“Entirely Accurate” (2)

In the POSTING of former DCO Lenny Harper’s letter, sent to the Royal Television Society and Channel Television, the last sentence written in that posting by VFC was “We know CTV's interpretation of "Entirely Accurate" and trust they will abandon it in this instance and report the FULL story.”……..well they didn’t.

Reproduced below is some correspondence between Lenny Harper and CTV, where CTV are happy with their “award winning” Report. This raises some pretty fundamental questions about the “accredited” media as a whole. The fact is CTV were given an award for the Report and, according to them (CTV) they were up against stiff competition……well what was the competition? This particular sentence from CTV’s reply to Lenny Harper might put the award winning article and the standards set by the “accredited” media into some perspective.

“Your comments regarding the story broadcast by Channel Television on the findings of the Wiltshire report into the Management of the Historic Abuse Inquiry are noted.” “on the findings of the Wiltshire Report” So somebody else “found it”, CTV reported it and they win an award?? What research or investigating did CTV do? What did they do other than broadcast something that somebody else said?

Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:26 AM
Programme of the Year
To CTV
From Lenny Harper.

Please find attached, a letter sent in response to the article on the CTV web site.
Lenny Harper

Dear Sir/Madam,

Congratulations to Channel Television on winning the Regional Programme of the year for the programme on the Wiltshire report into the Management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. It is a great pity that you did not check the facts or you would have had a really good story. Let me clarify a few points for you. I will deal with them in the order they appear in the story.


“Officers clocked up hundreds of hours overtime.” Show me a major enquiry anywhere in the world where officers do not have to work long hours. It is the nature of the job. There were hundreds of victims and many more witnesses. Did Wiltshire and Channel Television want officers to work to rule and only complete eight hours a day? I remember the fuss from CTV and others because I gave officers a Sunday off during the early days of the enquiry. By the way, did Wiltshire work only eight hours a day during the investigation which led to the long overdue and hugely expensive report of which something like only ten per cent ever saw the light of day? I think not.


The first class flight to Australia. How many times is this nonsense going to be resurrected? Let me make one thing clear first of all. This trip was carried out in perfect accordance with States rules on long haul flights, and the relevant regulations can be found at paragraph 2.5 of the States Travel Policy. Have a look at the trips carried out by States members and Civil Servants to long haul destinations. You will find that NONE of them have travelled economy. Let me once again explain that on 28th May 2008 I submitted a full report to Frank Walker through Steven Austen-Vaughtier which explained all the circumstances of this trip, (which incidentally led directly to the conviction of a child abuser who received a jail sentence.) I will summarise some of the main points in the report.


· The initial quote for the flights was £7,879 for Business Class including the five hour flight from Perth to Brisbane. This was by Emirate Airlines who were by far the cheapest option. However, when it came to making the booking the only option was to return first class at an additional cost of £700. To offset this, the officers opted to fly the five hour journey from Perth to Brisbane by economy class, which meant that the first class journey on the return leg only cost £122 more. Again this was offset by the free chauffer services which saved a further £86. Net cost, £36. Furthermore, whilst away, the officers took NO rest days thus saving on a further eight days hotel and food costs. This was despite lengthy interviews with emotional and nervous victims.


My report to Walker and Austen-Vaughtier not only contained a full explanation of the trip but also had attached receipts and a full daily itinerary. The report followed a meeting with Mr Austen Vaughtier and the female head of Finance, during which they fully agreed that the costs of the trip were properly incurred and totally justified. I received through the Accounting Officer the confirmation that Frank Walker had also agreed the costs were within the States Policy and fully justified, although I could almost hear his teeth grating. Isn’t it strange how all this was forgotten when I retired and left the island and the subject of the Australian trip was raised again? Mind you, Frank Walker has had a faulty memory on a lot of things involving the SOJ Police in the past few years.


Not for the first time, my instincts told me that desperate and dishonest attempts would be made to distort the truth of this, and I therefore kept a copy of the report to Frank Walker and the attachments which went with it. Anyone interested in seeing it need only ask, as the details have already been widely discussed incorrectly in the media.


Next, were the “unnecessary trips to London.” There were trips to London for three reasons as I recall. Firstly to interview victims and witnesses, and then record statements. Secondly, to arrange and secure the loan of specialist equipment from the Metropolitan Police such as the sifting machine which was borrowed from Scotland Yard free of charge and at a saving of many thousands of pounds. Thirdly, there were the trips to a department of the Met which advises on the operational security of investigations, both physical and other types of security. Not only was advice given, but Met officers visited the incident room at Jersey and carried out security surveys. Again, all free of charge. The officers from the department concerned at the Yard were all interviewed and provided full information on the services they provided. Funny how none of their statements have ever been mentioned.


And then of course, the revelation that visiting officers were put up in four star hotels in Jersey and in particular the “L’Horizon.” No mention of the fact that because of the hard work of our Admin staff and the fact that we were out of the tourist season and able to guarantee room occupancy, we actually only paid £70 a night at the hotel mentioned. How many States members and Civil Servants stay in hotels costing £70 a night when they go to the UK and other destinations on business? I can safely say that the answer, should CTV care to investigate will be none. Why, when you are at it, don’t you ask the SOJ Police to make the accounts for the hotels available? They will be revealing. Just where did Channel want us to accommodate officers living away from home and carrying out this difficult and important investigation? In tents?


One more thing I should add. Despite all of these allegations being aired as if true, and despite the several days and hours of fully tape-recorded interviews and statements that Wiltshire obtained from me, NOT ONCE was I ever asked by them about any of the above. Why not? Perhaps as part of their efforts to win the same award next year, Channel Television might ask them. They might also ask what expenses they incurred during their enquiry which I would venture to suggest was not nearly a fraction of the importance to the victims of the horrific abuse meted out by people working for the government of Jersey to innocent children.


Leonard Harper South Ayrshire (End)

25th January 2011

Dear Mr Harper,

Thank you for your letter sent by email on 23rd January.


Your comments regarding the story broadcast by Channel Television on the findings of the Wiltshire report into the Management of the Historic Abuse Inquiry are noted.


Channel Television offered a right of reply to former police chief Graham Power as the man ultimately responsible for the management of the abuse inquiry and included Mr Power’s interview as part of the broadcast report.
I am very satisfied that our report was accurate, fair and balanced.


Yours sincerely,


CTV (name changed) (End)

Wednesday, 26 January, 2011 17:25:27
To CTV
From Lenny Harper

Dear CTV (name changed).  Thank you for your reply.  Although it addresses none of the issues or questions I raised, it does prove that you are unique.  You are the only person I know who thinks that programme was fair, balanced, or accurate.  Especially accurate.
Lenny Harper (End)


Why didn’t CTV address Lenny Harper’s issues or questions? Why, in the interest of being fair, balanced and factual didn’t CTV give Lenny Harper "the right of reply" and report them? “fair, balanced and accurate” but by who’s standards? And are these the standards that "non accredited" media should hold as some kind of benchmark?