me and therefore could only 'deal' with me once the police referred me. I found this very demoralising on top of the ordeal that I was already experiencing. My husband and I went to the police station as I wanted to meet (Officer No.1) in person and ask him to please 'refer' me to Victim Support. He was unavailable so a different police officer assisted us. He informed us that the Victim Support referral should have been instant from the time of reporting, as it is and I quote 'at the push of a button'.  The Officer pushed the button that same day. Two weeks after reporting, I finally received a letter from Victim Support.

(4). I would like to know what the SOJPs procedure is for referring sexual crime victims to Victim Support and what went wrong with my referral?

Unfortunately, my attacker lived 2 doors away from me making us immediate neighbours. From the day I reported, I had to endure regular sniggering & goading from him, his partner and their visitors. Obviously I made great efforts to avoid his path since the night of the attack, however living in a very small community and him being two doors away from me was not always possible.  My 73 year old mother had to fly over from (redacted) and stay with me as I could no longer cope when my husband was at work as I felt isolated, alone, vulnerable and intimidated. My mother was a witness to many of these incidents. Some of which are documented by the Jersey Police. Consequently, my husband had to take time off work eventually, as I simply could not cope for obvious reasons.

On the (recacted), (Officer No.1) came to my home to tell me that there was 'insufficient evidence' to go to court. I was distraught, to put it mildly. I vocalised to (Officer No.1) that as the attacker is a (redacted) within social services (& to my knowledge working within an environment of vulnerable females), I would be reporting the matter to the Health Care Professional Council in London (HCPC).  This is the regulatory body which oversees registrants 'fitness to practice'. I was then very curtly told not to 'harass' the attacker by doing this.  It beggared belief. I would like to take the opportunity to point out that the HCPC exists for this reason. It is an authoritative body whereby members of the public can report registered individuals regardless of whether a case went to court or not. In other words, after being denied justice in the most demeaning, abrupt and humiliating manner,  I felt it my moral duty as well as being within my rights to contact the HCPC.  given the fact I was a victim of sexual assault by someone I knew and who had access to other vulnerable people within a woking environment in the States of Jersey. 

Contrary to any police officers belief, my reporting of my experience to the HCPC is a deeply personal matter for me to decide and does NOT amount to 'harassment', as (Officer No1) insinuated and was clearly (to me) belittling my horrendous experience and quite deliberately wishing to undermine my confidence even further than it already was.  I found his comment, unhelpful, distasteful, disrespectful, aggressive, rather threatening and wholly inaccurate to say the least.  Once again, I felt completely unsupported and further violated by the States of Jersey police force and it was now being suggested in a very strong manner that I was 'harassing' my attacker.

To date, I am still in a state of anguish and am traumatised by this vile violating attack which took place.  I have been through the worst time in my life; which has had a clear and devastating effect on my husband and children, parents and siblings.  Without who's support I cannot begin to imagine what might have become of me. 

Being in a very vulnerable situation and with very little support from States of Jersey police and feeling depressed and very very let down by the attitude from the States of Jersey police, I sent the attackers partner a text message stating that although it did not go to court, he did this to me and I felt she needed to know that. Given the pressure of being neighbours whilst this investigation was going on, the goading, what my family and I were going through, I don't think any reasonably minded person would view this as a particularly heinous thing to do, certainly not by comparison. Having spoke with several Professionals such as my GP, counsellor, psychologists and even Senators have unanimously agreed that given the circumstances, this was not a big deal.  I was horrified when (Officer No.1) came to my home and read out a complaint from my attacker saying that he was being 'harassed', and now I had to sign an 'anti harassment order'. Not only am I not being properly protected by the States of Jersey police, I am now being bullied by my attacker with the States of Jersey Police force as back up and I find myself being unwittingly criminalised while my attacker is using the very system that ought to have been there from the onset to protect not only myself, but my family.

There is a particularly distressing part to this: (Officer No.1) informed me that the attacker complained that our (redacted) year old daughter was 'running around calling him a rapist'. Naturally, I broke down. Our (redacted) year old daughter attended (redacted) at the time due to having a (redacted) which meant that her (redacted). I can absolutely assure you that that word is not and never has been in her vocabulary. It would have been extremely inappropriate for her to be made aware of what had happened, hence why she never knew and still does not know what happened. She understands of course that something has made her mummy unhappy due to my depression however, our children are of the upmost importance to us and we have gone to great lengths to shield them from the horrors that actually took place, naturally, as any parent, I'd like to think would do. 

The actual assault and then the reporting of it culminated in the worst experience of my life and unfortunately I tried to take my own life. It became clear to me, my husband, my sister and my mother that at some point in my dealings with the States of Jersey Police force,  I was the 'perpetrator' and the attacker was the 'victim'. This was too devastating for me to take in. Having our (redacted) year old daughter dragged into this was horrendous. I have some very serious questions I would appreciate answers to:-

- Was it really necessary for the detective to tell me this? Was this a 'victim led investigation' or more to the point, who did the police view the victim as?

- Did the attacker also have to sign a 'anti harassment order' for the times that I felt threatened and intimidated by him and reported it? My children were also placed on a safeguarding order by the detective. (My son, because the attacker would stand outside with his arms folded staring at my son. His friends noticed this too).  Or, was that only reserved for me?

I sent an email to the health minister and a senator. This was because I was appealing to them to rehouse us. Unbeknown to me, the attacker had already been given his notice to leave. My husband and I were completely unaware of this but we did notice a police car parked outside our house when they were leaving. It may well have been a coincidence, but given my now status as a perpetrator:-

-  was this for his 'protection' against me? Once we realised that they left and this coincided with the police car stationed outside my house, it then became rather disturbing to think that could have been the case. Nevertheless, it was a huge relief that he had indeed left.

( Senior Officer No.2)

Through a medium of emails back and forth to Health Minister and the Senator, the Senator got in touch with me to arrange to meet the following week. We met and discussed the realities of how I reported a crime and then was portrayed as the perpetrator. The senator was supportive but then informed me that prior to our meeting, (s)he had spoken to (Senior Officer No.2) regarding the case. At first, (s)he told me that (Senior Officer No.2) sometimes worked alongside the attacker as he is involved with child protection, safeguarding etc., she told me that (Senior Officer No.2) 'liked' him and (s)he; the Senator, was told unequivocally by (Senior Officer No.2) that if I 'kept pushing it', (Senior Officer No.2) would have me arrested and charged with 'perverting the course of justice'. I was completely and utterly stunned by this relaying of a message from (Senior Officer No.2) to the Senator (as was the Senator) it also confirmed what I thought all along, that the investigation into my reported crime was inappropriately and unprofessionally conducted by all concerned by the States of Jersey police force and it was I, not my attacker who became a suspect being investigated for 'making a false allegation'.

There are many issues with (Senior Officer No.2) taking this stance.
(s)he works alongside my attacker. There is clearly a conflict of interest here. I also view this stance as an abuse of power. This was clearly a threat, not to mention intimidation. If I did not 'drop' the issue, (s)he would arrest me. This is an appalling abuse of authority.

 I notice that (Senior Officer No.2) speaks in favour of victims of abuse coming forward and gives the appearance of supporting this. (S)he may well do, but in my case, (s)he had a professional biased relationship with my attacker and 'liked' him, so threatened to silence a sexual crime victim with arrest. This is the wrong message to be sending out to members of the public and victims of crime. The message I take from (Senior Officer No.2)  is this:  We encourage victims to come forward, we will help you. ( we won't help you if I have a working relationship with your attacker, in fact, I will threaten to arrest you).

Is this a message that the States of Jersey Police Force are happy to put out there to other possible victims of crime?

I was also told that (Senior Officer No.2) said to the senator that I ‘had an unhappy marriage and was thus 'making it up'. I find (Senior Officer No.2)  comments absolutely disgusting, inaccurate, unprofessional, unhelpful, callous and based on thin air. I have never met (Senior Officer No.2) and would like to know how (s)he arrived at that conclusion. I am not going to justify my marriage to anyone but would like to point out to the SOJP that this is a very misinformed, dangerous myth regarding sexual offences. It is suggesting that say for example, a woman who is in an abusive marriage then goes on to be the victim of a sexual crime would immediately be treated as a liar because of her circumstances.  It suggests that women have ulterior motives for reporting sexual crimes. It suggests you are a liar until proven otherwise.  The damage that has been done to me because of this assumption will take a long time to heal, if ever.

Would you also advocate that abused children from difficult backgrounds are lying because of their circumstances? Is it appropriate for (Senior Officer No.2) to take this stance given (Senior Officer No.2)  fondness for my attacker? Was my complaint ever treated with impartiality and fairness? Or was the investigation looking for every inconsistency without clarifying it with me, in order to tip it in favour of the attacker who has working ties with the SOJP? I feel given what I know now there is absolutely no doubt in my mind it was biased from the onset.

This is the worst thing that has ever happened to me and I am still trying to pick up the pieces. All of the above mentioned treatment by the police further traumatised me to the point of suicide. I am being treated for Post traumatic stress disorder and I can assure you that I did not end up with PTSD from having a fling, regretful sex, bad marriage or any other myth preventing justice being carried out. I ended up with long term PTSD as a direct result of what the attacker did to me, which amounts to nothing short of a sexual assault. The treatment I received from the police, i.e. Having the tables turned so that the attacker was the victim and I was the criminal, has severely dented my faith and confidence in the police, specifically the States of Jersey Police and society as a whole.. I don't want this happening to anyone else. No one but absolutely no one should have to go through this alone; the vulnerability of coping with heinous crime forced upon you, the deep violation is immeasurable and coupled with a biased, unprofessional, unco-operative, threatening Police force to debilitate the victim further into despair, severely adds to the trauma already inflicted.

To reiterate, I am making a formal complaint about the quality of service (lack of) that myself and my family received from the States of Jersey police from the date of reporting and beyond. I consistently felt uncomfortable (Officer No.1) scolding attitude towards me, his lack of concern for my well being and overall lack of compassion towards a sexual crime victim.

I am making a formal complaint against (Senior Officer No.2) for his/her biased, unprofessional, judgmental, conflicted and abusive stance towards myself, the victim of a sex crime.(END)

I’m sure readers will agree that this is a harrowing account of how alleged rape/abuse victims apparently continue to suffer the prejudices of a supposed bygone era in 21st Century Jersey Police Force?

It is worth mentioning that the victim has told us that the alleged perpetrator was apparently brought in for questioning by the police and adopted the “no comment” stance. If true, would this be the action of an innocent man?

After going through all the correct channels open to the alleged victim, and having apparently been disbelieved, and threatened with prosecution herself she contacted VFC and asked if there was anything we could do to help.

Team Voice met with Chief Minister Ian Gorst and Assistant Chief Minister Paul Routier at a public drop in session at St. Paul’s Centre where we raised our, and the victim’s concerns with them.

Although they tried to convince us they took the allegations seriously, and were both proud to tell us that Senator Routier was a member of the Adult and Children Policy Group (whatever that is) the complete opposite turned out to be the case.

After having our e-mails ignored and having to embarrass them on Twitter in order to get a response, Senator Paul Routier finally responded by e-mail advising the victim to take her complaints to the very people she was complaining about. He, and the Chief Minister had, and have, no interest, as public servants, to represent her.

Why should alleged victims in this day and age (post Savile, post Operation Rectangle, post Rotherham) still be treated so appallingly by the police and authorities?

Equally disturbing is, according to the alleged victim, her attacker is STILL working within an environment of vulnerable females”