Monday, 28 December 2009

Blogging in 2009

Blogging is still a relatively new phenomena here in little old Jersey. It has been welcomed in some circles and frowned upon in others.
But there is no getting away from the fact that it is growing. Here at Team Voice, over the past year, we have seen our readership more than treble.

Senator Ben Shenton concedes “we are going to have to accommodate them” (Bloggers). How are you going to do this then Senator? Because web streaming of States meetings (as is currently being considered) is nothing short of “State controlled media” we have enough of that already, and that’s partly the reason Blogs exist in the first place. He also concedes “they are here to stay”….well he got that right!!

Because Jersey has no alternative “accredited” media - Blogs are filling a massive void. Blogs and Bloggers seem to be the only alternative to “the party line”.

2009 has seen the “accredited” media absolutely slate retired DCO Lenny Harper for his handling of the HDLG “historic” Child Abuse Investigation. An investigation where he has a 100% record of securing convictions against Child Abusers.

This - one could believe - is what helped put Jersey “Blogging” on the map.

Lenny Harper responded by submitting a 16,500 word, 31 page response with documented evidence “exclusively” to a Blogger. The Blogger - Senator Stuart Syvret - has seen his readership grow to almost a quarter of a million, which could be argued is a much bigger readership than ANY of our local “accredited” media.

Blogging, unfortunately for some, has got to be one of the fastest growing news outlets and can no longer be ignored by our “ruling elite” or our “accredited” press.

One of the only ways to slow down the growth of Blogsites here in Jersey is for the “accredited” press to stop towing the party line and start reporting all the “uncomfortable truths” and expose this Child Abuse Scandal, and many other things, for what they really are, don’t leave it for Bloggers to do.

Below is a short montage of some of our elected representative’s thoughts, or views, on Blogging…….What’s yours?

Tuesday, 22 December 2009

A year at the Helm.

2009 was a year that seen umpteen alleged child abusers escape facing a jury of their peers. It was also a year that saw history being made by protests being held, for the first time in eight hundred years, at the swearing in of the Balliff and Deputy Balliff.

A year that forced our most senior politician to flee the tyranny and oppression inflicted by our ruling elite. A year where retired DCO Lenny Harper “put the record straight” with an “exclusive” posting on a Blog rather than trusting our “accredited” media. A year where Gradwell was given a free reign by our “accredited” media to attack a fellow professional and expected us all to believe in tooth fairies.

Below is the first compilation of some the year’s events under the command of Captain Le Sueur, there will be more to come.

My thoughts and prayers are with all abuse survivors across the world and would like to remind our ruling elite and “accredited” media that Jersey’s Child abuse scandal, the illegal suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power, and all the other shenanigans that don’t make it in to the “accredited” media will be getting exposed by Bloggers……..Welcome to the 21st century!

Merry Christmas and a happy new year to one and all. 2010 promises to be an eventful year!

Carrie I believe some people are beyond forgiveness.

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Statistics.

It is such a shame that none of the 20 newly elected representatives took the opportunity to blow their trumpet, and as for CTV did anybody expect them to balance the Syvret interview?

Below is a set of statistics that show our ruling elite are not having an easy a time as they once enjoyed. This is partly thanks to the new incumbents but not exclusively, there are some hardened campaigners, like Deputy Bob Hill who has been bringing propositions, (16, including amendments this year) asking questions and campaigning for reform and Human Rights for the last 17 years or so.



1. Number of meeting days

TOTAL Ordinary business Ceremonial, etc.
2000 32 30 2
2001 37 34 3
2002 47 45 2
2003 37 36 1
2004 49 47 2
2005 49 48 1
2006 38 35 3
2007 45 44 1
2008 51 50 1
2009 60 59 0



2. Total sitting hours (including Liberation Day and other ceremonial)

2006 191 hours 05 minutes
2007 240 hours 49 minutes
2008 298 hours 50 minutes
2009 351 hours 2 minutes



3. Oral questions with notice answered during 90 minute/2 hour period

2009 2008
Economic Development 50 13
Chief Minister 46 21
Treasury and Resources 44 22
Home Affairs 40 27
Health and Social Services 36 16
Transport and Technical Services 23 28
Education, Sport and Culture 20 16
Social Security 17 24
Planning and Environment 17 17
Housing 14 10
H.M. Attorney General 13 3
Privileges and Procedures Committee 6 3
Comité des Connétables 6 1
Chairmen’s Committee 4 0
Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel 1 0
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 0 1
Total 337 202



In addition there were 51 oral questions with notice listed that were not reached during the 90 minute period allocated before September 2009 (no oral questions with notice remained unanswered after the period was increased to 2 hours)

4. Written questions

2009 2008
Treasury and Resources 65 34
Chief Minister 61 42
Transport and Technical Services 50 23
Social Security 43 28
Health and Social Services 42 18
Economic Development 38 35
Education, Sport and Culture 27 14
Planning and Environment 26 19
Home Affairs 22 23
Housing 14 22
HM Attorney General 13 2
Privileges and Procedures 8 11
Comité des Connétables 7 3
Chairmen’s Committee 2 0
Health, Soc. Sec. and Housing Scr. Panel 1 1
Environment Scrutiny Panel 0 2
Public Accounts Committee 0 1
Education and Home Affairs Scr. Panel 0 1
Commonwealth Parliamentary Assoc. 0 1
TOTAL 419 280



5. Public Business – number and type of propositions debated

2009 2008
Private members’ policy matters 44 31
Regulations 39 40
Appointments 32 18
Ministers’ policy matters 23 15
Laws 21 45
Legislative Acts (including Appointed Day Acts) 10 13
Standing Orders 3 3
Strategic Plan/Annual Business Plan/Budget 3 2
Scrutiny Panels policy matters 3 1
No confidence/dismissal/censure 1 3
PPC/Comité des Connétables policy matters 1 0
Petitions 1 0
Property matters 0 3
TOTAL 181 174





6. Public Business – time spent debating different types of proposition

2009 2008
Total time % of total time Total time % of total time
Private members’ policy matters 106h 46m 39.3% 60h 41m 26.3%
Annual Business Plan/Budget 74h 43m 27.5% 35h 22m 15.3%
Regulations 26h 54m 9.9% 26h 29m 11.5%
Laws 21h 53m 8.1% 39h 55m 17.3%
Ministers’ policy matters 16h 13m 6.0% 39h 44m 17.2%
PPC/Comité des Connétables policy matters 7h 39m 2.8% - -
Scrutiny Panels policy matters 6h 10m 2.3% 6h 32m 2.8%
Appointments 5h 23m 2.0% 3h 44m 1.6%
No confidence/dismissal/censure 3h 9m 1.2% 10h 44m 4.7%
Standing Orders 1h 52m 0.7% 2h 5m 0.9%
Legislative Acts (including Appt Day Acts) 0h 39m 0.2% 5h 8m 2.2%
Petitions 0h 6m 0.0% - -
Property matters - - 0h 5m 0.0%
Total Public Business 271h 27m 230h 29m

Monday, 7 December 2009

Update.

Further to our last Blog, Team Voice are very sad to report, despite being in contact with a few of the listed politicians, and despite being assured they will reply to the questionnaire, not one of them have.

This is most unfortunate because there are a number of them who work tirelessly for their constituents and for the greater good of the island. The questionnaire would have offered them the opportunity, not only to prove they are worth their money and seat, but also given them the opportunity to engage with the ever growing online community of voters.

For the rest it would have exposed them as bi-weekly 43 grand button pushers and they never were going to answer any questions, you the reader, can decide who falls in which camp!

Another update we are sorry, but not surprised, to report - is that of Channel Television and their interview with Senator Syvret in London where he was subject to a (Jersey style) “grilling” from Jess Dunsdon.

Regular readers will be aware we (Team Voice) were “holding judgement” as to whether it was a fair, impartial and objective interview. We suggested if there was a counter-balance interview subjecting either Magistrate Bridget Shaw, Attorney General Tim Le Coq, Advocate Stephen Baker, either of the Bailhache brothers, to a “Jersey style grilling” then it would appear fair, impartial and objective.

Team Voice have e-mailed Channel Television on two occasions asking them if they had any intention on interviewing any of the above and we reproduce the e-mails here.

Dear news @ channeltv.

As you will be aware, we at Team Voice, published a Blog covering the interview between Jess Dunsdon and Senator Syvret
here
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2009/11/fair-and-impartial-reporting.html We are looking to do a follow up of this Blog.

Before we do this could you please advise us if you have any intentions of interviewing Bridget Shaw, Stephen Baker, William or Phillip Bailhache Tim Le Coq or anybody similar in order to give some balance to the Syvret interview?

Kind Regards.

Team Voice


--
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/

http://voiceforjersey.blogspot.com/

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/



|voiceforchildren voiceforchildren to news
show details Nov 23


Dear News.

Below is the e-mail sent to you on November the 19th. Unfortunately we have still not recieved a reply. Could you please inform us as to whether you are going to interview any of the key players mentioned or not.

If you have no intentions of interviewing any of them, then could you please explain the reason(s) for this?

Team Voice.


Unfortunately Channel Television have not replied so we are left believing the “Syvret interview” was a propaganda exercise which served our ruling elite’s purpose of telling the public how Senator Syvret is a naughty boy.

Come on Channel Television you’re “accredited” media aren’t you? We’re only asking for both sides of the story, in a word “Balance”.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

12 months in office.

Today Team Voice sent out an e-mail and questionnaire (below) to the 20 States members who were either elected for the first time, or elected to a new post at the Nov/Dec 2008 elections.

We will be publishing all responses we receive in order of when we receive them, a kind of first come, first served basis. Depending on how fast the replies come "flooding in" they might be spread across our 3 Blogsites which, besides this one, include http://voiceforjersey.blogspot.com/ and http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/

The e-mail was sent to the following States members.

Senator Alan Breckon.
Senator Alan MacLean.
Senator Ian Le Marquand.
Senator Sarah Ferguson.

Connetable Deidre Mezbourian.
Connetable John Refault.
Connetable Juliette Gallichan.
Connetable Len Norman.

Deputy Anne Dupré.
Deputy Angela Jeune.
Deputy Andrew Green.
Deputy Daniel Wimberley.
Deputy Debbie De Sousa.
Deputy Edward Noel.
Deputy Jeremy Macon.
Deputy Mike Higgins.
Deputy Montfort Tadier.
Deputy Philip Rondel.
Deputy Tracy Vallois.
Deputy Trevor Pitman.

The e-mail.

Dear States member.

It has already, in most cases, been a full 12 months since you were successfully elected to your post, whether you be a new member of the government or an existing member who has achieved election to a new post.

We at Team Voice are very keen to give the electorate an insight into your first year of office and what being a States member entails.

Below is a short questionnaire we hope, with the answers, will give the electorate this insight and at the same time offer you, the elected member, an opportunity, not only to engage with the electorate, but to "blow your own trumpet as it were".
We will be posting this e-mail and questionnaire on one of our Blogsites along with any, and all, responses we receive.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation

Team Voice.

The Questionnaire.

12 months in office
A questionnaire for new Deputies, Constables and Senators elected in 2008
During your first year
How many;

1) States meetings have you missed?
2) Written questions have you asked?
3) Oral questions have you asked?
4) Times have you voted?
5) Have you submitted any propositions or amendments? If yes, how many?
6) Have you achieved Ministerial or Assistant Ministerial office?
7) Do you serve on any Scrutiny Panel(s)? - If so Please give details.
8) Do you hold constituency surgeries? - If so - how often? If not, why not?
9) On average, how many letters - emails - telephone calls do you receive each week from the electorate?
10) Do you employ any secretarial assistance?
11) Do you rent an office for States work?
12) Have you assisted at any Complaints Board hearings?
13) Have you travelled outside of Jersey on States business?
14) On average, how many hours do you devote to States work each week?
15) How many hours do you devote to Parish work each week?
16) Do you have any other employment?
17) Do you feel you have, or are on target of, fulfilling your election promises, manifesto?

Saturday, 21 November 2009

The Wiltshire "report".



So Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, has had, in his Possession, some kind of a report from the Wiltshire Constabulary since the 20th of October 2009.

Once again more questions need answering. Why was Senator Le Marquand so quick to inform the States Assembly about the existence of the “Operation Blast” files claiming he wanted to be open with the house..... and then hang on to the Wiltshire report for the best part of a month without mentioning it despite being asked on numerous occasions for an update?

Here is how it looks

The Wiltshire Constabulary have furnished our Home Affairs Minister with a draft of PART of a report. How does that work? Not being experts in this field - but having done a little research - it would appear Investigating officers should not submit draft reports, particularly when their enquiries are incomplete, although we stand to be corrected.

It could be argued that having missed several promised deadlines it became politically necessary for the Wiltshire Constabulary to be able to say that they had submitted something and for the Minister to be able to say that he has received something. If this is the case then this could be characterised as "face saving" rather than actual progress. It is however unlikely that an incomplete draft report can form the basis for any action. That would have to await the complete final document.

Has Chief Officer Graham Power been given access to this “report”? if not why not? What might its contents be? Well that would depend on what they were looking for.

The nature of the Wilts work and its intended outcome has been the subject of extensive exchanges between the parties in the early part of 2009. It started off as what appeared to be a management review of the enquiry. Then it was pointed out that a management review in itself could not have a disciplinary outcome. After more exchanges and legal advice, the status was changed to a DISCIPLINARY enquiry and Chief Officer Power, we believe, was cautioned and given appropriate written notices. Unless the rules have changed, the purpose of a disciplinary enquiry is to find evidence of misconduct. Most people would describe that as DELIBERATE wrong-doing. It is expected however that they will have some critical comment to make about some aspects of the management of the “historical” Child Abuse enquiry.

Now here’s the rub. Give ANYBODY half a million quid and a year to view, with hindsight, decisions taken under pressure in the space of a few minutes, and they would find mistakes and criticisms in ANY investigation, let alone one as sensitive and complex as the “historic” Child Abuse enquiry. But does that equate to misconduct? We would argue “NOT”. We would also be astounded if the Police were the only ones who were subject of critical comment. If nothing is said about the behaviour and performance of Ministers and the Law Officers that would be a travesty. Is the conduct of the Attorney General, in any way, being investigated? The Centenier that, although believing there was enough evidence to charge a certain couple, didn’t charge them on the advice of the Law Office?

So How much more time, and tax payers money, is it going to take before this Wiltshire report is complete? Just as importantly will it be made public? That is to say will the tax payer get to see what they are paying for? Our research has led us to believe that Chief Officer Graham Power has submitted a statement to the enquiry which has in excess of 60,000 words. Will ANY of those 60,000 words be made public? If Team Voice have anything to do with it, the entire 60,000 words will be published on here.

Now how is this for irony? It is believed the Wiltshire Constabulary will be investigating how the HDLG expenses were allowed to allegedly spiral un monitored. Well who is monitoring their expenses?
In a year they have cost the tax payer over half a million quid and so far only come up with part of a part report!

Their expenses include £82,000 hotel accommodation and £92,000 in travel expenses…..in a year!…….for part of a part report!! Did any one carry out a risk assessment at the outset and should one man, the Minister be judge and prosecutor in the same case?

let’s have a look at Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand’s role in this.

He claims he cannot interfere with the enquiry as he has to judge/consider the findings of the report. If that is the case - who is responsible for oversight of the enquiry especially the cost? Surely it’s his department who he is ultimately responsible for and in charge of?

I reproduce the expense claims below of the Wiltshire Constabulary, to date, let’s remember these expenses will be rising on a daily basis!

Staff costs.............£200,700

Travel.................£92,000

Hotel Accommodation ..£82,000

Legal Fees...........£77,100

Subsistence.........£39,100

Equipment Purchase..£15,200

Rent..............£14,000

Other costs......£11,400

Total...........£531,500

Friday, 20 November 2009

Human Rights Group AGM

The first Annual General Meeting of the Jersey Human Rights Group will be held on Monday 23rd November at 5.30. The meeting will take place in the States Members Lunch Room, States Building. You should arrange to be in the Royal Square before 5.30pm outside the Members' entrance in order to be let in to the building by Deputy Bob Hill.

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Unhappy Anniversary



On Armistice Day 2008 – 11th November – Mr Graham Power, the Chief of the States of Jersey Police, a very senior, highly qualified and decorated, uniformed officer with 42 years in the service of Her Majesty the Queen was on holiday at home when he received a phone call from the then Deputy Andrew Lewis the Minister for Home Affairs.
The phone call from the very recently appointed Minister was to invite Mr Power to attend a meeting the following day (12th) along with Mr Bill Ogley (CEO of the Council of Ministers),the Head of Human Resources and Police Officer David Warcup.

Warcup had in August 2008, with the authority of Graham Power, commissioned the Metropolitan Police to review “Operation Rectangle” aka the historic abuse inquiry and an interim report by the Met was prepared for the 10th November and handed to Warcup on that day and to the Minister on the 11th.

On the evening of 11th November Police Officers Warcup and Gradwell had briefed the Council of Ministers about the interim report and a proposed Press Conference to be held the following day (12th) which would rubbish much of the “Operation Rectangle” investigations carried out under Deputy Chief Police Officer Lennie Harper’s supervision.

At the brief meeting, (for which Bill Ogley famously destroyed his hand written notes) commencing at 11am on the 12th Minister Lewis produced a letter which quoted from the interim report and advised Mr Power that he was to be immediately suspended from duty claiming that “this is a precautionary suspension only and does not imply that any conclusions have been reached about your alleged role in the management of the historic abuse inquiry at this stage.”

However, as is now known - following Mr Power’s successful Complaints Board Hearing against Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur for the release of information - the decision to suspend Mr Power was clearly made on or before Saturday 8th November because that was when the suspension notice was prepared.

In other words, the DECISION to suspend Mr Power was made BEFORE the Met interim report was published.

Yet, the reasons offered in support of Mr Power’s suspension on the 12th November were wholly related to his alleged failings with regard to the management of “Operation Rectangle”.

This blatant contradiction is just one small piece in this strange jigsaw.

Mr Power has subsequently had judgment against him in the Jersey Royal Court re his Judicial Review of his suspension and he represented himself.
The current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand now says that he reviews the suspension every month - but it is not clear if the original reasons for the suspension are now valid or if some other complaints have been raised .
It seems that Mr Power does not know why he is suspended and the tax - paying public certainly have no idea.

Everything about this year old case is something of a mystery and lives are being damaged and reputations destroyed.

There is no cause for celebration in this anniversary and we do wonder whether ex Deputy Andrew Lewis will be the one chosen as the sacrificial offering when our government finally seeks to close this particular file.

Below is an interview with Deputy Bob Hill who tries to make some sense of all this.

Monday, 9 November 2009

Fair and Impartial reporting?

Recently Channel Television sent Jess Dunsden over to Westminster where she interviewed Senator Stuart Syvret. The interview can be seen HERE.

The interview and the interviewer have come in for a bit of stick from the ever growing online community and supporters of Senator Syvret’s cause. It must be said that some of the stick might be justified, that is to say Jess Dunsden appeared way out of her depth, ill researched, and at one particular point, absolutely barking when she suggested to the Senator he bring a proposition to the States!

Her questions, it is claimed by Karen Rankine, were based on comments and questions left by readers of the Channel Television website. It has since become apparent that many of those questions came via bogus or dubious means (B. Riantz 29 Belmont Rd. springs to mind!) So were the questions a true reflection of what the majority of Jersey people are really asking? Possibly not.

It could be argued that this was a very one-sided interview, where Jess Dunsden did her level best to hold Senator Syvret to account and answer to the public he serves, and so she should. Senator Syvret should get “grilled” even if it is an attempt by a fairly young and inexperienced journalist who will no doubt be constrained by her editor(s).

So was this interview “Fair and impartial reporting”? Well that remains to be seen, so far we hold judgement. In favour of CTV and Jess Dunsden, as far as we are aware, they are the ONLY local mainstream “accredited” media to contact Senator Syvret in order to get an in-depth interview and indeed hold him to account.

Now in order to gauge the impartiality and objectiveness of this interview we shall wait and see if Jess Dunsden, or even Gillian (Paxman) Martindale “grills” Magistrate Bridget Shaw, Balliff Michael Birt, Deputy Balliff William Bailhache, AG (designate) Tim Le Coq, or Advocate Steven Baker.

All the above mentioned are looked upon, in certain circles, as “the untouchables”, that is to say if they say “I’m not giving you an interview” then the “accredited” media will report something along the lines of “so and so was not available for comment” because that is “The Jersey Way”. Any self respecting journalist would then go and “doorstep” the said individual in order to give balance to the interview broadcast of Senator Syvret and give the public the answers they deserve.

So we shall wait and see what CTV and Jess Dunsden do next. Will they be “grilling” any of the above in order to show fairness and impartiality or will they know their place in the pecking order of the “Jersey Elite” and only report what they are told to by the echelons of the Jersey Hierarchy?

We shall see!

Saturday, 7 November 2009

What is the elusive “Right Way”?

Senator Stuart Syvret, has for the last couple of years or so, been attempting to hold the executive to account involving the decades of failures of our Jersey child “care” system.
He has, in the opinion of Team Voice, worked harder and exposed more truth’s than any of his elected colleagues ever have or perhaps ever will in this area.

He has been thwarted at just about every step he has taken, whether it be the “right way” or the “wrong way”. Which has forced him not only to publish very serious allegations on his Blogsite (after offering evidence to the “accredited” media to no avail) but has now forced him to flee the island and seek protection from “The Jersey System”.

Many of the Senator’s detractors have argued “he’s gone about it all the wrong way”, “he’s held his own Kangaroo court on his Blog” “he’s accused people of crimes, on his Blog, and they have no right of reply” etc. etc.

There is possibly merit in some of these arguments, but what choice has he had and just what exactly is “the right way” in Jersey to bring child abusers to justice?

Senator Alan Breckon as Chairman of HSSH Scrutiny sub Panel has just brought a proposition P145/2009 to the States where the panel have asked for an independent inquiry into the management of Health and Social Services and their handling of, among other things, cases concerning vulnerable children.

It would appear the Scrutiny sub Panel had received some very disturbing evidence that might expose some massive failings in certain departments charged with the “care” of our children. It became apparent the sub panel neither had the time or resources to investigate these very alarming claims submitted by witnesses giving evidence.

Furthermore if this proposition was accepted by our States it would give all those accused by Senator Syvret and others of serious failings, Child Abuse, covering up for Child abuse, incompetence, Corporate Manslaughter , etc. a right to reply, a chance to clear their names and put the record straight. This proposition would have also showed the world that the government of Jersey is ready to face up to any failings in it’s “care” system. It would also put the words of ex Chief Minister Frank Walker into action when he said something along the lines of “no stone will be left un-turned” “ a full and independent root and branch inquiry will be held” Just as importantly this proposition might bring some families some justice and possibly a step nearer to some closure.

So if Senator Syvret has gone about things the “wrong way“, it must be argued that Senator Breckon and his panel have gone about things “the right way”?

Well as Senator Breckon, and his panel’s proposition, failed miserably to gain support of the house by 20 votes for, and thirty votes against, will people now be saying “well Breckon went about it all the wrong way”? If this is the case could somebody please tell us all, how do you go about investigating all the allegations made against departments and staff, MADE BY DEPARTMENTS AND STAFF? And how do you give those people accused of wrong doing an opportunity to clear their names? Will somebody please tell us what “The Right Way” is?

I think we all know what “The right Way” really is but it doesn’t apply to Jersey.

After the failing of this proposition to gain the support of the house many other questions arise. One being just what is the effectiveness of Scrutiny? Does it matter what they bring to the house because it’s only going to get defeated by the Constables, Ministers and Assistant Ministers? Another being, just what is the HSSH Scrutiny Panel going to do now? Are they going to say “well we gave it a shot” and forget about it? Is there any other States Member with the balls to put their neck on the line to bring some justice and closure to this whole sorry affair that is going to haunt Jersey and it’s people until Justice is at least seen to be done?

If there is, then make sure you do it “The Right Way” .

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Deafening silence.

Not since John Stonehouse MP did a Reggie Perrin many years ago has there been anything quite like the mystery of Senator Stuart Syvret.

But, since he is Father of the House and one of the most able of our elected representatives we can be forgiven for wondering why so few of our 52 other States Members seem to show so little interest in the issues raised by him or concern for his welfare.

Even the Magistrates Court Hearings have been boycotted by Senator Syvret’s working colleagues and whilst we would expect some to be delighted at his absence, we at Team Voice are surprised that his more sympathetic workmates are maintaining such a low profile.

Leadership in our States is now at a deplorably low level at the best of times but this single issue must surely demand somebody to step forward with words of wisdom and guidance for the electorate?

Behind Senator Syvret’s absence are such claims as multiple Child Abuse, corruption at the highest level in our government and judicial system and Administrive incompetence besides suggestions of multiple murders within the hospital system.

Of course these are difficult issues to grapple with but unless Senator Syvret has fallen victim to illness it would not be at all surprising if he has sought sanctuary in the United Kingdom where his allegations might stand a chance of “proper” investigation.

We at The Voice are as mystified as others and we want certainty and clarity just like everybody else with an interest in these most important matters.

Next week members of the Education/Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel under the Chairmanship of Deputy Roy Le Herissier are visiting the Westminster and Welsh Assemblies in search of knowledge about UK Scrutiny . Would it really be too much to ask that these elected representatives undertake to meet with Senator Syvret and bring back to Jersey a clearer statement and analysis of his political problems, intentions and personal welfare?

Interviews with Deputy Tadier, Deputy Wimberley and Senator Breckon follow. It must be said Many of our elected “representatives” refused us an interview on this subject.

Submitted by Team Voice.


Monday, 2 November 2009

Where was the new Deputy Balliff?

Today, 20-30 extremely brave protesters turned up at the Royal Square to voice their anger and disapproval at the appointment of Attorney General William Bailhache as Deputy Balliff. Among the protesters were survivors of the Jersey “care” system, victims of the Jersey Judicial System and all are victims of this government and Civil Service.

So if the Jersey folk are so disheartened with the way this island is run - why such a small turn out? This is a question everybody will have their own answer to and something that will be argued vigorously by both camps pro and anti establishment but never agreed.

My question is “Where the fack was Bailhache“? This was his big day, the day to be paraded to the public and soak up all their adoration. A massive day in Jersey History where all his thousands and thousands of supporters and admirers should be sharing in his “achievement” in being immortalised in the history books. Where were all the “Red Cloak Brigade” and the fanfare of the band piping him on this triumphant historic day?

Alas they were nowhere to be seen. It appears this momentous occasion was all done behind closed doors, something that has become known across the world as “The Jersey Way”.

Could it be that a group of 20 - 30 frightened and vulnerable “peasants” have the Establishment on the run? Could it be that these frightened and vulnerable people have more courage in their little finger than the entire establishment of Jersey?

You decide. video

Saturday, 31 October 2009

Justice for Jersey.

On Monday November the 2nd 11.30a.m Mr. William Bailhache will be taking an oath and will be sworn in as our Deputy Bailiff. He is of course our current Attorney General and brother of recently retired Bailiff Phillip Bailhache.

“Justice for Jersey” will be staging a rally from 10.30.a.m in the Royal Square to coincide with this farcical fancy dress charade with a fancy dress of their own.

Why would people want to turn up to this rally? William Bailhache’s 6 figure salary is paid for by the public purse, the tax payer. He is the Attorney General who failed to extradite, from France, (let alone convict) two alleged child abusers employed by the States of Jersey to “care” for children. He is also the AG who has dropped, somewhere in the region of EIGHTEEN alleged child abuse cases involving, we are led to believe, high ranking Civil Servants employed by the States of Jersey and still in post!!

This is a man who makes extremely political decisions, decides what is or isn’t in the public interest and what is best for the States of Jersey and is not answerable to the public who pay his wages, Which we are led to believe are in the region of £300,000 with a pension of around £120,000.

“Justice For Jersey” would like to invite anybody and everybody who have suffered an in-justice at the hands of our Judicial System, Education System, Health Service, Social Services, Planning Department to attend this Rally to show our Ruling elite enough is enough.

Team Voice whole heartedly support Justice For Jersey in their campaign to bring Jersey into the 21st century by calling for a fair and impartial Judicial System along with an open and transparent DEMOCRATIC government.

Justice For Jersey should also like to extend the Rally invitation to all supporters of Senator Syvret’s quest for justice and this includes ALL States members.

Senator Syvret has felt the full wrath of the Bailhache Brothers and the Civil Servants for attempting to hold the executive to account, deal with decades of abusive treatment of our most vulnerable children and attempted to bring some kind of justice for the victims of the Jersey “care” system.

For his troubles he has had his residence (illegally?) raided by a politicised Police Force on what has been described as a “fishing expedition” for the ruling elite in order to get any kind of dirt they can to shut him up. He has faced prosecution (in a Kangaroo Court) for attempting to expose a potential Serial Killer. It has been reported He was investigated by 2 police officers who’s sole duty it was to find some dirt on him
Inevitably he has been forced to flee the island for doing exactly what a politician is paid to do. That is to hold the executive to account and represent the people of Jersey in an open and transparent manner.

One must remember Senator Syvret has the widest mandate on the island, he is the longest serving Senator and father of the house. If what has been done to him by the Ruling Elite then what makes other States Members believe it can’t happen to them if they decide to speak out? And if all this can happen to ANY States member, then what chance does any member of the public stand of being heard?

Please support “Justice for Jersey” in this VITAL show of DISCONTENT that is growing among the ordinary folk of this once beautiful island. They will be meeting at 10.30.a.m on Monday the 2nd of November in the Royal Square. The “peaceful” Rally will start at 11.30. Some people will be turning up in Fancy Dress in order to highlight the charade that will be displayed by our “Great and Good” feel free to dress up if you like.

Below is a video of the swearing in of the Balliff which will go down in history as the first demonstration in eight hundred years against a swearing in of a Balliff. The demonstration on Monday will also be in the history books for the same reason.



Submitted by Team Voice and Justice for Jersey.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

The Bridget Bullsh1t Corporation.


Apparently, so I am told by the above, there is no difference between BBC Jersey (Bridget Bullshit Corporation) and National BBC. So when they were reporting on Senator Syvret’s Legal Asylum case and claiming that the Senator declined to comment to the BBC - that was factually correct.

However it wasn’t strictly true. Senator Syvret had quite clearly stated that he would not comment to BBC Jersey but would talk with BBC London and when I phoned the Jersey “news”room to help them put the record straight in order to inform their listeners that much better, they were having none of it and insisted the BBC is the BBC and were not interested in telling their listeners the full facts.

This did not surprise me in the slightest, you see, I Know how the local BBC operate and in particular Chris Stone. Although I can’t say for sure if he is his own man or a mere Puppet for Denzil Dudley and Matthew Price.

Chris Stone does not allow me on his phone-in any longer. When I was allowed on - before I went on air I had to tell the producer “exactly” what I was going to say. I was told if I deviated in any way or criticised the local BBC in any way then I would be cut off.

I’ll not go on too much about my particular case but would like to concentrate on the bigger picture.

Have you ever noticed how he (Chris Stone) starts the phone-in most days? It is (in my opinion) “Agenda Setting“. He will say things like “scientists have discovered the smell of freshly cut grass is a stimulant, have you got a smell you want to talk about”? or “While on holiday I was stung on the foot by a wasp, have you ever been stung by a wasp”? If the main headline “news” is anything damming towards our government he doesn’t want to talk about it.

He will later be on his “Home Time” programme saying something like “ today’s phone-in was dominated by callers who wanted to talk about wasp stings” No sh1t Chris! I wonder why that is?

When the Attorney General decided not to prosecute two alleged child abusers who had moved to France it was their (Bridget Bullshit Corporation) headline “news” item. I phoned up to talk about it, was put through to the producer and was told “oh we’re not talking about that today” so I said “what…..we’re not allowed to talk about the top news story”? I was then told “no, the subject at the moment is poor quality tarmac on the roads”

These are just a couple of many examples how the phone-in is managed or should I say how public opinion is managed?

Nick Griffin was (a very controversial) guest on Question Time just recently broadcast by the BBC. Chris Stone, on the phone in, was quoting things like “I might not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it”……. Bullsh1t Chris you won’t even let an anti establishment caller on your radio show.

Then we get on to the “Talkback” programme (I’m prevented from going on there as well). One of the last things Senator Syvret did as the Minister for Health and Social Services was to commission a report by the Howard League for Penal Reform to look into how the States of Jersey “cared” for vulnerable children. Whistleblower Simon Bellwood was removed from his post at Greenfields after challenging the illegal and abusive methods employed up there against the children. Senator Syvret subsequently was driven out of his post as H&SS Minister.

The report completed by the HLFPR was totally damming to our States of Jersey and in my opinion vindicated Senator Syvret and Simon Bellwood. There was MASSIVE support for Senator Syvret, and others, to be guests on the Talkback programme (and still is) The Bridget Bullsh1t Corporation have refused this from the outset. Senator Syvret is an Opposition Politician who upsets the status quo and it appears this does not fit with their agenda. Perhaps he should get stung by a wasp! That might get him on the show.

As I have done all that I can to contribute to the phone-ins and been denied a voice by Chris Stone, before I am forced to “doorstep” him I am publicly requesting an interview. If he refuses to allow me on his show then perhaps he would like to come onto mine. If it is the case that he is merely a puppet for Denzil Dudley and Matthew Price then the request for an interview extends to them also.

Thanks to the internet, not only the Bridget Bullsh1t Corporation, but our entire local media are slowly getting exposed for years of cut and paste “journalism” and opinion management. How long can it continue?

Friday, 9 October 2009

Goldilocks or Rosa Parks?



During the summer holidays my nine year old daughter (Voicette) took part in “Quest Seekers”. A scheme where you read 6 books from the library and describe the story satisfactorily to the Quest Seekers member then you are awarded a medal and a certificate.
I am very pleased to say she successfully completed her mission and received the medal and certificate yesterday.

The dilemma was, what 6 books do we choose to read?. Had this been a few years ago I would have liked her to have read something along the lines of Little Red Riding Hood, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

A little while ago I got a massive wake up call as to how our government operates and was left no choice other than to “warn” or “alert” my children to the dangers they face because of our government. The said books therefore were not in the running.

As a small part of warning or alerting my children, I took my daughter to the States one day, I think it was the day of the Air Display this year. Although she knew some of the Politicians on a first name basis she didn’t know a vast majority of them or what they do.

I explained to her that I believe a vast majority of them are complicit in the cover-up of child abuse, she asked “which ones”? I pointed to the elected and un-elected members and told her their names. She asked “is someone paying them to cover up for child abuse”? to which I said “yes, about £44k by the people they are supposed to represent and considerably more for some of the un-elected members”.

I went on to point out and name the “good guys” and the “bad guys”, the Senators, Ministers, Constables and deputies. I tried, as best I could, to explain what they do, and how 10 out of the 12 Constables are only there to do, and vote, what they are told by the Council of Ministers.

It was not that long ago when I never knew who our Politicians were, or what they did, but I was propelled into this very dark and sordid world involuntarily and as they say “we are where we are”.

Our elected members and their Civil Servants have a lot to answer for, including my daughter’s view on Politicians and government.

So back to the books we chose and she enjoyed immensely. They were “Mother Theresa”, “Guy (Guido) Fawkes”, “Dr Martin Luther King Junior” “Mahatma Gandhi” “Nelson Mandela” and “Rosa Parks”.

Congratulations to my very articulate and beautiful little girl for achieving this certificate and medal. Shame on you elected members and Civil Servants (you know who you are) for influencing our choice of reading.

Tuesday, 29 September 2009

Are the mainstream media “holier than thou“?

Our elected “representatives” are busying themselves trying to dream up legislation and rules in order to prevent Bloggers and Citizens Media reporting on, or videoing public meetings and continuously refusing us interviews because we are not “accredited”.

But thanks to the recent Panorama programme on offshore finance centres the tide just might be on the turn or the penny might be starting to drop with some of our elected “representatives”

The “accredited” Media, on regular occasions, employ surreptitious filming techniques and covert surveillance is a part of everyday life. As Bloggers we do our very best to “play by the rules” set by our ruling elite. We ask permission to film public meetings and when, as so often, we are refused, we don’t resort to “secret filming”. Any elected member we film knows they are being filmed. But the question our elected leaders must soon have to be asking themselves is how long is it before they force the hand of the Bloggers and leave “us” no alternative other than to resort to more dubious practices in order to report events?

Because the mainstream media are, in the eyes of our government, “accredited” it seems they are looked upon as holier than thou. When the truth is they have their own agenda just as Bloggers do, the difference is that Bloggers don’t pretend otherwise.

Here Senator Ben Shenton reluctantly concedes that the argument for Bloggers (thanks to Panorama) has been strengthened!

Wednesday, 23 September 2009

Accreditation and Accountability


Recently retired Jersey's Deputy Chief Police officer Mick Gradwell (or was it the States Comminications Unit?) went on - what might be described as - an unprecedented , media assault on a fellow professional.

He was afforded a three part "interview" by Channel Television and our local BBC as well as given front page headlines and a double page spread in the Jersey Evening Post.

Mick Gradwell went on to make all kinds of critisisms and offer his opinions on Lenny Harper and his team's handling of the child abuse scandal that had rocked Jersey to its rotten core.

Gradwell made statements such as the alleged child's skull fragment "turned out to be coconut" and the digging up of HDLG was "a waste of time and public money" and many more "questionable" claims.

Lenny Harper (in the opinion of Team Voice) had no choice other than to respond to these very damning and reputation wrecking statements. Mr. Harper replied with a THIRTY ONE PAGE and 16,500 word posting on Senator Syvrets Blog HEREwhich includes documented EVIDENCE, and not just opinion. How many of those 16,500 words have you seen published/broadcast by the same,so called, accredited media that gave Gradwell such a free run?

Senator Syvret (to the best of our knowledge) published Lenny Harper's response in it's entirety . That Mr. Harper should choose to give his reply to a Blogger and not our local accredited press is a story in itself!

Two days ago Deputy Roy Le Herissier asked the Home Affairs Minister (Senator Ian Le Marquand) to make a statement regarding the actions of the outgoing Deputy Police Chief and his comments made in the media. Senator Le Marquand went on to use words like "inappropriate" and "unprofessional". Although Deputy Roy Le Herissier ought to be applauded for his question, we are not sure it was the right one and does not go far enough.

To our thinking the question(s) should have been along the lines of "how is it a man can be given such a forum or soapbox, like almost our entire local "accredited" media to discredit a fellow professional"? "How is it that somebody could make so many claims and not be challenged by the interviewers or "journalists"?. "What was Gradwell's (or the States Communications Unit's) motive"? And possibly more to the point "what was the "accredited" media's motive"? "what did he/they hope to achieve? "What was the purpose of this media campaign?
Should Senator Le Marquand have said that it was the local media that was "inappopriate and unprofessional"?

Which poses a few more questions or dilemmas. How is it that the local accredited media can take the opinions of one man and print, or broadcast them, unchallenged knowing they could wreck, not only the careers, but the lives of those mentioned? Before printing or publishing any of this didn't the local accredited media have any kind of obligation to substantiate ALL of the claims being made? Don't they (in this case) have any obligation to warn the abuse victims this media campaign was about to take place? Didn't they have any obligation to take into account the damage that could (and has) been done to some victims? Where is the accountability of the accredited media?

So although Deputy Roy Le Herissier's question should be applauded there are equally important issues that need addressing and serious questions need asking in the States on the role of our accredited media, their motives and their accountability.

It isn't the role of citizens media or Bloggers that needs to be looked at. For instance, if a Blogger, or member of the public wants to film a public hearing we are told we can't because we are not accredited (whatever that is) so therefore lack accountability! The same goes if we want to film a public Scrutiny Hearing. We are told we can't film because we are not accredited, we have no accountability and the best of the lot is we might misrepresent what was said at the meeting............and the meeting is Freakin Transcribed by States employed staff!

So we urge States members to stop trying to legislate against Bloggers and take a look at what the accredited press are doing (or aren't doing) and consider just how unaccountable they are?

Submitted by Team Voice.

Thursday, 17 September 2009

Graham Power Complaints Board Hearing.


Yesterday there was a “complaints board” hearing against the Chief Ministers Office brought by (illegally?) suspended Police Chief Graham Power.

The complaint centred on “information” or “data” that Graham Power claims has been withheld from him by the Chief Ministers office concerning 3 letters he had received involving his suspension. Mr.Power wanted a simple question answered, and that was, when were these letters authored? Everybody knows what date was on them, but a simple task of looking on the computer where they originated from would let him know when the letters were created and modified etc.


A simple request one would think? Oh no it’s not! This is the pantomime of Jersey Government. If it proves these letters were created before November the 11th 2008 it might show that his suspension was orchestrated before (perhaps long before) the powers that be would have us, and him, believe.

The ensuing arguments at this complaints board hearing revolved round “what is data”? “what is information”? and equally pathetic (in my opinion) “barrel scraping” and embarrassing arguments made by the Chief Ministers’ legal representative Sylvia Roberts.

There was not a spare seat in the public sitting area, there were at least a dozen members of the public who were there to support Mr.Power and a number of them could not help themselves but laugh out loud when hearing some of Sylvia Roberts’ arguments. If there had of been a couch in the room, I believe everybody in that room, would have dived behind it cringing every time the Chief Ministers representative tried to defend the indefensible.

I reproduce below Mr Powers opening (oral) submission to the board, (the board already had his written submission) which was read out before any of the legal Wrangling took place and the frankly embarrassing attempt made by the Chief Ministers Department to look even half credible.

There was not a single member of the public, that I spoke to after the meeting, who believed the board could not find in favour of Graham Power. However this is Jersey, so literally anything is possible!

The submission below has been distributed to the local “accredited” media, have you seen it anywhere else?

SPEAKING NOTES.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING.
WEDNESDAY 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009.

These notes have been made to assist the memory of the applicant when addressing the Board. No undertaking is given that they are the actual words used on the day. No responsibility is taken by the applicant for the accuracy of the content of these notes. If the notes are used by any other person as part of an account of what occurred at the hearing it is for that person and not the applicant to take responsibility for the accuracy of whatever is written or said.

1. MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. IN THIS MATTER I AM REPRESENTING MYSELF BUT AS YOU CAN SEE I AM ASSISTED AND ADVISED BY THE CONNETABLE OF ST HELIER WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THE ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.

2. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF TODAYS PROCESS THAT THE PAPERS PREPARED FOR THE BOARD AND CIRCULATED IN ADVANCE CAN BE TAKEN AS READ AND THAT WHAT THE BOARD REQUIRES FROM ME IS A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT. THAT BEING THE CASE I HOPE THAT THE FOLLOWING WILL SUFFICE AT THIS TIME. I WILL OF COURSE ATTEMPT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHICH THE BOARD MAY HAVE IN RELATION TO THE MATTER.

3. TODAYS HEARING RELATES TO AN APPLICATION MADE UNDER THE CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY THE STATES AND STATES DEPARTMENTS. THE COMPLAINT IS MADE BECAUSE I HAVE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER WHICH THE CHIEF MINISTER HAS REFUSED. THE CODE PROVIDES THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AN APPLICANT MAY APPEAL TO THIS BOARD.

4. AS THE BOARD IS TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARGUMENT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL AT THIS STAGE IF I WAS TO SET OUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN RELATION TO A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. PARAGRAPH 1.2.2.(a) OF THE CODE STATES THAT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE THERE SHALL BE A “PRESUMPION OF OPENESS.” I HAVE TAKEN THAT PRESUMPTION TO HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS SIMILAR PRESUMPTIONS IN LAW WITH WHICH MANY OF US ARE FAMILIAR. FOR EXAMPLE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL MEANS THAT INNOCENCE IS ASSUMED UNTIL GUILT IS PROVED. OR TO PUT IN ANOTHER WAY, IT IS THOSE WHO ASSERT GUILT WHO CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

5. SIMILARLY I SUGGEST, THE PRESUMPTION OF OPENESS SET OUT IN THE CODE BEFORE US TODAY HAS THE SAME EFFECT. THAT IS, AN APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO THE INFORMATION REQUESTED UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED. NO APPLICANT HAS TO PROVE WHY HE OR SHE SHOULD HAVE INFORMATION HELD BY A DEPARTMENT OF THE STATES. IT IS FOR THE STATES DEPARTMENT TO PROVE, TO AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD, THAT THERE ARE GOOD REASONS WHY INFORMATION SHOULD BE DENIED. IN OTHER WORDS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN TODAYS BUSINESS SITS WITH THE CHIEF MINISTER.

6. MR CHAIRMAN, THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY TOUCHES ON ONE ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECT OF AN EVENT WHICH HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS ISLAND, NAMELY THE SUSPENSION FROM DUTY OF THE CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE. THE APPLICATION MADE TO THE CHIEF MINISTER, AND NOW SUBJECT OF TODAYS HEARING RELATES TO THE DOCUMENTATION USED IN CARRYING OUT THAT SUSPENSION, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE THREE LETTERS WHICH CAN BE FOUND AT TAB 4 IN THE BUNDLES. ALL THREE LETTERS ARE DATED 12TH NOVEMBER 2008. THE REQUEST WHICH IS SUBJECT OF TODAYS HEARING IS A SIMPLE ONE. IT IS FOR THE CHIEF MINISTER TO PROVIDE THE TIME AND THE DATE ON WHICH THESE THREE LETTERS WERE ACTUALLY CREATED.

7. MR CHAIRMAN, THE OTHER DOCUMENTS IN THE BUNDLE SET OUT WHAT I THINK, IN THE INTERESTS OF BREVITY, WE MIGHT CALL THE “OFFICIAL VERSION” OF THE PROCESS WHICH PRECEDED THE SUSPENSION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION, SET OUT IN STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, IS THAT ON TUESDAY 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS, WHO AT THAT TIME WAS DEPUTY ANDREW LEWIS, RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE AND VIEWED A PRESENTATION WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE GIVEN HIM CAUSE FOR CONCERN REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE HISTORIC ABUSE ENQUIRY. IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS INFORMATION HE DECIDED TO INVOKE THE DISCIPLINARY CODE FOR THE CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE. IF TRUE, THE ACCOUNT OFFERED BY FORMER DEPUTY LEWIS WOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE MERIT OF FOLLOWING THE PROPER SEQUENCE OF EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING, THAT IS, THE EVIDENCE IS CONSIDERED FIRST, AND THE DECISION TAKEN AFTERWARDS.

8. IT IS AGREED BY ALL PARTIES THAT DEPUTY LEWIS ARRANGED TO MEET WITH ME IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHIEF ECECUTIVE TO THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS THE FOLLOWING MORNING, THAT IS THE MORNING OF WEDNESDAY 12TH NOVEMBER 2008, WHEN I WAS SUSPENDED FROM DUTY AND THE DOCUMENTATION, SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION WAS PROVIDED (ALTHOUGH THE BOARD WILL SEE THAT ALTHOUGH ONE OF THE THREE LETTERS ARRIVED BY POST TWO DAYS LATER, IT IS CLAIMED BY THE CHIEF MINISTERS DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.)

9. I AM SURE THAT THE BOARD WILL BE AWARE THAT THE INITIAL SUSPENSION HAS BEEN SUBJECT OF SOME CONTROVERSY AND THAT AN APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW. THAT APPLICATION WAS OVERTAKEN BY A REVIEW CARRIED OUT BY THE CURRENT MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS, BUT NEVERTHLESS, IN ITS JUDGEMENT, THE ROYAL COURT RECORDED THAT ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT ABLE TO RULE ON THE ORIGINAL SUSPENSION IT FELT CONSTRAINED TO RECORD ITS SERIOUS CONCERN AT THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THAT ACTION.

10. THE APPLICATION TODAY IS INTENDED TO ASSIST IN A FUTHER EXPLORATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIRST SUSPENSION, AND IN PARTICULAR THE VALIDITY OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. THE APPLICATION IS PART OF A CHALLENGE TO THE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS WHICH HAS BEEN PUT FORWAD BY SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS AND MINISTERS, ALL OF WHICH, IN DIFFERENT WAYS, SEEK TO MAINTAIN THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS VIEWED FIRST AND THE DECISION TAKEN AFTERWARDS. THAT OF COURSE WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM A PROCESS IN WHICH THE DECISION WAS TAKEN FIRST AND EVIDENCE SUBSEQUENTLY ASSEMBLED TO JUSTIFY WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.

11. THE CHALLENGE MADE TODAY IS AN IMPORTANT ONE. IF IT TRANSPIRES THAT MYSELF AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN MISLED AS TO WHAT REALLY OCCURRED, THEN WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT, WHICH WE MAY WISH TO PURSUE BY THE APPROPRIATE MEANS. SUCH A REVELATION WOULD ALSO HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CRIDIBILITY OF KEY WITNESSES IN ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION WHICH MAY BE ATTEMPTED. IF WITNESSES ARE WILLING TO LIE ABOUT ONE THING, THEN THEY MAY BE EQUALLY WILLING TO LIE ABOUT ANOTHER, AND THEIR CRIDIBILITY IS UNDERMINED. FINALLY ON THIS ISSUE, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, THERE IS THE QUESTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE DEGREE OF TRUST WE CAN PLACE IN THE STATEMENTS MADE, AND ASSURANCES GIVEN, BY THOSE IN EXECUTIVE POSITIONS.

12. MR CHAIRMAN, I HAVE, IN MY ARGUMENT TO THE BOARD, GIVEN REASONS WHY THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF EVENTS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE KNOWN FACTS, AND WHY IT IS REASONABLE TO SUSPECT THAT THE KEY EVENTS TOOK PLACE IN A SEQUENCE WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT CLAIMED. THAT IS, IT APPEARS POSSIBLE THAT THE DECSION TO SUSPEND WAS TAKEN BEFORE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008, FOR REASONS AT PRESENT UNKNOWN, AND THAT THE REPORTS AND PRESENTATION ON THE 11TH WERE PUT TOGETHER TO JUSTIFY A DECISION WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, AND TO SUPPORT A FALSE ACCOUNT OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

13. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT, SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS ISSUE, I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF PROCESSES TO DISCOVER THE ANSWER TO A SIMPLE QUESTION, NAMELY, WHEN WERE THE THREE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ALL DATED 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 ACTUALLY CREATED? WHAT DOES THE TECHNICAL EVIDENCE, HELD BY THE RELEVANT STATES DEPARTMENT, SAY ABOUT THE TIME AND DATE OF THEIR CREATION. IT IS A SIMPLE AND UNCOMPLICATED QUESTION, YET IT IS ONE WHICH HAS BEEN PERSISTENTLY AND SYSTEMACTICALLY REFUSED BY A VARIETY OF MEANS OVER A PERIOD OF TEN MONTHS AND HAS STILL NOT BEEN ANSWERED. THAT MR CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

14. FROM THE PAPERWORK PROVIDED THE BOARD WILL BE AWARE THAT THE FIRST WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THIS INFORMATION WAS MADE ON 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 AND THAT THIS SAME REQUEST HAS BEEN REPEATED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS SINCE THAT DATE. THE CHIEF MINISTER, AND THOSE ACTING ON HIS BEHALF, HAVE PERSISTENTLY REFUSED TO ANSWER WHAT IS BY ANY STANDARD A SIMPLE QUESTION. IT IS IN CONSEQUENCE OF THAT REFUSAL THAT I HAVE EXERCISED MY RIGHT OF COMPLAINT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS REVIEW LAW.

15. IF I MAY I NOW TURN TO WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE REASONS WHICH MAY BE OFFERED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHIEF MINISTERS REFUSAL TO MEET THE REQUEST.

16. I SEE FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE CHIEF MINISTER AT PARAGRAPH 29 AND ELSEWHERE THAT IT WILL BE SAID THAT THE INFORMATION DOES NOT EXIST, IN THAT THERE IS NO STATEMENT OR OTHER DOCUMENT IN EXISTENCE WHICH SETS OUT THE DATES ON WHICH THE THREE LETTERS WERE CREATED.

17. YOU WILL SEE FROM MY OWN SUBMISSION THAT I HAVE ANTICIPATED THIS ARGUMENT AND SET OUT SOME REASONS WHY I THINK THAT IT IS INVALID. FIRSTLY, THE CODE REFERS TO “INFORMATION” AND YOU WILL SEE THAT I HAVE ARGUED THAT THIS PLAINLY APPLIES TO DATA HELD ON A COMPUTER, WHETHER THAT DATA HAS BEEN RETRIEVED OR NOT, AND THAT I SUPPORT THIS VIEW WITH AN EXTRACT FROM COLLINS DICTIONARY AT TAB 15, WHICH CLEARLY INCLUDES COMPUTER DATA WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD “INFORMATION.” (REFER TO DOCUMENT.) INDEED, I SUGGEST THAT IF THE OPPOSITE VIEW WAS TAKEN THEN, IN THE MODERN AGE, THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY MEAN THAT MUCH OF THE INFORMATION HELD BY GOVERNMENT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE RANGE OF THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION CODE, WHICH SURELY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE STATES WHEN THE CODE WAS APPROVED.

18. SECONDLY, ON THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ISSUE OF THE MODERN MEANING OF THE TERM DATA, YOU WILL SEE THAT I HAVE ARGUED THAT, GIVEN THE PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBJECT OF REPEATED APPLICATIONS, IT IS BEYOND BELIEF THAT AT NO TIME HAS ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT ASKED FOR A BRIEF OR REPORT, OR A DRAFT RESPONSE, ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE CONTAINED IN A RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST, SHOULD ONE BE PROVIDED. IT IS AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND THAT I NOTE, THAT THE CHIEF MINISTERS SUBMISSION ON THIS POINT, AT PARAGRAPH 29 AND ELSEWHERE, APPEARS TO BE ENTIRELY IN THE PRESENT TENSE. THAT IS HE SAYS THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENT “IN EXISTENCE” WHICH GIVES THE INFORMATION. IT MIGHT BE THAT THE EXCUSIVE USE OF THE PRESENT TENSE IN THIS MATTER IS COINCIDENTAL. NEVERTHLESS IT IS NOT SO FAR CLAIMED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER THAT SUCH A BRIEF OR DOCUMENT HAS NEVER EXISTED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE APPLICATION. IT IS SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST NOW. I AM SURE THAT I CANNOT BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO FEELS TEMPTED TO ASK WHETHER, DURING THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE CHIEF MINISTERS SUBMISSION THERE HAS BEEN ANY SUCH DOCUMENT IN EXISTENCE WHICH, FOR WHATEVER REASON NOW NO LONGER EXISTS. PERHAPS THE CHIEF MINISTER WILL SHORTLY TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE REASSURANCE ON THAT POINT.

19. I NOW TURN TO WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE SECOND OF THE CHIEF MINISTERS GROUNDS FOR RESISTING THE APPLICATION, THAT IS, THAT TO DO SO WOULD BREACH LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEDGE. PERHAPS IT WOULD HELP AT THIS STAGE IF I WERE TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT I AM NOT ASKING FOR IN THIS MATTER. WHAT I AM NOT ASKING FOR IS ACCESS TO ANY LEGAL ADVICE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN OR RECEIVED. IF THE FORMER MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS, AS IT NOW APPEARS THAT HE DID, TOOK LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE TAKING ACTION, THEN I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT ADVICE. I AM, TO PUT IT PLAINLY, NOT INTERESTED IN THE ADVICE THAT THE FORMER MINISTER ASKED FOR OR RECEIVED, I AM INTERESTED IN WHAT HE DID AND WHEN HE DID IT.

20. ADVICE IS ADVICE, WE ALL GET ADVICE FROM TIME TO TIME, AND IF WE HAVE DECISION MAKING POWERS TO EXERCISE, WE CONSIDER THE ADVICE AND THEN WE TAKE OUR DECISIONS.

21. I BELEIVE THAT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF THE MINISTER FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE CODE. INDEED TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE WORKINGS OF THE CODE ACROSS THE PUBLIC SECTOR. IF IT REALLY IS BEING SUGGESTED THAT IN ANY MATTER IN WHICH, AT SOME STAGE BACK IN THE HISTORY OF A POLICY OR A DECISION, LEGAL ADVICE WAS TAKEN, THAT THE TAKING OF THE LEGAL ADVICE PUTS SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS OUT OF PLAY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, THEN AGAIN, THIS COULD EFFECTIVELY MEAN THAT MOST AREAS OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY WOULD FALL OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE CODE. MOST DECISIONS OF CONSEQUENCE ARE TAKEN FOLLOWING LEGAL ADVICE. IT SURELY CANNOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE STATES THAT THE FACT THAT LEGAL ADVICE HAD BEEN TAKEN AT SOME STAGE SHOULD BE A DISQUALIFYING FACTOR IN A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.

22. FINALLY IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE MENTION OF THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS, AS THIS HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER AS SOMETHING WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE BOARDS DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF PROFESSIONAL LEGAL PRIVILEDGE.

23. THERE PLAINLY ARE PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS AT WORK HERE, AND THE RECENT DISCLOSURE ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF MINISTER, THAT IN TAKING HIS DECISIONS, THE FORMER MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS WAS THE RECIPIENT OF LEGAL ADVICE MAKES IT MORE SO. THIS I SUGGEST IS BECAUSE THE FACT THAT LEGAL ADVICE WAS ASKED FOR AND GIVEN, FURTHER UNDERMINES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF EVENTS. THE FORMER MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS HAS CLAIMED THAT HE ACTED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 11TH NOVEMBER 2008, INCLUDING A PRESENTATION WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE EVENING, AND IN CONSEQUENCE IMPOSED THE SUSPENSION THE FOLLOWING MORNING. THIS TIMESCALE LACKED CREDIBILITY FROM THE BEGINNING, AND IF WE ARE NOW BEING TOLD THAT LEGAL ADVICE WAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED DURING THIS SAME PERIOD, THEN WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO WONDER WHETHER THIS COULD REALISTICALLY BE POSSIBLE.

24. MR CHAIRMAN, IF MINISTERS, ASSISTED BY CIVIL SERVANTS, HAVE, FOR WHATEVER MOTIVE, PUT TOGETHER A FALSE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS, AND HAVE PRODUCED PAPERWORK AND MADE STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT THAT FALSE ACCOUNT, AND IF OTHERS HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BECOME AWARE OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, AND HAVE USED THEIR POSITION TO COVER UP THE TRUTH AND ATTEMPT TO PREVENT IT FROM BECOMING KNOWN, THEN THERE IS CERTAINLY AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

25. MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THE CODE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION IS INTENDED TO ENABLE THE PUBLIC TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF GOVERMENT. THE CODE REQUIRES THAT ISSUES ARE APPROACHED WITH A PRESUMPTION OF OPENESS. GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL ARE STRICTLY DEFINED. THE POTENITAL FOR AN APPLICATION TO CAUSE MINISTERIAL EMBARASSMENT IS NOT ONE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH INFORMATION CAN BE REFUSED. I ASK THAT THE BOARD ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND THEREBY ALLOW THE CODE TO SERVE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS INTENDED.

Sunday, 13 September 2009

Taking aFENCE

The Story behind this interview with Deputy Le Herissier which is part of This one comes from a moment of inspiration, Let me explain.

I went to the “reform” meeting out at St Ouen which was chaired by Constables Juliet Gallichan, Ken Vibert and John Refault. I (mistakenly) believed, as it was a “public” meeting, there would be no objection to me filming it, how wrong I was.

Before the meeting started I began setting up my camera equipment. No sooner had I started and Constable Ken Vibert strutted over to me and exclaimed “I hope you don’t intend on filming this meeting”? To which I replied “yes I do as it goes, is there a problem with that”? After scratching around for any excuse he could find, including the public might not want to be filmed and I assured him if the public didn’t want to be filmed then I wouldn’t film them. Then he came out with an absolute peach! He said “yeah, well you just want to put it on your Blog with your opinion on it” and I replied “yes! That’s exactly what I want to do, that’s what a Blog is”!

Enter stage left Constable John Refault who said “Ken if you permit him to film, I’m going to walk out” To which I replied, “I’m not going to film the public and only point the camera at the stage and film the three constables” He then tried to tell me that he has “a right to privacy” so could refuse me permission to film him. Him being an elected member of the “public” at a “public” meeting to discuss “public” matters declared his right to privacy! This is the calibre of Constables we have “representing” us. One telling me I can’t film because I will have my own opinion and another one telling me he has “a right to privacy” at a “public” meeting that he’s co chairing!

I know people across the Channel and Atlantic are going to think I’m making this up but believe me I wouldn’t, more to the point I COULDN’T!

Back to the interview with Deputy Le Herissier. The good Deputy was at the said “reform meeting” as, I suppose, a member of the public. He got up and spoke and, not so much what he said, but how he said it truly inspired me. He was frustrated, passionate, perhaps even angry at the direction our government were heading, as in his words, it was in the direction of an ice berg and it was going to sink them and us.

He was critical of the way our government were, and are, dealing with the child abuse scandal, he was critical of the media campaign mounted by Mick Gradwell, and more than likely, the States communications unit which was (in my opinion Constable Vibert) an out and out assault on Lenny Harper which was backed up with no real evidence and was designed to discredit Lenny and his team so the States could put this “embarrassing” child abuse scandal to bed and go on expecting the public to believe in Tooth fairies.

With that (Deputy Le Herissier’s speech) I thought “great” here is a politician, and serial fence sitter, actually coming off the fence and just as importantly was as frustrated, passionate and angry as the rest of us. I was disappointed I was not able to get his speech on video.

I contacted the Deputy and asked him for an interview. Without probing me what I wanted to talk about or what questions I intended asking him, he agreed to the interview.

The Deputy has a nickname (he’s probably got a few) but in certain circles he is known (affectionately) as “the hedgehog”. So after his speech at St Ouen and agreeing to an interview I already had the title of the Blog set up, it was to be, “Hedgehog jumps off fence” but unfortunately during the time of the “reform meeting” and the interview he had, sadly, climbed back up again!

The fundamental point to this is, some of our States members arses are going to be chewing their Y fronts knowing that “the hedgehog”, the “serial fence sitter” is starting to “jump off” on occasions and talking about that horrible subject of Child Abuse.

Deputy Le Herissier (in my opinion) is one of the hardest working States members we have, he is always accessible and is one of the few members who votes with his conscience, which is more than I can say for any of my elected “representatives” in St. Clement.

In this video (in my opinion) the Deputy concedes Mick Gradwell has provided us with “words” and Lenny Harper has provided us with “evidence” even if he does jump straight back on the fence.

Lenny Harper has questioned the Deputy’s choice of phrase when he says it has turned into a “slagging match” between Lenny and Gradwell. My opinion is Lenny had no choice other than to defend the slurs against his character and professionalism made by Gradwell and backed it all up with “evidence”.

If Lenny should have any questions for Deputy Le Herissier I’m sure he will be only too pleased to answer them on here.

I would like to give a mention to Senator Stuart Syvret, Senator Alan Breckon, Deputy Roy Le Herissier and Deputy Debbie Da Sousa for having the COURAGE to attend the Jersey Care Leavers meeting yesterday, let’s hope you can encourage some of your colleagues to start “taking part”

Submitted by VFC. video

Thursday, 10 September 2009

Turks and Caicos Here We Come?

In Jersey we have 53 elected "representatives" over 250 Jersey Lawyers (giving expensive legal advice world-wide), some of the highest paid Judges, Law officers, Police and Civil Servants in the world. Yet they have failed miserably to resolve the "Child Abuse" scandal centered around HDLG.

In this interview Deputy Roy Le Herissier, an experienced Politician and long term good guy, admits that there is a vacuum of leadership in Jersey and that Child Abuse is just one of a huge range of problems facing this island.

Whether we on "SS Jersey" have yet to hit the ice berg is not obvious but more and more people realise that the Commanding Officer - Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur - must be removed from the bridge now!!

So as far as the Child Abuse victims are concerned, Deputy Le Herissier assures us that there are States members who are committed to help resolve their long standing injustices.

If this means taking the matter outside of the island, as the Deputy says must happen, so be it but the victims cannot be expected to wait forever. Those committed elected "representatives" must come forward now and stop hiding behind the facade of "enquiries pending" or just sitting on the fence.

What has happened in the Turks and Caicos islands Can happen here and it just might very well happen here. If Jersey government refuses to aknowledge the plight of the Abuse Victims and the injustices suffered by them then outside intervention is inevitable and the precedent for outside interference on other issues, will be established.

This abuse scandal will not go away no matter how hard the "accredited" media and our government try!

Submitted by Team Voice.

Saturday, 5 September 2009

THE TRUTH.

Today I have taken the unusual step of cutting and pasting somebody elses Blog onto mine.
The reason I have done this is because what is written on this Blog needs to be shared with as many people, across the world, as possible.

For those of you who have friends and family that only get their "news" from our local "accredited" media you must encourage them to read this particular Blog that I reproduce below.

For weeks now our local "accredited" media and Mick Gradwell have been slagging Lenny harper off and trying to put the HDLG scandal to bed. Unfortunately (for them) Lenny Harper has answered his ciritics and critisisms in bucket loads and all backed up with evidence and documentation.

Our Government have just put Citizens Media and Blogging on the map. Their communications Unit just haven't got a clue when it comes to divising strategies. This all out assault on Lenny Harper they have employed has just come back to bight them on the arse BIG TIME!! Our Government, their comminications unit and their ever so obedient "accredited" media have just inflicted more damage on themselves than any, or every, one of their detractors could ever dream of doing.

Thanks to Senator Stuart Syvret, Lenny Harper, Graham Power and the original "historic" abuse inquiry team.

A GOOD, STRAIGHT COP RESPONDS

TO THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT’S LIES.

Some “Inconvenient” Conclusions:

Attorney General William Bailhache
Tried to Stop Wateridge Being Charged.

Documentary Evidence Proves Dig at HDLG
Was Justified.

Evidence of Mr. Harper’s Professionalism and Integrity
Destroys Jersey Establishment Smear-Campaign.

Police Had Intelligence of Forced, Illegal Abortions
And a Still-born Baby at HDLG.

Anthropologist’s Records Showed Many
Suspected Human Bone Fragments.

Police Had Intelligence of Children
‘Not Being Seen Again’.

Expert’s Theory That Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing
Was Used to Dispose of Human Remains.

Possibility of Unexplained Child Deaths
Still Unresolved.

ACPO Reports Endorsed Investigation.

The Successful Prosecutions
All Work of Mr. Harper’s Team.

Many Serious Suspects Still at Large.

Gradwell and Warcup Fail
To Bring them to Justice.

Political Pressure and Interference
By Jersey Establishment.

Gradwell and Warcup Press-Conference
Discredited.

Spin, Lies and Smear-Campaign by Jersey Establishment
Proves Existence of Culture of Concealment.


To some readers – those, for example, who rely on Jersey’s traditional media for their information – the conclusions listed above will be shocking, and will be at variance with many of the assertions of, and all the ‘impressions’ conveyed by, the Jersey authorities during much of the last 12 months.

To those of us who have had to take a detailed interest in the awful subject of decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey, many of the conclusions written above will come as no surprise - on the basis of personal experiences, documentary information – and a weary understanding of the true nature of the Jersey oligarchy. One way or another - the truth has been known to us.

But regardless of whether you knew the truth – or whether the Jersey establishment’s propaganda had misled you – you should read this posting. Below is a detailed, evidenced response – written by Lenny Harper – in which the necessity, professionalism and integrity of the States of Jersey Police Force investigation into decades of concealed child abuse is robustly established and defended.

I would like to thank Lenny for taking the time to write this guest posting, and remaining committed to justice and integrity. As a retired man, with a family to care for, he could have washed his hands of these issues and simply walked away. Fortunately the for the survivors and this community, he continues to be a fighter for justice; a man who’s instinct is to protect the weak from the powerful.

Stuart.

Lenny Harper’s Guest Posting:

I have been away from Scotland for the past two weeks and have therefore missed the intellectually challenged journalistic nonsense from Diane Simon of the JEP, including the interview with Supercop Mick Gradwell. My thanks to those who have updated me.

I began counting the inaccuracies and downright falsehoods but gave up there were so many of them. Mick Gradwell said in a letter a few months back to a Daily Mail journalist that “the best I can say about Mr. Harper is that he is a man who has difficulty in understanding basic facts”. But it seems to me that he and Diane Simon cannot recognise facts even when they are laid out in front of them several times. I will return to Mr. Gradwell later when I yet again make clear how ludicrous and dishonest some of the assertions made by various people are, including his rather nasty and juvenile attack on some senior staff of the States of Jersey Police. First however, and I am sure all the readers of this blog will understand, I need to defend myself against some of the personal attacks made on me by Messrs Gradwell, Warcup, Simon - and a few others who have reasons to see the Abuse enquiry fold.

When the e-mail from Ms. Simon slithered under my virus defence my initial instinct was to delete it and ignore it. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, she had asked me all these questions on at least two previous occasions, one of them a sunny Saturday at Haut De Le Garenne. On each occasion I had not only answered the questions, but I had also e-mailed the answers to her, such was my mistrust of the way the answers would be used. Presumably, she still had those e-mails. My mistrust was well founded as her questions, although not my answers, were to provide the basis of an article attacking me which was posted in a national paper by one of a group of journalists who mentioned her, and who had previously produced books and articles in support of perverts such as the North Wales Care Abusers and Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Child Rapist. Indeed, some of these journalists had even given evidence to Parliamentary Committees in which they said that the above abusers were victims of miscarriages of justice and the “False Recall Syndrome” of victims, or indeed, just made up allegations. Therefore, on this occasion I had no doubt as to what her motives were and this was confirmed when I was told the first story had appeared even before she received my reply. Her plea in the e-mail for me to answer the questions so that she could “tell all sides of the story” was as sincere and believable as the “Trusssst in me” uttered by Kaa the snake in Disney’s version of the Jungle Book. Ms. Simon must be the only person she knows who believes that this type of ingratiating fawning is not totally transparent.

Notwithstanding my absolute belief that the seeking of my views was a total sham, I realised that it would be better not to give her the opportunity to claim that she had sought my views and I had refused. I therefore answered all her questions which meant of course that she just had to ignore most of what I said. To ensure that I did get my point across to the majority on the island who actually wanted the truth, I copied my response to Stuart Syvret and he posted it on his blog.

Ms. Simon and officers Warcup and Gradwell seem to be saying that I became a really bad cop “overnight.” (I will explain why I say ‘overnight’ below.) Ms. Simon is a journalist of course and is at a disadvantage, but her view of me as a cop seems to be only slightly better than my view of her as a journalist. Each is entitled to their opinion, even if it is from a distance. However, the claims from Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell need closer examination and perhaps a more detailed dismantling.

I do not know a lot about Mr. Warcup or the now retired Mr. Gradwell. I do not know the extent of Mr. Warcup’s practical experience; whether he spent his career at the sharp end as I did, or whether all his years with Northumbria Police were spent in departments like Personnel. What I do know is that the only reference I can find on the internet to him relate to allegations (perhaps unfounded) that he hid the true extent of crime from the public through the use of spin, and some other comments of a personal nature criticising him for something which frankly is no one’s business but his own.

However, I do know that he has admitted destroying evidence in the abuse case - which perhaps does give some clue as to his motivation or professional judgement.

As for Mr. Gradwell, again I do not know a lot about him. He is fond of telling people, including one of the journalists I mentioned above, that he is known for investigating the tragic incident when foreign workers drowned on a beach. I believe that manslaughter convictions resulted for some of the people connected with the employment of these unfortunate victims. This must have been a very challenging enquiry for him. I am pretty sure also that he must have investigated some more conventional manslaughters and murders - where the suspects were not known. I cannot speak for him, only myself. I know that I have a number of commendations for “detective ability,” leadership, and other professional skills earned in the investigation of many murders including terrorist murders, gang murders, stabbing murders with multi victims, domestic murders, and huge experience gained in South London in the investigation of Rapes and Child Abuse.

I hope this does not seem like some sort of Lenny Harper ego trip, but when people like Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, and Ms. Simon, criticise my ability, I cannot help but refer to others who have expressed a contrary view. Over the past few years I have worked with and for some of the most respected senior police officers in the UK. Others who I have never worked for have come and independently examined what I have done in Jersey. What they say is in marked contrast to the three above, and what they say illustrates what I mean by saying that I must have become a disaster ‘overnight’. Forgive me for running through some of these professional assessments, but it will show the operational calibre of people with very different views to those which have appeared in the JEP of late and in the public utterings of Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup.

Her Majesty Inspector of Constabulary came to review the SOJP in 2002, two years after Graham Power had taken over and some months following John Pearson and I arriving. They noted huge improvements from the Inspection Report prior to Mr. Power’s arrival and spoke in complimentary terms about the Senior Management Team, its leadership style, and how the force supported the changes made.

A different Inspection team carried out another examination of the force in 2008. It made the following comments under the heading of ‘Strengths’.

“The current Senior Management Team has continued to make improvements in performance, resources, management and capability.”

“The force has an effective Professional Standards Department which is effectively led by the DCO (who) drives the need for integrity across the force.”

Under the category of ‘Leadership’, the HMI wrote; “The Chief Officer Group is forward thinking, proactive in terms of the development of the force, and accessible to staff. They seek and utilise good practice from UK forces in ways that are applicable to the operational context of Jersey.” The Report team went on to say that they were “impressed with the receptiveness, drive, and commitment of the Chief Officer Team to make Organisational changes in line with areas of improvement.” They also said “The Chief Officer Team promotes a culture of empowerment, innovation, and learning through various means.”

Finally HMI, in summing up said “there is strong evidence to indicate that the SOJP is perceived as modern, fast moving with high expectations of operational and cultural change amongst a motivated workforce.”

As I stated above, I have worked with, and for, some of the most respected and professional police officers in the UK. A number of them have carried out assessments on my performance and ability. Again, apologies for what seems almost self congratulation, but among them Sir William Rae (former Chief Constable of Strathclyde) said in 2002, just before my move to Jersey, that I was currently “serving with distinction.” He went on to say the following.

“Superintendent Harper is an intelligent and articulate officer who is performing his current duties to an extremely high level. Since transferring to Strathclyde Police he has shown himself to be a dedicated and highly responsible team player who maintains a consistently professional approach to his duties at all times. The excellence he has shown since joining Strathclyde Police was mirrored during his time with the Metropolitan Police. In April 1989 when stationed at Peckham his Divisional Commander stated that in his role as Detective Inspector he was ‘one of the most effective I have ever known.’ Praise such as this has followed Superintendent Harper throughout his career and for good reason. A modest individual, he has received five commendations, all relating to the investigation of serious crime including one relating to the arrest and conviction of two INLA terrorists.”

Sir William went on to say that my appraisals in Strathclyde had been of an extremely high standard with senior managers universally praising my diligence and abilities at both the operational and strategic levels. He attached copies of my last three staff appraisals which had been written by two senior officers who are now both Chief Constables in Scotland.

Against that backdrop of unimpeachable professional commendation, the trinity of Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell have made it their mission in life to tell as many people as possible how unprofessional and incapable (and even worse) I am. All this on very little knowledge of me, and bolstered by, to borrow Ms. Simon’s words, “lies and half truths.” She would certainly know about lies and half truths, wouldn’t she? With such a volume of informed and respected professional opinion to the contrary, no thinking person would prefer to believe the nonsense, of Simon, Gradwell & Warcup. So am I bothered?

No.

Now let me turn to the actual substance (an ill chosen word to describe what was in these pieces of journalistic rubbish) of Ms. Simon’s articles. I will start with the interview with Mr. Gradwell. I do feel rather weary at this point as I have made all these points before to Simon and others. At least this time however, I am making them to people who will have the ability and willingness to assimilate them.

The attention seeking headline in the Gradwell article was that the operation at Haut de le Garenne was “a waste of time and money.” According to Mr. Gradwell, as reported in the JEP, the decision to excavate was made without hard evidence or intelligence. Up until then, he said, the enquiry was being run “essentially along UK lines.” Okay – if I understand him then, we were doing OK until we decided to excavate HDLG. It follows then that he would not have done so. He would have ignored all that we found and walked away. Here again are the (much repeated) reasons why we excavated - in chronological sequence.

By the closing weeks of 2007, we had been carrying out the enquiry for some time. A recurring feature of the evidence and information gathering process as we moved into January 2008 was that a number of victims and witnesses had told us they had been assaulted and abused at the former home. There was evidence from one witness that a child had been chased by a member of staff through an upper floor corridor and in desperation had leapt out of a high window. The child had not been seen again. At that stage we had no name. (Mr. Gradwell was to say that over a year later he traced the child – perhaps he did. However at that time we had what we had.) We had non-specific information from a number of witnesses that they had witnessed children being dragged away at night and not being seen again. There was intelligence of illegal forced abortion and of a still born child.

I found all of this highly alarming and worrying but I did not consider at that stage that it warranted a full excavation of HDLG. (This is an important point, because after speaking to Gradwell and Warcup, the Met Police accused me of ordering the excavation on the evidence of a few “disturbed” people. I took issue with this description of the victims and made this clear in a number of e-mails to those concerned.) Mr. Gradwell confirms my suspicion about the origin of this slur on the survivors by his comments to Diane Simon. He and David Warcup at their infamous and discredited press conference last year also peddled this myth about the reasons for digging. The truth is simple to illustrate, because it is well documented.

I arranged to go to the UK to meet experts who would be well qualified to advise us on the way forward. On 5th February 2008, I went to Oxford with our Forensic Services Manager and other staff, and at the Headquarters of LGC Forensics met with Karl Harrison, their lead scientist, National Policing Improvement Agency Homicide Search Advisors, and forensic staff representing Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology, as well as a Cadaver Dog Advisor. We had already asked Mr. Harrison to prepare a desk based study brief of HDLG and he circulated this at the meeting.

The decision made at this meeting was that we should carry out an initial reconnaissance of the site over a short period to seek to clarify a number of objectives. It was decided that we would deploy several different assets, to be deployed in a “systematic fashion using best value and best practice guidelines.” In simple terms, we wanted to establish if there was anything there which would need further investigation - or if we could “walk away” from it -without further investigation.

Two weeks later we moved in to the grounds of HDLG. We deployed Geophysical assets and Ground Penetrating Radar in order to identify anomalous areas for further investigation. We also used Gridded probing techniques to assist the dogs, and of course we had the anecdotal evidence of witnesses and victims. We decided we would not at any time carry out speculative searching but would deploy the forensic and archaeology assets in areas where there was corroboration that something needed further investigation. Before we excavated, we would give full consideration to possible explanations given by earlier work or utilities. We also studied in depth building plans and maps. It was during this process that builders who had worked on the site told us that a few years before they had found bones they were convinced were human but had been told to ‘forget them’ and “let bygones be bygones.” (This phrase became a catchword among my team whenever the subject of attempts at cover up would arise.) One worker was so convinced they were human he took them home to examine them against computer images which only strengthened his fears. (Eventually these bones were examined by a Jersey Pathologist after police had called her to the home. She told the officer “I don’t like the look of this,” but was later to say she could not remember making that comment. She was “not saying it wasn’t made, but just couldn’t remember it.” She took the bones to her boss whose extremely short (five lines) report said the bones were too large to be human but also stated that one of the bones “could not identified.” He gave the measurements of the bones and our anthropologist took issue with his findings saying that the size of the bone concerned was within the size range of a child. Unfortunately the bones were destroyed by the pathologist without being examined by an anthropologist. Our advice was that they should have been so examined as the pathologist was not qualified to rule on whether or not they were human. The builders told us that they had found two child’s shoes with the bones. The pathologist told us that he had sent them for examination and had been told they were Victorian. The person he said he sent them to remembered no such incident. Unfortunately the shoes too had been destroyed and were unavailable to us.

At the same time as we were digesting this deeply puzzling sequence of events, we received a positive reaction from the dog trained to find traces of human remains. This reaction came at the same spot as the builders had found the bones mentioned above. At this point, I took the decision to authorise the archaeologists to dig at that location. I would do the same again. It beggars belief, and I am at a loss to imagine why, Mr. Gradwell and David Warcup should say they would have taken a different decision. To me that would be gross negligence. My decision was fully endorsed by the ACPO team who were mentoring us and this team included the former head of the Met Homicide Department and a vastly experienced Senior Investigating Officer. It was also unanimously supported by all of my senior team including the UK Homicide Search Advisors. The dig was necessary because there were matters which needed further investigation. Indeed, the advice of the ACPO Homicide Team was that we had no choice but to treat the scene as one of a potential homicide. This advice was expressed frequently, and I know it was given to Frank Walker.

I will deal in more detail later with the charred bones found in the cellar areas, but for now will concentrate on the reasons for excavating that area. We had evidence from victims who said they were confined and/or abused in what they described as cellar areas. We could not find them until a local builder who had worked at the area came forward and said he knew where the entrance to these ‘cellars’ were. He showed us and we were eventually able to uncover them. Before excavating further we put the dogs into the area. As we did so, the Chief of Police arrived with the Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard. They were actually present when the dogs reacted strongly in the cellar and where we were then to find the charred bones and teeth. So, the question is obvious when one thinks that Mr. Gradwell is still claiming that we should not have searched HDLG. At what point should we have walked away? Should we have not started at all - and therefore not found anything – and left the remains (because that is what they are) where they were? Should we have stopped at the wing where the dog initially reacted and, instead, ignored all we knew about the bones found by the builders? Or should we have ignored the dog’s possible corroboration of the victims in the cellar area?

Messrs Gradwell and Warcup said there was no evidence of murder and that my team was wrong to say there was. They are not telling the truth, deliberately or otherwise - because I had never said there was evidence of murder - only evidence that there was something that needed investigation. A subtle, but crucial, distinction which people could be forgiven for not understanding, given the utter nonsense that’s been peddled recently. There are many, many examples of what I did, actually, say, to be found still. Check the BBC News website on 31st July 2008. Read David James Smith’s excellent article in the Sunday Times. (Reproduced in Stuart Syvret’s blog on Sunday, 10th May, 2009). They all state - clearly and unequivocally - that I was saying ‘we did not have evidence of murder’. Why would Ms. Simon and the two senior cops say otherwise? I and many others know why. However, we still do not know how, where, or when those children died and probably never will. We think we know how the bones ended up where we found them, and that was expertly laid out by Karl Harrison in his Archaeological Theory of the Burnt Debris including Human Bone Fragments and teeth found in the East wing. His view was that the Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing was used to dispose of human remains and they were then transferred to the East Wing around 1960-1970. We included his report in the document we posted on our website. Strangely enough when the Sunday Times journalist David James Smith attempted to access this document it had been removed under Warcup’s leadership. David James Smith was told by the Press Officer that there had been a problem with the computer. Of course there was! In any event, I reproduce a quote from the report by Karl Harrison below. You might ask the question that if an independent expert such as Karl Harrison is giving us this information, what kind of police officers would we have been to walk away and ignore it? As I say, it beggars belief. Unless your name is Diane Simon, David Warcup, or Gradwell that is.

Here is a quote from the report by Karl Harrison:

“With regard to the human remains recovered from cellars 3,4 & five. Karl Harrison, LGC Forensics lead archaeologist explains :

Detailed archaeological analysis of the building and its structure, in conjunction with archive plans, has provided time lines for historical renovations within the building. Phase I – area above the cellars is a School Room - Victorian styli and slates are dumped in large quantities on the cellar floor. These are in such quantities that it would suggest the floors were being taken up when they were deposited. Although they are mixed throughout the cellar deposits, many slates are lying on the base of the earthen floor, suggesting an early fall. A number of dateable Phase I items (Victorian coinage, Napoleon III coin, Victorian Jubilee medal) have been found in close association with this material.

Phase II/III - At the extension of the building following the major works over the bathhouse directly south of the School Room, educational activities move southwards to our Press Room (as was). The School Room becomes a Play Room in the early 20th C. This would explain the lack of pen nibs such as those in the cisterns entering the record here.

With the exception of a few coins of the period, native Phase II/III material seems to be in short supply. Instead we seem to have imported material - masses of shoe leather and heel irons relate to the shoemakers that functioned through the 20s and 30s, along with buttons and thimbles from the neighbouring dressmakers room. This is closely associated with concentrations of kitchen waste (bottle glass, jar glass, plain domestic ware, patterned ware and charnel), which seems contemporaneous based on design and scraps of printed labels remaining.

All of this is mixed with two distinct non-native soils - a virgin 'potato' soil which provides much of the compressed material, and a concentration of charred material - coke, clinker and some charcoal (in very small fragments) - whilst the charred material is associated with smoke stained masonry, none of the goods in the cellar have been burned (as opposed to cooked in the case of animal bone) - other than some of the bone fragments.

Phase IV - Phase IV is characterised by sweeping, evidenced by changes in texture of the cellar fills and the presence of large numbers of plastic bristles and brush head fragments stuck through lower elements of the contexts. In terms of depositions in phase IV, these are (with the exception of a single coin) native in character - the room above the cellars remains a Play Room, and we have a profusion of glass marbles, toy soldiers, play money, farmyard animal figures)

Phase V - Access is gained through the floor by hatch cutting for the 2003 refurbishment - some of the outlying bone and teeth fragments perhaps owe their position to cable laying. What I now think has happened is that a mass of material has been imported from the west wing at a time when the floor of the Play Room was up. This would explain the mix of material from north to south along the wing (glass and ceramic from kitchen larders, leather goods from the shoemakers, buttons from the tailors and high-temperature char from the bake house foundations) These renovations to the west wing have been carried out since 1960 (the brush bristles relate to sweeping of floor surface elsewhere and have been incorporated into the fill elsewhere, rather than someone bothering to sweep a cellar's earthen floor) - they have involved cleaning, but also significant digging into underlying soil (we have small concentrations of Phase II/III pot sewer pipe, as well as the mass of potato soil). Whilst some of the material might have been taken off site, some has been ditched in barrow and bucket loads on the cellar floor, hence the complex lensing of charred and virgin soils, especially along the footing trenches.”

Fairly significant is it not? Yet, we should not have been in there according to Gradwell, Warcup and Simon. We should have walked away and left the remains there. It was, supposedly, all a waste of time and money, not to mention professionally inept. We may not have found the answers but I am in no doubt that we had to ask the questions. That is what we were police officers for.

Let me now move on to other criticisms levelled by Warcup in his “interview” with Ms. Simon. Firstly, his strange allegation that I was offered the services of a top Senior Investigating Officer and his “matrix” but refused and ordered him to leave the island. Well, I must have had powers I didn’t know about. I was not aware I could order or ask anyone to leave Jersey. The truth here is that I was asked if an officer from the UK could come and talk to some of my staff as he had experience of child abuse investigations and in particular in a number of administrative areas we were utilising. Whatever his experience as a senior investigating officer it was nowhere near that of the ACPO Homicide Detective who was mentoring me and reviewing my work. There was never any suggestion that he should usurp what the ACPO man was doing. Apart from anything else, it would have been duplication. The officer did speak to my staff and I recall they did get some useful stuff from him. However, he came up with this “points system” or matrix in the new, intellectual, politically correct police world of jargon. It was explained to me that it helped prioritise crimes by giving, for example, ten points to a rape, seven for an assault, and one for a towel flick. Now, that might be helpful in a case where you are looking at many dozens of different types of offences, but here although we were dealing with a large number of offences, the types of crime were few and similar. Mr. Gradwell might need a points scoring system to help him tell the difference between a rape and a cuff around the ear. I do not. That is why we said no thank you. It is just another example of how the abundance of talent in today’s police force is hamstrung and prevented from doing their jobs properly by bureaucracy introduced by people frightened of their own shadows and the effect that mistakes may have on their progress up the ladder.

Mr. Gradwell makes the comment that some journalists saw through me and others did not. Well, that depends on whether you are in the camp that wanted the enquiry to fail or not. At least one BBC journalist was in the camp Gradwell felt had not got it right - judging from the abusive text message he sent the journalist.

Mr. Gradwell says he inherited an ill managed mess, that there were no proper papers left behind. Here, he is in conflict with the ACPO Review team, who said, in their report, the policy books were properly kept and maintained. Gradwell’s assertion about the team’s “embarrassed looks” and comments that “we told them so” are bizarre, but sadly predictable, given the propaganda campaign that has been waged to falsely depict a divided team.

I wouldn’t choose to provide the following evidence of the team’s cohesion, and appreciation of my leadership, but as it’s important to combat the lies being fed to the people of Jersey, I do so. All of the team wrote messages to me on my leaving the island. They did not have to. They could not have been forced to as I no longer worked there. Below I reproduce an e-mail sent out by one of my team to all those working for me. I had already said I did not wish to have a retirement function, and knew nothing of these plans until asked to be available for an evening. Would the team have done this if Gradwell was correct in what he has said? I have removed the name of the sender for obvious reasons.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 June 2008 16:06
To: All HAT Officers
Cc: Coupland, Vicky; Nibbs, Louise; Bentley, Fraser
Subject: SIO Lenny Harper's Retirement

Greetings to you all,

As you are aware Lenny Harper is fast approaching his last few weeks as the Deputy Chief Officer here in the States of Jersey Police and will be putting his hat and coat on for the final time in August 2008. Most of us have only come into close contact with him as the SIO on 'Operation Rectangle' where we have found him to be extremely professional, affable and a thoroughly good 'Governor' to work for.

We don't have a 'Social Club' for our group of investigators but having chatted amongst a few of us we have taken the decision to book a restaurant for an evening meal where we as a group can see Lenny off in style. Lenny has agreed to be available on the evening chosen and we will ask him if he would like to bring his wife too. This is not going to be a leaving function linked with the States of Jersey Police who may well organise their own function to mark his departure, as too, may the Politicians and Government ministers on the island.

The arrangements are to meet at The Tenby Public House at St Aubin Bay at 19.00hrs on Wednesday 6th August 2008.

Then to move on a few steps to the Bon Viveur Restaurant , Le Boulevard, St Aubin to sit down at 20.00hrs.

Travel to and from the venue can be organised by getting private hire Taxi vans in different groups.

I am assured that the food at the venue is excellent and for a 3 course meal with wine you will be paying £30 to £40 dependant upon how much you want to eat and drink. Bills can be organised separately.

I have a selection of menus and a wine list to view should you so desire.

Should you wish to participate in this function I would like you to reply to me by 'email' ASAP in order that we can confirm numbers with the restaurant owner who has booked us in as a group of 30 to 35. Do bear in mind that we have chosen to go out mid week so that the maximum number of us are available. Additionally it will be in the middle of the Tourist season so we have had to book early.

If you do wish to attend please give me a deposit of £20 ASAP. We would also like to present Lenny with a gift to remind him of his work with the 'Operational Rectangle' team so if anyone has any ideas please see me too.

Kind Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxx

As further evidence of just how ‘reliable’ super-cop Gradwell is, I reproduce below the comments written by the team on my retirement card, after I had finished working. These are not the kind of comments which get written by the members of a team of the kind depicted by Gradwell; a fact which indicates just how little weight should be attached to his words.

"Sir, you have brought Jersey integrity + transparency, have a long happy retirement. thank you."

"Enjoy your retirement - it has been a pleasure taking on the system. Enjoy your season ticket."

"Hope to see you at Old Trafford when Sunderland thrash the red devils. All the best for the future. Enjoy it."

"And don't forget the Hull City Tigers thrashing the red devils - well all right, even I am not putting any money on it. Boss, it's been a pleasure working with you, all the best."

"Mr. Harper, as a fellow dinosaur it has been a great pleasure to have put our heads together to sort out this plot. Many thanks for your time, efforts and sincerity. Enjoy your retirement."

"Wishing you the very best for your retirement boss. Take care for the future."

"Best wishes from the Dorset contingent."

"You have been a top boss. Enjoy your retirement."

"Mr. H., it has been an absolute pleasure working for you. This island won't seem the same without your face on the news every week or so. All the best, have a fab retirement."

"Boss, it’s been great working for you but I hope to see you in Cumbria soon. All the best for your retirement."

" I will not even mention Southend, November 2006!! Enjoy your retirement boss - enjoy the rest." xx

"Mr. Harper, it has been a pleasure working for you and being involved on the enquiry. All the best for the future."

"All the best, enjoy your retirement like I am."

"All the best. Happy retirement."

"Best wishes for the future. Enjoy your retirement go and watch West Ham. You will be missed."

Sir, Boss, Lenny, (first two scored out) What a trip - ups and downs. Many more ups than downs. I've had a ball. Enjoy the trip - you have not seen the last of me."

"Good luck, best wishes."

"Have a happy and long retirement and all the best. xx"

"If nothing else you will have contacts throughout the country. All the best."

"Wish you were staying longer. Enjoy your retirement. -x-"

Mr. Harper, cheers for having us here. You have certainly left your mark. Have a great retirement and enjoy your family."

"Sorry to see you go. Hope you enjoy your retirement. All the best."

"Does this mean I can now wear my green and gold T shirt?"

"To a fellow scouser - enjoy your retirement."

"Mr. H - thanks for the opportunity to come to Jersey. Have a long and happy retirement. All the best."

"Having made a great commitment to Jersey and certainly placed the island on the map it’s now time to have an enjoyable and fantastic retirement."

"All the best."

"Have a fantastic time and a well deserved rest."

"It's been great working with you. Have a great retirement."

"Have a wonderful retirement."

"Good luck."

All the very best - enjoy your time."

"Have a wonderful retirement."

"Wonderbar!! Kielen donf fur die gelagenheit."

"Have a long and happy retirement. Best regards."

"Lenny, thank you for being a great boss and a wonderful friend. I will miss you." x


As I said, I would prefer not to publish these personal messages, but as so much effort has been expended by certain people in trying to portray me as some deeply unpopular and isolated figure, I feel the people of Jersey deserve to see the true picture. (Some may recall that the above messages were part of what the Attorney General insisted I hand over as he felt they constituted “unused material” critical to the case and warned me I might put the victims at risk of not getting justice if I refused.)

Which brings me to another very inconvenient fact for Mr.Gradwell, which is this:

All three convictions so far have resulted from the work done by my team’s enquiry.

He looked very proud and self-important as he stood on the steps of the court after the Wateridge conviction. It must have crossed his mind, surely, that all three convicted had already been charged and made their first court appearances before he’d even arrived in the island?

And, as the lawyers had made it clear they would not take a job to court unless there was a good chance of conviction, the evidence must have been pretty good from the outset. However, the papers, evidence, and files I left him on the priority suspects – including the Maguires - were obviously not much help to him as he has not been able to charge any of them. Though perhaps Mr. Gradwell’s inabilities were not the sole cause of this?

One has to wonder why the Attorney General, William Bailhache, sent instructions to me not to charge Wateridge? It is fortunate indeed that I was a rather thick cop and “misunderstood” the instructions conveyed to me by a lawyer. Otherwise it is possible the now convicted Wateridge may never have even been charged.

A few other things about that Gradwell JEP interview: He said in it, when referring to the disgraceful case where the lawyer changed ‘his mind’ after telling us to arrest the ‘lovely’ pair - who delighted in hitting children in the back of the head with cricket bats - that it was one of my own team who told the lawyers there was not enough evidence. I find this rather unlikely for a number of reasons. Firstly, my team were very angry at the late changing of the decision. They had been told by the lawyer that subject to interview this pair should be charged with serious assaults. We of course had an agreement that we would arrest no one unless we got the go ahead from the lawyers appointed by the AG. We adhered to this. It was forced on us after the establishment became worried we were arresting people they would rather we didn’t - and after they’d lost control of the Wateridge process. The team arrested this pair - only to have the rug snatched from under their feet. After a rather strained conversation with the AG’s lawyer, who was sitting on a platform in a railway station in the North of England with trains running in the background, I ignored his instructions and called the Centenier into the police station to charge these two. Mr. Gradwell of course would not have done this he says. In any event, the Centenier stated that although he agreed that there was ample evidence to charge, he did not want to go against the lawyer’s ‘revised’ instruction. Never mind justice or the victims!

This left me with a dilemma. I knew word would get out in minutes that we had released these two without charge and that it would confirm the worst fears of the victims of a cover up. I therefore put out a press release making it clear that it was not our wish and that it had been imposed on us. The Attorney General was not happy and demanded a report from me explaining why I had issued the press release. I did the report - but put in it a little more than the Attorney General wanted - by going through a whole catalogue of events where I felt we had been let down by his office. Someone gave that report to the media, and it can now be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog of the 27th August, 2008. Mr. Warcup has instigated a very expensive investigation into who leaked it, he and Mr. Gradwell telling journalists ‘off the record’ that Stuart Syvret and I were being investigated. Compare that with my failure to get the Attorney General to prosecute corrupt cops for leaking intelligence off police systems!

Mr. Gradwell says that the problem was I promised the victims £1m too much and he only had £1 to give them. In some respects he hasn’t even given them that. I promised them that I would believe them and that I would do my best to get them justice. It seems to me no one else had ever done that before. I never promised huge numbers of convictions and the victims never demanded that. I promised them I would do my best, and the officers who went and saw them achieved that. The numbers of letters, e-mails and phone calls from victims who said that they felt as though a weight had been lifted from them by the officers who spoke to them was incredible and a great testimony to those officers. If promising to believe them, making my belief obvious, and doing my best to get them justice is the equivalent of £1m then so be it. The world now believes in what happened to them. And the evidence is there against other abusers. It is those in power in Jersey that are refusing to use that evidence. They are indeed offering the victims £1 or even less.

Although not directly linked to the Abuse case, we must deal with Mr. Gradwell’s little snide remark about the senior team above the rank of Inspector. Mr. Gradwell is obviously (perhaps) basing his remarks on his experience in the Lancashire force, although as politicians in Jersey kept pointing out to me, policing in the UK is totally different from Jersey. And, whilst I know that Stuart has some differing views on some of those we are talking about, I think I can claim to know those individuals better that either Stuart or Mr. Gradwell in both the professional and personal contexts. I have worked in all the jurisdictions in the UK and I found almost all of the senior officers in SOJP at least the equal of their counterparts in the UK. They had as much skill, professionalism, commitment and integrity as anywhere. In respect of integrity and courage they probably had more than most. I watched two of them, despite having to live on the island, stand up to and continue with a course of action which they felt to be correct and which brought them into conflict with senior figures in the political and legal establishments. This would of course be something Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup would not be comfortable with. One of these officers who had a hugely successful period tackling corruption and misconduct later filled my post more than capably when I was involved in the enquiry. For some reason Mr. Warcup curtailed this and brought someone in from the UK. It would seem that Jersey politicians are now backing away from their previously stated aim that we should be training and preparing local officers for most of the senior posts in the force. Mr. Gradwell was in Jersey for a specific purpose. He played no part in the everyday policing of the island. Just what qualifies him to make critical comments about people he knows little about? It seems to come easily to him.

Of course, Mr. Gradwell didn’t just sound off to the JEP. On the BBC he asked the question why, if I had evidence or intelligence about rapes 20 or 30 years ago did I then dig for human remains? I think that question is answered clearly above. He said there were no human remains found. I beg to differ. For a start, there were approximately 70 children’s teeth. Of course, Mr.Gradwell thinks they are down to the Tooth Fairy. Forget what two experts said. But let us look at his claim that “only one human bone was found and that was from the ‘Plantagenet’ era.”

It is useful to look at what I was being told by the Anthropologists we had on scene. There are two documents which detail this. Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup quoted selectively from them at the Press Conference and since. One of these documents is the Workbook of the Anthropologists and the other is the Bone and Teeth Summary.

There are numerous entries in the Bone and Teeth Summary which relate to bones found and identified as human by the Anthropologists working at HDLG with my team. It is worth bearing in mind that Anthropologists go through many years training to be considered as experts in the identification of human bones. Those that we used were highly experienced, committed, and ethical. Here are some of the entries they made during the course of their work at HDLG. They are reproduced exactly as written. They are not my interpretation. These are the words of the experts. The entries made by the Anthropologists are a record used by them, and formed the basis for the advice I was given. The reference number which each entry begins with is unique to each fragment, and the accompanying information for each exhibit describes archaeological phase and date, as well as possible origin. I have not mentioned all the teeth in the list as there were just too many. The comment below, in brackets, is mine.

KSH/137: Archaeological phase and Date: 3-4: 1940s to 1980s.
Sixteen fragments of bone submitted to University of Sheffield and positively id’d as human bone.
(These were the fragments examined by the UK Anthropologist Andrew Chamberlain who issued a report saying the bone examined was human juvenile, had been burnt soon after death, and buried soon after burning. He also said that the bones were no more than a few decades old. His report, strangely enough, has never been mentioned by Mr. Warcup or Mr. Gradwell. When the bones were sent for carbon dating we got two results back for the batch. The first, as I recall said the bones examined dated between the 14th and 17th century. The next day we were told the rest of the bones were of a person or persons who died between the 1650s and 1950s. This led to me giving all those press briefings, even reported in the JEP, in which I said the evidence was contradictory and made it unlikely there would be a homicide enquiry. Again, all this seems to have escaped the radar of Messrs Simon, Warcup, and Gradwell. Furthermore, when David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist spoke to Andrew Chamberlain he said he had never heard me say anything which contradicted his findings and revealed to David he had even waived his fee so impressed was he with the way we were going about our business. In an e-mail to me I was told that Mr. Chamberlain “stressed over and over again that everyone he dealt with, especially you, showed great care and professionalism.” This has obviously not reached the ears of our trio either.)

KSH/158: Archaeological Phase and Date. 3-4. 1940s to 1980s.
Single fragment of bone resembling KSH/137. Submitted to Sheffield University.

JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.

JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.

JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.

JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.

JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.

JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.

JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human

JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.

Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)

JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process

JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.

JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs.

The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.

One thing is a certain fact: the document quoted above proves – unambiguously – that there was sufficient evidence to justify digging – and that the digging did find concerning artefacts, thus further justifying the process.

We might not have found all the answers - but as police officers we had to ask the questions. At least that is my view.

Mr. Gradwell puzzled me somewhat with his rant about “noble cause corruption.” I know what it is – one example of it was when the Guildford Four were arrested in Heysham, Lancashire, and were then wrongly convicted. But what on earth has that to do with HDLG? Mr. Gradwell said this was like an example of it – we had decided on guilt and then went on a ‘fishing expedition’. He went on to ask if this was what people wanted – a return to the days when police decided guilt and the era of miscarriages of justice? Now this takes me back to Mr. Gradwell’s comments about me that I “could not understand basic facts.” This is maybe why I can’t figure out whose guilt we had, supposedly, made our minds up about when we went into HDLG. We did not even know what crimes may have been committed in relation to the human remains there, never mind who the guilty party may have been. Bizarre!

There was also, of course, his comments about the Media Strategy. ‘When’, he asked, ‘did you ever see routine daily briefings on a police enquiry?’ Plenty of times would be my answer. However, I did not give daily routine briefings. As I am sure the Press Officer would confirm I faced the Press when I did because they were there in numbers and besieging her office with interview requests. On one occasion they even knocked the system out.

So there we have my perspective on what Mr. Gradwell said together with Mr. Warcup. Lies and half truths was the phrase that Diane Simon used. Make your own mind up. Which brings me to Ms. Simon.

“Harper lied about the fragment” seemed to be the gist of her recent story. I have already gone through this with her two or three times, personally face to face, and a couple of times on e-mail. It seems I am not the only one with difficulty in grasping what I am told. She continues to peddle the myth that this fragment was identified as coconut very early on and that I lied about it. I will come to that. Let me once more relate the facts about this fragment known in the media as JAR/6.

The fragment was found on the morning of 23 February 2008. I was telephoned and went to the scene. When I arrived I was briefed as the entry on the Anthropologist’s worksheet reproduced below dated 23 February 2008. I was also told that a News of the World journalist had been caught with a camera in the bushes outside. I knew therefore that someone had leaked our work to the media and I also knew that it would only be a matter of time before the JEP found out about the fragment. Over the previous couple of years we had mounted several enquiries to find the source within the force who kept leaking details to various journalists of the JEP. My view was that if the media reported it before we did we would lose credibility with our vulnerable victims and witnesses. The entry below is quite clear. Note that it was found in Trench 3.

“23 February 2008
09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”

Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she say says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”; this would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.

“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”

Note also what Julie Roberts says about the fragment. Gradwell and Warcup told the media she had changed her mind and now thought it was something else. That is not what she is saying, even after examining it again and reporting changes to it. She clearly says that she cannot be sure without conducting further chemical analysis.

Furthermore, Miss Roberts says that she discussed it with myself and the Forensic Manager and that we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed. She then says that “our” conclusion was that as we had already ruled it out of the enquiry, no further work would be conducted on it. “Our” obviously includes her in the decision. According to Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup, I rode roughshod over her opinion. More misinformation.

It is the same also with the myth that this was identified as a coconut during my time in the island. I detail below the sequence of events relating to the examination of the fragment. This is fully corroborated by copy e-mails from the lab which examined the fragment. I am not aware that it has ever been identified as a coconut. Anthropologists are trained to identify human remains. The only anthropologist to examine it thought it part of a child’s skull. On seeing it later when it had changed its appearance she was not so sure. People carrying out Carbon Dating are trained for that process, not identifying the matter. Even then, they gave contradictory and confused information to us. When reading below, bear in mind that collagen is found only in mammals, not wood, not coconut.

We sent the fragment off for dating around the 3rd or 4th March. If Gradwell and Warcup are to be believed I already knew it was hundreds of years old. Why would we send it off for dating if we already knew? However, my remarks above and the Anthropologist’s worksheet make it clear this was not true. The accompanying form completed by the Forensic Services Manager which went with the fragment also makes it clear that we did not know its age when we sent it off in March. Why would Mr. Gradwell claim that we did? There are also e-mails which must still be within the SOJP system which make it clear that we did not know the age of the fragment when sending it off, particularly those sent by the Forensic Services Manager.

On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

It is clear from those e-mails that the lab did not know what the fragment was. Why, then, have Messrs Simon, Gradwell, and Warcup insisted that the fragment was identified as a coconut by a person qualified to do so? By the time I retired, the only person to suggest the item might be a fragment of coconut was a technician who was trying to date it. No Anthropologist has ever identified it as such. One way to clear this would be to have it further examined, and I am not aware if that has ever been done. I am told, rightly or wrongly, however, that it has been lost. If true, how convenient.

At the time, I e-mailed the laboratory and asked them two questions. The first was “Are you saying definitively that this is not bone?” The second was “If you do not think it is bone how can you explain the presence of more collagen than is usually needed to date bearing in mind that collagen is found only in mammals?”

In answer to the first question they told me they did not think it was bone but the only way we could be sure was to have it re-examined by someone qualified to do so. I am still waiting on an answer to the question about the collagen.

I am therefore at a loss, given the above, which is all documented and evidenced, how either Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, or Diane Simon can say that I knew at a very early stage that the fragment was definitely old and that it was definitely a piece of coconut. The truth is that, as I left the island, we did not know what it was. The Anthropologist who declared it a piece of a child’s skull could not be as certain after seeing it six weeks later when it had changed pretty substantially. Even then she said it would need further examination, which in effect is what the lab said. Why would anyone try to make out this was not the case?

I have had to explain those details in response to so much nonsense which has been peddled by the Jersey establishment – but we shouldn’t be diverted by the issue of this, one fragment.

The crucial fact – that the powers-that-be in Jersey don’t want people to understand – is that the single fragment in question had been discounted from the investigation.

The important thing of course is not what it is. That stopped being important when we found out how old it was. Gradwell, Warcup, and Ms. Simon have totally ignored that fact. They have tried to tell the public that I knew it was coconut and/or too old to be of interest very early on, but nevertheless pursued the investigation solely on the basis of that, one, fragment. Their story is a total fabrication.

I am aware that this is a long and pretty dry document so I will try and be brief with the rest. Ms. Simon casts scorn, along with Mr. Gradwell, on the shackles we found. No matter what he may have found someone to later say about what they could be, the facts remain as follows.

I did not introduce the term shackles to the media. When builders heard that we were searching the area they had been working in, they went and told reporters that the police would find the ‘shackles’ they had found several years before when they were working there. Without knowing this, and with the evidence of victims in our minds, when we recovered these artefacts we all felt that the items were shackles. This means that the builders and ourselves, several years apart, came to the same conclusion; these items were shackles. I do not know what Mr. Gradwell showed to the media when he described them as something to do with roofing. I do know that never have I seen anything on any roof or gutter with a length of chain and a bracelet type affair at each end. When I emerged after being told of the find I was careful not to mention shackles. However when the media asked me what I had found and I replied that I had found some items which corroborated the victims evidence, one of them said, “Ah, so you found the shackles then!” It was to be several weeks before I admitted that we thought they were shackles as by that time it seemed rather daft to keep denying it.

Something else which caused me some angst, and consternation among a large number of journalists, was the pronunciation by Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell at their press conference that they had to now contradict me and say there was no evidence of murder and no murder suspects. They must have somehow missed all the press conferences and media interviews that I gave in which I said exactly the same thing. Why they should try and give the impression that I was saying something different I do not know. They only have to look at the BBC News website for the 31st July to see that I was saying that in view of the contradictory evidence from the experts in respect of the evidence of the age of the bones, unless things changed there would be no homicide enquiry. Even clearer, the Sunday Times on 10th May made it clear that I was actively discouraging their journalist from believing the more lurid headlines. A large number of journalists from television, radio, and print contacted me on the day of the Gradwell/Warcup press conference, to ask what on earth they were talking about. They all said they had checked their records and I had never said that there was evidence of murder. Why did Gradwell and Warcup get it so wrong? Why did they sit there and smugly tell the public something that was simply just not true?

Let me deal with some of the other allegations and mud that has been thrown. Diane Simon, Mr. Warcup, and Mr. Gradwell have criticised the use of Mr. Martin Grimes and his dogs, pointing to the case in Portugal as evidence of their lack of usefulness and criticising the cost, including the cost of the accommodation at the hotel we used for him. Firstly, they fundamentally misunderstand the role of the dogs. They do not, and cannot tell us that has happened at a location nor indeed, if there has been a murder or even a dead body there. What they tell us is that there is something which needs investigating. They are trained either to detect the presence of the scent of dead human flesh or blood. This they did, as in the cellar where they reacted and led us to all the bones and teeth. There were thousands of animal bones in that area and we recovered many hundreds. The dogs ignored them all. David James Smith, the Sunday Times journalist summed it up by saying that the difference between my team and the police in Portugal was that we knew the limitations of what the dog was telling us. That said, I am a great admirer of the dogs and their handler. They worked long and hard hours. We carried out frequent tests on them and they succeeded every time. One such test was when one of the Anthropologists brought some sand which had been in contact with a mummy in another country. It was put on the beach and the dog went to it. Again, it was telling us there was something there to ask questions about. Nothing else. Ms. Simon asks why we had to use Martin Grimes for so long. The answer is simple. At the outset we had Homicide Search Experts from the National Policing Improvement Agency with us. (Incidentally, they recommended our operation at HDLG as an example of good practice), but they could not stay indefinitely. The expert who was there was called to Australia to assist with a high profile murder of a British subject in which the body was never found. With his agreement and advice, Martin Grimes acted as Search Advisor in his absence, a role that he filled with skill and dedication.

As for the hotel costs which Ms. Simon criticised, what were we to do? Put him in a tent? We received excellent rates for bed and breakfast way below what the hotels would normally charge. Not only that but Steven Austin Vautier at Home Affairs, and the Treasury, were well aware of the rates, and at frequent meetings agreed that they were good value. Mr. Grimes himself reduced his rates and did not charge for many expenses. All costs were known to the Treasury as they were incurred, and of course the Chief Minister continually assured us that we should use whatever resources were necessary, even to the extent of criticising me for daring to suggest to the media that cost was an issue. “Cost is irrelevant” said Bill Ogley in an e-mail, “the investigation is the important thing.” How then can they now criticise Graham Power or myself for the cost of the enquiry?

I keep seeing criticism of our actions which mention that there were no bodies and no reports of children missing. I have dealt with the findings of the human remains above. In respect of no reports of children missing there are a number of things to be considered. Firstly, children were brought casually to HDLG and sometimes no one even knew they were there. Records of missing persons were only held until comparatively recently by the parishes. Unlike in the UK, the professional police had no involvement. Also, children arrived from the UK without proper records being kept anywhere. One example was the Local Authority in the West Midlands area of the UK who contacted us to say they had sent six children to the island’s care system and had lost touch with them, never hearing of them again.

There is also, of course, the alleged book deal which the Jersey Evening Post and Ms. Simon seem to be fixated with. I wonder if some clue can be gleaned from the fact that Elaine Byrne of that paper telephoned at least one member of the literary world in London and told him that they had been told he had signed me to a book deal. She told him that they were interested in serialising the book and asked how much he had paid me and what the arrangement was? The person quite correctly said there was no such agreement. He had contacted me he said, (as have many others) but I had refused, saying I could not consider it until I finished working. She then asked how much he would offer in such a case. She was given short shrift and the man contacted me. I have to say I was grateful for the call. However, it shows that either the JEP are hypocritical in the extreme in wanting to serialise such a book by me, or Elaine Byrne was lying. Which would you bet your money on? Now, of course, Diane Simon is talking about a £200,000 book deal. I wish!!! No, it’s simply more literally incredible nonsense from the JEP.

In any event, there is no book deal, and as yet, no book. But, who knows? One sure thing, money will not be the motivation if I do. Besides, with the circulation this will get on Stuart’s blog who needs to write a book?

Another thing which Gradwell has criticised me for in the media was the fact that relations with the lawyers and the Attorney General’s office were abysmal.

Yes.

And his point is?

They were abysmal because I refused to accept a shoddy service and constant moving of the goal posts. Anyone in any doubt as to what I mean should read the report I produced to him, on his instructions, as to why I issued a press release disclaiming responsibility for the release of two sadists who liked to hit children with cricket bats, and which someone leaked to the media. As already mentioned above, it can still be read on Stuart Syvret’s blog. That report illustrates exactly why relations were bad. What would he or Mr. Warcup have done if they had been in charge of the investigation when we arrested the now convicted Wateridge - and the AG told me not to charge - shortly before we were going to do so? I think I know. Relations were not helped either by him trying to control my dealings with the media, as shown in a number of e-mails.

Which reminds me of another criticism by Gradwell and Ms. Simon – that of the media policy and the high profile of it. I thought the Daily Telegraph summed it up well way back in February when one of their columnists said that she saw three reasons for the media policy. Firstly, it was to reassure the victims that this time someone believed them. Secondly, to attract witnesses - and thirdly to protect myself and my enquiry from the same forces that had covered up everything before.

Exactly.

Make no mistake about it. If it had not been for the National media I would have been shunted off the island long before I found anything. I have a number of e-mails which detail how Frank Walker was continually saying that he was under pressure to sack or suspend me. I know for a fact that Graham Power told him, “Just you dare!”

A couple of years back a valued and trusted senior colleague caused a furore by describing the JEP as “a comic” in an e-mail to one of its journalists. The journalist ran to the Editor Chris Bright who wept, wailed, kicked up a tantrum, and then made a complaint against the officer. He did not like being called the editor of a comic. The matter was resolved without my colleague apologising. It is clear to me now that he was doing Biffo the Bear, Corky the Cat, and all those other endearing characters a gross injustice.

Oh yes, one more thing which I need to defend myself against. Several journalists have told me that Mr. Gradwell and indeed his boss in Jersey, have alleged that I was a bully, and that I aroused fear among officers. I certainly hope I did arouse fear among a small minority of officers. Let me explain.

Within a week or two of arriving on the island I had been approached by a number of officers who were obviously sounding me out. I was asked by both male and female officers how I would deal with bullying. My answer was always the same. Ruthlessly. And so, officers started coming to John Pearson, I, and other members of the Senior Management Team with complaints of bullying. There was a confidential reporting line run by a company in the UK but it was rarely used. Our staff preferred to come to us. We investigated all allegations and did so with the overwhelming support of the majority of the force. There were some unbelievable instances and I reproduce below part of the affidavit which I gave to the High Court in London for a recent court case. I have left the first paragraph in to show the type of tensions there were with some of the politicians.

"In those early days I also had a number of differences of opinion with the then Deputy Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee who was the Connétable of one of the country parishes. He objected to States of Jersey Police Vehicles driving through his parish on training duties and complained several times that they had answered emergency calls without asking his prior authority to go enter his parish. This was an early foretaste of many battles to come where politicians would seek to control our day to day operational activities.

During my time as a senior officer in the United Kingdom I had become known as someone who, whilst critical of the damage that over- zealous political correctness could do, would not tolerate bullying which caused people to feel uncomfortable at work and in some cases made them ill. I became aware that a small number of officers in the SOJP were making life difficult for others through bullying. A number of the victims came to me personally and I took firm action against the bullies. I will describe a few such examples in order to put into context the response our actions brought from the Jersey establishment.

Shortly after I arrived I held a ‘forum’ for the Constables of the force. I did this in response to complaints from officers that they had never been listened to. Towards the end of the meeting I asked if anyone had anything else to ask. A female officer asked how I would deal with bullying. “Ruthlessly,” I replied.

The woman officer left it at that and I forgot about the exchange until about six weeks later when I was about to fly out from Jersey Airport to the UK. The officer approached me and asked if I remembered her asking the question. We spoke for some time and she relayed a horrific tale of abuse, assault and bullying by a Sergeant in the force against her, which was witnessed on a number of occasions by other senior officers who did nothing. When she complained to one Inspector he told her he understood her situation but if he did anything the Sergeant would “turn on him.” The female officer had eventually gone to a very senior officer who had told her to forget it or her job would be at risk.

I started enquiries and found that her story was corroborated by over a dozen officers. One male officer told how one night shift he was sitting in the Station Office with the Sergeant when the latter produced a 9mm semi automatic pistol. The Sergeant dismantled the firearm and cleaned it. When finished, he assembled it, put the magazine in and cocked the weapon. He then pointed it directly at the male officer’s head for several seconds before lowering it and saying “No, not tonight.” That male officer is still suffering the effects of the bullying by the Sergeant. The female officer concerned has a civil action pending against the force which I do not believe is being contested.

On another occasion, I was approached on behalf of a vulnerable member of staff who had reported a domestic assault on herself. The investigating officer, a long serving detective, had asked her for her mobile phone number and had given her his “in case they needed to contact each other.” A couple of evenings later she received a lengthy series of text messages spread over several hours which started with comments about her physical appearance and what she looked like bending over the photo copier to extremely explicit texts about what the sender would like to do to her. These messages all came from the phone of the investigating officer. After I obtained the transcripts of these messages I challenged the officer. He at first denied it but changed his story. I returned him to uniform but did not discipline him as the victims vulnerable state would have meant that she would have suffered even more from a prolonged drawn out saga.

In another incident, a young Detective Sergeant reported a member of staff for carrying out particularly nasty racial bullying of a Portuguese woman officer. A short time later property belonging to him was vandalised in the CID office. We were told the suspect’s name in confidence by several detectives but had nothing we could use in evidence and no one was forthcoming. The Head of CID, who had also just come from the UK, and myself gathered every detective in the force together and warned them that if there was any repeat of this all of them would be returned to Uniform and we would re build the CID from scratch. We never did have a repeat despite only using local officers in a number of high profile anti corruption investigations which started off as covert operations.

It was clear however, that many Jersey politicians did not approve of our efforts to tackle bullying. We were openly criticised in the media by these people and on one occasion were referred to as the “politically correct KGB stalking the corridors of Police Headquarters.” At the same time however, it was clear that we had the support of the vast majority of the force as was illustrated by what Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary found when they carried out their first inspection during my time there. They found that Graham Power, myself, and John Pearson, had already made many changes which had transformed the force and the morale of its officers. The fact that the leadership style was supported by the rank and file was one of the findings. A second Inspection a few years later was to single out the work that had been done on Professional Standards and the strong leadership which had played a part in turning the force into a professional and innovative organisation."


The arrogance of the small minority who were carrying out this type of unprofessional behaviour was illustrated by the example of one senior member of staff who was the subject of several complaints to me from female colleagues. They complained about sexual innuendo and worse. Eventually I had him in my office one afternoon and warned him that another similar incident would result in disciplinary action. That night he took a visiting police staff member from the UK out to dinner and continually ran his hand along places he should not have. She complained and he left our employ soon after.

There was no doubt we did deal firmly with the bullies and the few corrupt members of staff. All of the allegations of bullying made against me seem to have come from those who were dealt with in this fashion. Bullies do not take kindly to being stood up to. Several of the corrupt cops that we removed from the force complained about their treatment. Without exception their complaints were found to be malicious or unsubstantiated. Several of them even tried to damage the historical abuse enquiry. The sister of one local businessman, who twenty police officers admitted taking favours or services from, even wrote to most of the news desks in London accusing me of abuse myself. Stuart Syvret was contacted and told not to trust myself or my deputy in the investigation. Of course, being Stuart, the first thing he did was pick-up the phone and tell me about the approach. Again, I should emphasise. The bad and the corrupt were a small minority in a force brimming with talent and commitment.

I have been asked to explain what the ACPO reports were. Gladly. The evening we found the first fragment I contacted ACPO in the UK and asked them to appoint a team to oversee the enquiry and quality control it. This was something I readily agreed with Graham Power. I did so because I already knew the hostility that existed among many politicians and other areas of the establishment. I had my first taste of this back in 2007 the day I went public with the enquiry. I was ordered to attend at the office of Frank Walker, the Chief Minister. I went there with Graham Power and found that also present with Walker were Bill Ogley and Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard. Let me make quite clear now, that Wendy Kinnard was a staunch supporter of this enquiry and had to endure some difficult times because of it. An early example came at this meeting.

Walker started off by telling me I was looking at a very angry Chief Minister. I asked why. The conversation then went as follows:

FW. “You have been talking to Stuart Syvret.”
LH. “Yes I have. It was necessary for me to talk to him as not only does he have evidence that I may need, but the victims trust him and he may be able to persuade them to come to us.”
FW. “But you told him that you were going public.” (Stuart had released a press statement that morning to coincide with mine – a move which I have to admit, I did not anticipate!!)
LH. “Yes, but I also told you I was going public.”
FW. “But you showed him your press statement.”
LH. “Chief Minister, I showed it to you.”
FW. “But we’re the Government.”

Bill Ogley then intervened to ask me, “You do realise this could bring down the Government?” I told him that was not my concern. My concern was getting to the truth.

There then followed an argument about my use of the word “victims” in the media release. Walker ordered me not to use it. He explained that there were no victims until someone was convicted. I told him that was not the case. When someone alleged that they were a victim of crime, they were a victim. In a similar manner those who alleged that they were the victims of a racially motivated attack had to be treated as such even where there was not a shred of evidence of a racial motive. Walker argued, Wendy Kinnard spoke strongly in agreement with me and I continued to use the word “victims” for the rest of my time in Jersey.

Anyway, back to ACPO. Three members of the ACPO Homicide Review Group were appointed to oversee the enquiry. The team was led by the former head of the Mets Homicide Teams who now works for the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. He was probably the United Kingdom’s most experienced Murder investigator. He was assisted by an expert in the HOLMES computer system on which we were running the enquiry. A female member of the Review Group made up the trio. Their terms of reference were drawn up by them and signed by their leader and Graham Power. Included in the signed terms of reference was the commitment to quality control of the investigation and personal mentoring for myself, my deputy, and the office manager who was responsible for the computer systems used. For some reason, Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup have sought to make people think that it was no part of the ACPO team’s remit to quality control the investigation. This is untrue and can clearly be seen to be untrue by simple examination of their terms of reference and their reports. David James Smith, of the Sunday Times, made this point in his article.

The ACPO team duly arrived and over several visits set about examining all aspects of our work. After each set of visits which lasted several days, they would issue a report and hand that report to Graham Power, the Home Affairs Minister, and onwards to the Chief Minister. Indeed, two members of the team even had an hour long meeting with the Chief Minister, Bill Ogley, and, I think, the HA Minister during which time they briefed them on the way the investigation was proceeding and their thoughts on it. This was in the absence of Graham Power and myself. If there was anything wrong with the enquiry, given Walkers hostility to it, it would surely have been made known after that meeting.

During their visits to the island the team would speak to myself and many other members of my team. They spent many hours examining the computer system and the entries on it. I had to hand over all my policy books to them for examination. They were to comment in one of their reports that the Policy Books were being properly maintained. These are the documents that Gradwell said were a ‘mess’, and led to his comments about taking over “a poorly managed mess.”

Who is likely to be correct? The ACPO Homicide Review Team or Mr Gradwell?

Each report by the ACPO team would give their comments on the way the enquiry was progressing and would make recommendations. In the second report they stated that we were to be congratulated on the speed with which we had implemented these recommendations. The Team leader told me that it was the quickest he had ever seen recommendations being implemented. Gradwell told journalists that one of the team had told him that we had said we implemented things which, in fact, we had not. I asked the leader of the ACPO team about this. “Nonsense, it was never said,” was his response.

Of the two or three ACPO reports made whilst I was there, none contained any serious criticism. As with all such reviews there were things they felt we could do, or do differently, and we always had discussions around those. If I felt that it was not applicable to the Jersey context, I said so.

For example, one of their early recommendations was that I should have a ‘Gold Group’ which would include senior figures from the “caring agencies” in Jersey. I said some of those were among our priority suspects. The ACPO team accepted that it was not a good idea.

Gradwell bitterly criticised my media strategy and one press conference in particular came in for strong criticism where they accused me of brandishing a tooth in front of the media. The truth is simple. It was an excellent idea but it was not mine. I was at HDLG and it was just after we started finding the teeth and were being told that some of them could not have come out from children who were still alive. I was going out to answer questions at the demand of the media. The head of the ACPO team suggested that as a means of showing just how small the teeth were, and of illustrating what a good job the Archaeological and Anthropology teams were doing, I should show the media a tooth. He suggested displaying it alongside a five pence piece. I did so. I was criticised by someone in the States that afternoon for using a Jersey five pence piece and making the island look bad when I could have used a UK coin.

The ACPO reports are of course there to be seen but they seem to have been ignored by Mr Gradwell and Mr Warcup. The Sunday Times has seen them of course and they posed the question as to why Warcup and Gradwell are so intent on rubbishing my work when the man who “made a little boy’s head bob up and down in the water” (whilst sexually assaulting the boy), is still free? A good question indeed.

I think that probably covers most of the allegations made against me, the enquiry, the team and indeed the victims over the past few months. A well known journalist told me he could not understand Mr. Gradwell’s obsession with me and that in other circumstances we would probably have got along very well. I do not think so. Our fundamental beliefs in the purpose of good policing are too different. I believe that police officers are there to protect the vulnerable and to put the bad guys away where they will do no harm. Simplistic I know. Mr. Gradwell tells Diane Simon that a person’s guilt is not a concern of the police. That is one reason I am glad to be out of it.

I am sorry this is such a long and dry document. Of necessity it had to be that way to deal with all the nonsense that has been written and spoken about myself, my team, the enquiry, and most of all, the victims. I hope it has not seemed too much like Lenny Harper congratulating himself, but in circumstances where people who do not know me are labelling me as all sorts of monster, I needed to redress the balance. For those who have persevered this far, my thanks. My thanks also to everyone who has written to me, e-mailed me, or expressed support in other ways. It all meant, and continues to mean, a lot.

Lenny Harper

5th September, 2009.