Tuesday, 19 April 2011

Rico Sorda Part 2 (of 2)

In this part 2, and concluding interview (for now) with fellow Jersey Blogger Rico Sorda he tells us about his relationship with the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand.

He explains how he once believed the Senator could be the next Chief Minister. Mr. Sorda goes onto explain just what he, and many others, believe the Home Affairs Minister has been allowed to get away with in relation to Senator Le Marquand's handling of the Wiltshire Report and allegations concerning former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, and much more..........

Part one of this interview can be seen HERE

113 comments:

  1. Look forward to more interviews. Thanks guys for all your effort.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fair play to you Rico. Your honesty and decency shine through. You've had to put up with a lot of shit along the way but you've risen above it stayed with the material facts. In fact at times you've made it look easy. LOL!

    As for Le Marquand and Le Sueur, what can you say really? Just awful I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You speak with so much passion Rico we can all see how genuine and sincere you are. Thank you and the Jersey bloggers for speaking out against the child abuse you put the main stream media to shame.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And what of the Chief Minister................... Still laughing now. Thank you VFC & Rico for a very good 2 part interview...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are you saying that no one was prosecuted for child abuse in any of the Jersey care Homes from 1940up to the start of the investigation?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Loved the interview. You seemed somewhat flustered and almost completely speecless when the Chief Minister was mentioned.
    I think the words you were looking for were Incompetent,Fool,Bumbling,though I cant work out the order

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Are you saying that no one was prosecuted for child abuse in any of the Jersey care Homes from 1940up to the start of the investigation?"

    I believe that is the case but not 100% on that unless someone else knows

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  8. What a suprise... you don't know 100% about prosecutions.

    Instead, lets just write some "Daily Mail" style hate rants with dubious grammar and even more dubious evidence.

    Great, well done Citizen's media. A shining example of why Jersey and everywhere else needs the real media to report things fairly, legally, and with the all the facts.

    Instead of publishing this tripe why not clean your local park? It would be more of a community service.

    ReplyDelete
  9. looks like these interviews are upsetting someone.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just another example of political lobbying from people who have no legal qualifications whatsoever.

    But its Monty who I feel sorry for as he still thinks this kind of blogging is the way to gain votes in forthcoming elections.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So Marshall McLuhan is let loose again. Now bloggers are interviewing bloggers.
    A mere light-bulb in the dark, if ever there was one.
    But these 20 minutes of video most certainly are not about the abuse survivors.
    In fact, they are hardly mentioned at all.
    If we want to consider the abuse-survivors then perhaps we should be interviewing them.
    Of course it is not that simple.
    Even if the abuse survivors were able to carry out the interviews themselves – who would draft their terms of reference and who should they question? Bill Mahoney seems to have taken on this role elsewhere – who could do it in Jersey?

    Seeking the truth sounds like a good idea but there are now a multitude of issues to be examined and just moaning about them won’t satisfy anybody.

    Here are some of the issues raised in these interviews by Rico;

    Freedom of expression
    Fear of intimidation.
    The role of the Bailiff.
    Politicisation.
    The electoral process.
    Political representation.
    Ministerial responsibility and accountability.
    Policing roles and disciplinary processes
    Status of external inquiries.
    Nature and terms of reference of an internal (Jersey) inquiry.
    Roles of the media.
    Investigative journalism.
    Roles and purposes of blogging.
    Roles of Jersey lawyers, and the judicial system.
    Public protest.
    Childcare standards.
    Secrecy v access to information.

    Rico promises to undertake more interviews “looking at the facts.”
    Of course he will have to be selective because the issues listed above would occupy the entire Jersey Scrutiny Panel system for years to come.
    There are other issues not even alluded to in the two-part interview.

    The interests of Jersey’s “abuse survivors” run through all the issues because child abuse and neglect within the Jersey care system initiated the whole “problem.” But it is no longer just about child abuse – and, of course, it never was – because abuse does not happen in isolation and remedies (if there are any) permeate so many aspects of Jersey life, government and administration.

    I have previously commented on Graham Power’s interview on this blog. His treatment alone raises immense issues that need to be fully discussed and examined with reforms proposed where necessary. Yet, there is hardly any scope to examine child-care or abuse in the context of his issues. The future discussion in his case is about policing practice and methods, employment law, political interference etc. There will be little to support the “it’s about abuse survivors” demand there – even if his case received the widest possible examination (which it won’t).

    I suspect that the Jersey child-abuse scandals will stimulate very little examination of specific cases during the promised States inquiry. In fact, cases already heard in the Royal Court have revealed defects in the Jersey systems of child-care and protection that will never be adequately remedied. There will be future abuses and abusers. And so it will go on.

    “Mission creep” is the current expression in other contexts.
    What about the abuse survivors? is a valid enough question but even if it could be sharpened, more directed and asked of those people who should answer – there are now many more questions pending.

    If this blog wants to address the issues from the abuse survivors’ perspective then I suggest that a much more focussed approach is necessary.
    I am a reasonably aware sort of person but it is not at all obvious what the survivors actually want now. I am aware of many other issues that the scandals have revealed and it is evident that reforms are needed. Maybe some people should be censured and punished Maybe the States’ inquiry will address some issues – but if “it’s about the abuse survivors” then somebody will have to spell out what this means. Emotion is not enough. Somebody must find and publish the words.

    ReplyDelete
  12. but if “it’s about the abuse survivors” then somebody will have to spell out what this means. Emotion is not enough. Somebody must find and publish the words

    Remove VFC RS SS what would there be they have done something in an Island where no one does anything

    ReplyDelete
  13. Its playing Good Blog/Bad Blog and the freedom of speech argument is a joke. There is ample evidence to suggest that if you do not join forces in attacking the accredited Media, the Chief Minister or the Home Affairs minister on a regular basis then you need to be called names. Thats the only message thats coming out of this citizens media these days because its gone to pot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you voice for children for part 2 of your interview with Rico.

    It looks as though Ian Le Marquand was playing to the crowds via Jersey Evening Post revisiting his allegation which he knew were dropped against Graham Power.

    A cowardly act akin to name calling and running away?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well said Tom Gruchy. Your blog is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous at 12.41

    What are you going on about.Look at the issues being raised. There is ample evidence that this Island is a corrupt hole. Least Tom raised some points right or wrong..

    ReplyDelete
  17. So Marshall McLuhan is let loose again. Now bloggers are interviewing bloggers.
    A mere light-bulb in the dark, if ever there was one.

    VFC or Tom Gruchy

    What is that about. Is there a code about blogging? Who is Marshall McLuhan. Has Tom not read the intro on part 1? He does raise some points thou.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Reply to. 20 April 2011 08:51

    Would that be a plea to silence questions being asked by Monty?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with what TDG is getting at, to interview a fellow 'Team Voice' blogger only shows you are either running completely out of material or ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Marshall McLuhan critiqued and de-constructed the way media - especially modern media - works; or, perhaps more accurately, thought about what it all means - and what it seeks to do.

    He wrote a very famous book in which he made a number of his points, called the Medium is the Massage.

    And no, that's not a typo. The book was originally going to be called the Medium is the Message - but - according to legend - the draft got type-set with 'Massage' by mistake, and McLuhan apparently liked it so much, he retained it.

    Whilst Tom raises many very valid points - I think he is too hard on VFC and Rico. The interviews of a blogger by a blogger are - after all - rare; and it is entirely fitting that citizen's media journalists should be interviewed occasionally. Tom would have more of a point of the interviews became frequent - and thus circular.

    However, in fact VFC, Rico and me have published a great deal of hard, documented, evidence.

    Indeed - a lot of very dramatic evidence.

    Evidence that - to address the reader above who seeks to flog the dead horse of the mainstream media - the local traditional media simply do not touch.

    They won't seek it out - they won't report it.

    Instead - we have the Jersey Evening Post and Channel Television churning out the most brazen and dishonest spin - in direct opposition to such evidenced facts as the ACPO reports - all fully published by citizen's media.

    The Jersey oligarchy have no answer to that work - a new, challenging paradigm - being driven forward by ordinary people.

    But both Rico - and Tom - are right.

    It is about the abuse survivors - and it is also about the fundamental questioning of power.

    Because if power was not corrupted - and misused - and entirely in the hands of those who run Jersey for their own narrow purposes at the expense of the powerless - then people like the survivors would have been far better protected.

    Given we've referred to McLuhan - I think we can look to the 1960's for another useful example - 'the personal is political'.

    That phrase sums up the situation in Jersey - politics causes impacts on people's lives.

    In the cases of so many survivors - political failure - led to their attackers having access to them - and for those crimes to be covered up.

    The Jersey oligarchy media just loves to depoliticize suffering.

    The 'message' that the island's mainstream media peddles is that the denial of justice to the survivors - is somehow nothing to do with the fact - and it is an evidenced fact - that a clear majority of existing States members would rather support corrupt civil servants in concealing child abuse - than support the exposing of such crimes.

    Personal suffering is a political issue.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  21. Great interview you guys but sorry to spoil the fun, its your mate getting God's praise again!!!

    ALL PRAISE LE MARQUAND ALMIGHTY

    Word V "borya" :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Right will start with Tom Gruchy and then Anonymous. Because I don't want to refer to you as Anonymous all night I will give you a short name. Hope Jon is ok.

    The reason for the interview? Simple, I have been blogging for one year and to celebrate my beautiful anniversary I though I would 'paste' my beautiful mug all over the VFC site. Seriously Tom, chiiiiiiiiil a little bit. Tom you know how it works, so why all guff.

    Seriously thou, for me, there are no rules concerning blogging. I did the interview because I post under my name and thought that it would be a good idea to do an interview. I just sat down in front of the camera had no idea what I was going to be asked and just did it. 20 minute thats all it was.

    Ok Tom

    "But these 20 minutes of video most certainly are not about the abuse survivors."

    Did you even bother reading the intros? The reason, I had been blogging for a year.

    "So Marshall McLuhan is let loose again. Now bloggers are interviewing bloggers.
    A mere light-bulb in the dark, if ever there was one."

    Have we forgotten that the Jersey Government & JEP are making bloggers out to be demonic creatures? Shut it all down, no filming, ban them, castigate them in the states. Tom old boy, has one forgotten that already? I was trying to show that we are just normal people, plebs with computers trying to find some truth because our media cant. Tom, have you forgotten that already?

    Yes, I will have to be very selective in what I do. I have to be as I work full time, have a busy social life and do this with any spare time I have. All we can do is try and do something. I had no idea about politics until 2008/9

    If I have missed something out then feel free to remind me

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jon

    "I agree with what TDG is getting at, to interview a fellow 'Team Voice' blogger only shows you are either running completely out of material or ideas."

    Now, have you even bothered reading the text or watching the interviews. You keep saying im lobbying. Not a clue what your on about but if I am then so what. Is it against the law. Truth, Honest and Integrity is what I want from my government. Im not interested in bringing it down.

    Why do people who don't like the blog posting, the interview keep logging on and leaving comments I don't get it, why log on in the first place.

    Now we have an evening of football

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr. Gruchy is correct in linking all of his other listed issues to child abuse, and in suggesting that reasons and remedies involve these aspects of governance. Because it exposes so many other aspects of the seedy political underbelly of the oligarchy, full exposure of the child abuse scandal should remain essential if Jersey has any hope of establishing a functional democracy. I believe Mr. Syvret has consistently made that point for several years.

    It is astonishing that the various international "tax fairness" or anti-tax haven groups have not yet taken up the issue of Jersey's child abuse scandal to illustrate how very corrupt the island is. Nothing better illustrates the extent of the breakdown in fair governance than the renewed cover up of the very cover up Harper and Power were exposing.

    There may be many reasons for some of the historic abuse in Jersey, and one could argue that an island culture has greater potential for conflicted police, politicians, press and judiciary. It is the finance industry, however, which has empowered the powerful,and without the corrupting influence of that industry, one could speculate that the entire abuse investigation would have taken a very different turn. Listen to the level of sympathy for the abuse survivors. The silence from those in the tax avoidance industry is deafening.

    Jersey has heroes, and they tell a compelling story. It is the international community which will need to get that story out and networking with many powerful outside organizations will be vital.

    B.D.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi BD

    Excellent comment and could not agree more.

    This Abuse story would never have come out if it wasn't for Graham Power and Lenny Harper. It's origins began back in 2005. I agree about the Money God hence the cover-up, well part of it. Remember how the Beast of Jersey went for 10yrs before jumping a light and getting court, he was a pillar of the community.

    You said;There may be many reasons for some of the historic abuse in Jersey, and one could argue that an island culture has greater potential for conflicted police, politicians, press and judiciary


    That is it in a nutshell.

    The Law Office is where a huge great searchlight needs shinning.

    Don't fancy land rezoning much do they? How long has it been?

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  26. ref the interview this was the email I sent ILM

    From: rico sorda To: i.lemarquand@gov.je Sent:

    Sun, 2 January, 2011 17:55:37 Subject: The JEP

    Hi Senator

    As you are well aware. I have been researching and investigating the historic child abuse investigation for many months now. Along with the many matters for concern I have uncovered, not least the Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur, openly misleading the House with regard to the dropping of Part D of the Napier terms of reference, I have found your role and your judgement so very hard to work out.
    I have tried and failed to gain a reasonable understanding of your actions concerning the Wiltshire Report. If I am not mistaken, the Wiltshire Report was part of a disciplinary process of the former Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM. I still find it absolutely staggering that a former magistrate, who is meant to know, practice and abide by the law and above all should demonstrate absolute neutrality and fairness, dropped all disciplinary charges against Graham Power and on the same day made a statement to the House without having informed Mr Power of the action taken. You then proceeded to hold a kangaroo court with the full weight of the local media in hanging Graham Power out to dry with no right of redress through the proper channels. I have spoken to many people regarding your actions concerning Mr Power's suspension and the reason for doing this, Senator Le Marquand, is to establish your role in the history of the matter and the reasoning behind your more recent actions.
    Below I reproduce an article that appeared in the Jersey Evening Post on bullying in the States of Jersey Police.

    I laid out my evidence and he never replyed to me but he did to someone else I will find it

    ReplyDelete
  27. But he did reply to GeeGee. Not the person asking the questions, oh no he couldn't have that. But look how he mentions citizen media & before we get the usual comment from you know who it was all evidence based


    From: I.LeMarquand@gov.je To: Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:44:29 +0000 Subject: RE: Rico Sorda blog
    ********************************************************************** If this e-mail has been sent in error, please notify us immediately and delete this document. Please note the legal disclaimer which appears at the end of this message. **********************************************************************

    Dear Mrs. GeeGee, thank you for your e-mail. I am now in the final year of my current term as Minister for Home Affairs. There are 8 priority items which I need to deliver this year all of which are of great importance. I am therefore almost totally focussed on these. I have already made it clear to VFC that I will not respond to any further correspondence in relation to Mr. Power, Mr. Harper or the Historical Abuse Enquiry from him or from any other of the individuals who categorise themselves as Citizen's media but who are in fact merely individuals who have a fixed and firm idea as to what has happened notwithstanding the weight of evidence in the opposite direction. The States of Jersey Police now have a new and excellent leader and need to move on. Frankly, the speculation on these blogsites is going nowhere and I am simply not prepared to give any further time in this area. It is my judgment that it is in the public interest that I now concentrate my time on my 8 priority items and that is what I am going to do.

    Yours sincerely, Ian Le Marquand.


    Thats our Government we should all be scared. Can answer with no answers just brilliant

    ReplyDelete
  28. Freedom of expression
    Fear of intimidation.
    The role of the Bailiff.
    Politicisation.
    The electoral process.
    Political representation.
    Ministerial responsibility and accountability.
    Policing roles and disciplinary processes
    Status of external inquiries.
    Nature and terms of reference of an internal (Jersey) inquiry.
    Roles of the media.
    Investigative journalism.
    Roles and purposes of blogging.
    Roles of Jersey lawyers, and the judicial system.
    Public protest.
    Childcare standards.
    Secrecy v access to information


    Not bad for 20 minutes would have been a natural at the Generation Game. 2 years ago everyone was in fear - blogs were shutting down after being threatened - yet hear you have someone operating under his name and showing himself on screen. That takes courage he has my respect.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Graham Power QPM MA (Oxon) The Minister for Home Affairs, 11 Royal Square, St Helier.

    DISCIPLINARY CODE IN RELATION TO THE CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE.

    Thank you for your letter dated 26th January 2009 under the above heading which makes reference to your correspondence dated 31st December 2008 in which you gave notice of a possible further investigation relating to an alleged “culture of bullying.”

    I am grateful for your notification that you have decided to take this possible additional matter no further and take this as confirmation that all matters contained in the earlier correspondence in so far as they relate to any allegations concerning any conduct on my part are thereby withdrawn. Thank you for keeping me informed on this issue.

    Yours sincerely

    Graham Power.




    So, on the 31st December 2008. Senator Ian Le Marquand informs Graham Power of a " Possible further Investigation under the Code" ref "Culture of Bullying. On the same Date Senator ILM informs the Chief Executive Bill Ogley of the possible further Investigation under the code Graham Power Acknowledges this on the 3rd January 2009
    On the 7th January Graham Power write his reply to the Allegations On the 26th January 2009 Senator ILM writes to Graham Power and says,

    Dear Mr Power
    Re: Disciplinary Code in relation to the Chief Officer

    Further to my letter to Mr Ogley of the 31st December 2008 ( of which I sent you a copy ) and your subsequent letters of 3rd and 7th January, I write to advise you that I have decided to take this possible additional matter no further

    Yours Sincerely

    Ian Le Marquand
    Minister for Home Affairs


    On the 31st december 2010 he raises these allegations again when GP has left

    I rest my case

    Disgraceful

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I don't get it, why log on in the first place."

    The same question can be asked about you and the Farce blog.

    Actually you've donated entire posts into trying to silence its views. Funny that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Another excellent interview Rico. You speak from the heart and with sincerity.

    Please do not make apologies for what you say about ILeM and our Chief Minister, because you are only speaking as you find and we all know that both men are not fit for purpose.

    This affair is not going away until the truth is out there.

    ReplyDelete
  32. So ILM says it's all dead and buried and time to move on - yet it doesn't seem to stop him (and the MSM) trashing GP/LH and the investigation "fiasco" does it?

    Slimeballs!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rico has hoisted the “it’s about abuse survivors” banner but as I have suggested, he raises a great number of other issues. I extracted 17 such issues from the 20 minutes of his interview.
    Of course, they are related issues – just as the Turin Shroud is related to a brutal murder 2,000 years ago – but that relationship is not integral. I would say that the Shroud has no relevance at all as evidence about the crime which millions of people will be talking about this weekend.

    Similarly, Stuart Syvret has linked the issue of his driving licence et al with many others as being related to his own battles and, ultimately to those of the abuse survivors.

    Over time, and if the various claims are repeated often enough, they do all become part of the mix that appears to form a cohesive whole. It becomes ever more difficult to separate the issues to discover “the truth.” Some people believe that the Shroud is relevant. I do not. Furthermore, I would say that it is actually misleading for those who seek answers.

    Rico has researched and blogged at extraordinary length about many “peripheral” issues that, to my mind do not belong under the survivors’ banner. For example, on here now he writes about Police bullying and I would have thought that such matters were better examined elsewhere under a more appropriate banner.
    That is up to Rico of course – he can choose his subjects and methods for dealing with them. But it is unfortunate I suggest, to claim that “it’s about the abuse survivors” whilst writing or talking instead about so many other issues.

    Similarly, I have no quibble with “Rico the blogger” being interviewed by another blogger – his views are interesting enough – so why not? Evidently too, since Le Marquand and Le Sueur and so many others from our government will not be questioned on camera (or at all), there must be a great temptation to fill that empty chair.
    It’s the context under the banner that troubles me.

    Rico offers the figure of 192 individual victims of child abuse. Under the “it’s about abuse survivors “ banner, the first question that occurs to me is how many of these people still have unresolved matters? Obviously some have died. Others will not wish to take any further action now but there are evidently some who seek some further remedy, response, retribution or recognition.
    I am not interested in the figure as such but think that Rico (and others who blog on this issue) should research the matter if “presuming” to speak or write factually on the survivors behalf.

    It would be much better, in my mind, if abuse survivors were able to advocate their own cause more directly. In an ideal world it would not be necessary of course - but we are where we are. However, if the intention is to inform the general public and to gain support for some further action or other, then I need it stated much more clearly what action that might be.
    In my view, there is little point in writing or talking endlessly about human fragments or other found items unless there is some supportive witness statement or other reliable evidence.
    Mere rumour is an inadequate motivator and I need more certain forensic guidance.

    Unfortunately, there is always the danger that the fibres from the tweed coat worn by a child abuser might become more important than the child, both in and out of court.

    Presumably there has always been the restraint of pending legal actions to prevent some survivors from speaking in public. Maybe the States Inquiry will address these matters and more. In the meantime I shall continue to read Rico’s blog outpourings and if necessary will respond.
    What more do you expect from me?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Tom Gruchy

    Where does the 192 come from? Have just listened to both interviews and nothing. I thought rico said he was looking at graham power and lenny harper because they ere pivotal to the whole abuse enquiry. Im sure he will have his own view on this. As for senator ian le marquand is he not part of the trashing wagon of discredit the police under power & harper and by doing that le marquand is trying to show that the investigation was flawed and if that happens who suffers at the end? The victims of the abuse. As far as I can see it is all linked and easy to follow. We are able to comment because they are putting the effort in. Cheers lads see you at the weekend

    ReplyDelete
  35. Tom, it seems to me that far from being a peripheral issue, the matter of police bullying goes to the heart of the attempts by the MSM to deny the abuse and discredit the survivors. By flying in the face of the HMI reports and accusing GP and LH of presiding over a force where bullying was endemic, it has the effect of discrediting what they said about the abuse. It is no longer peripheral then but to the heart of the matter. Likewise, the matter of the human bones. You say they should not discussed unless supported by statements. I remember not so long ago Lenny Harper asking what had happened to the statement of the pathologist at the university in Sheffield who described the bones he examined as human juvenile and fleshed and fresh when they were burnt and buried. Surely this all goes to the heart of the matter and to the credibility of the abuse survivors?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Instead of arguing why can’t people wait until the public enquiry is undertaken and then put its findings under scrutiny? I never bought the Rico Sorda view of things or his cohorts and never will, its hearsay, erratic and in many cases totally illogical but a public enquiry should show this and all can be put to rest.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous.

    Could you give us examples of this?

    " its hearsay, erratic and in many cases totally illogical"

    ReplyDelete
  38. Tom, where do I start? The beginning I guess.

    When I started out on this in 2008 I was just a normal person who didn't give a monkeys and really had no idea about politics in Jersey. That all changed in February 2008. Hang on, when I played in a punk band I wrote some songs about Jersey Life, also in 2002 I wrote one about Roger Holland so maybe it was just waiting to burst out. So, back in 2008 I had zero idea about anything, the benefit I got from this was, I didn't have any preconceived ideas about who was good who was bad I just listened, learned and started researching. Tom, you must remember me in those days just trying to do something, anything, meeting like minded people. Im doing this with no rules. I do what I think is right and I trust my instinct on what I do. The good thing with me is that I don't have years of political fighting behind me .

    Tom, where did I say this; Rico offers the figure of 192 individual victims of child abuse. Under the “it’s about abuse survivors “ banner

    Im not saying I haven't but I cant find it. Maybe VFC can help? What's this "banner" bit.

    I think Anonmyous at 16;57 hits on the head and I thank them for pointing it out. Tom, have you actually listened to the interviews or were you just writing the topics. I value your comment and thanks for making them. Lets not complicate things here.

    We are plebs with laptops trying to do a job that our MSN refuse to do.

    No matter what road this journey takes us down what topics are covered none of us are forgetting the Abuse Survivors. This is a huge story and covers many topics.

    "What more do you expect from me?"

    Less Grumpy would be a start

    RS

    ReplyDelete
  39. "I never bought the Rico Sorda view of things or his cohorts and never will, its hearsay, erratic and in many cases totally illogical but a public enquiry should show this and all can be put to rest."

    It's the "never will" that lets you down here.

    What should an COI show? Could you please explain exactly what you mean so the readers of VFC can digest it...

    ReplyDelete
  40. 192 figure in stats - Rico Sorda blog 18 April 2011.
    Tom Gruchy says

    ReplyDelete
  41. "It's the "never will" that lets you down here."

    Let me down? Its up to YOU to prove to the world that there have been cover-ups and I see no proof.

    Everytime I visit your blog its going around in circles. The cover-up/white wash argument is another way of saying to your readers -"well I 'think' something has happened, but its actually only a theory because my proof is only Hansard".

    Therefore to finally get away from this spinning situation a Public enquiry into the historic abuse investigation is the only way things can be looked at properly and more importantly, sensibly.

    I also hope that Rico is involved in the enquiry as he seems to know more about whats going on than the rest of the Planet.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous.

    Sorry but I did ask Could you give us examples of this?

    " its hearsay, erratic and in many cases totally illogical"

    ReplyDelete
  43. I doubt a Committee of Inquiry will resolve much at all, by the time our cover up merchants have watered down the TOR, it would be virtually meaningless but for appearances sake.

    Unless of course, they start playing their evasive little tricks again. OH, we forgot to send part D!!!

    The only way a C.O.I will aid the survivors, or future children in care, is to have a FULL INQUIRY EMITTING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING....

    All the voting about what should be allowed to be investigated is just the recipe for another cover up.

    "there are non as blind as the sighted, who refuse to open their own eyes."

    ReplyDelete
  44. Surely the TOR for the COI into the Jersey Child Abuse, must be well on the way?

    With Senator Le Gresley the instigator, lets hope it is.

    But is the above now not going to happen because 1/Le Seuer & Ozouf have convinced other politicians and the public that there is no money available for it. And 2/The property (HDLG), is now too busy (fully booked out for at least a year). So therefore public inquiring people will not be welcome on these busy and popular grounds?!

    ReplyDelete
  45. And in addition to my last outburst, I wish the survivors would sue the arses off the abusers, and then the Establishment!!!

    Let's get the names of the abusers, and the facts out there in the public domain :)

    ReplyDelete
  46. "I doubt a Committee of Inquiry will resolve much at all"

    LMFHO...!

    Talk about going around and around and round.......He of little faith may as well give up now.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hi Anonymous

    Thanks for digging this out;192 figure in stats - Rico Sorda blog 18 April 2011.
    Tom Gruchy says

    I thought Tom Gruchy was on about my interview. Someone asked for the stats on my own blog so I posted them. There are many issues to be resolved concerning HdelaG the building.

    Im a strong believer in talking face to face as a lot can get lost in email and text. The only way for this issue to be sorted once and for all, is all interested parties sitting around a table and talking. This is not the Jersey way but would solve a lot of problems. Just my opinion.

    I think we all await the TOR's for the COI.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  48. We undoubtedly, shall see!

    You obviously have no idea whatsoever of the lengths these people will go to. I told VFC that Napier would be covered up or whitewashed, WAS I WRONG?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Napier is a very damning report. You can only imagine what the first draft was like before our lot sent it to Besco laundry for a good old spin dry. It's the media that downplay everything concerning these issues or just don't play them.

    Now, there are strange things going on. Look at how the JEP shape things politicly on the Island. As with the Child Abuse Scandal they do as they are told. We now seem to be in Operation remove Freddy Cohen but why?

    Tom Gruchy that could be one for you.

    What concerns me, and always has,is the fact that our Government has done nothing in stopping the actions of TLS & ILM.

    Look at what ILM did with Wiltshire. Not only did he do it but he did it with the full backing of the MSM and apart from a couple of decent honest politicians did it unchallenged. Our Government should have had ILM out of office faster than a Usain Bolt 100 mtrs.

    This Governmet is seriously flawed, it lacks integrity, it lacks leadership and it lacks Balls.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  50. "I also hope that Rico is involved in the enquiry as he seems to know more about whats going on than the rest of the Planet."

    ROFL.:-)

    It does come across that way sometimes Rico, you seem so certain about things yet nobody outside of your blogging world in the States appears to be care. Sen.Ozouf's blog has no mention of any of this.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Napier has more meaning to Graham Power than anybody else but the Deputy CM hit the nail on the head in the States Sitting of 5th April 2011 quote:

    "I perhaps have had the benefit of looking at this issue afresh having been advised that the Chief Minister was not going to be here. I have had to research these answers and come up with the explanation to the Assembly. I have to say that I am astonished having looked at this issue afresh with almost no baggage in relation to it. There is no confusion. The terms of reference as originally set out have been included in the report. There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s but more importantly, the issues that the Deputy continues to suggest were not covered in the terms of reference have been covered in the report. I simply over the last few hours, and I have spent a few hours over the last day looking at this… I do not understand what the issue is. I think the continued suggestion that there has somehow been a problem in this report is frankly a waste of the Chief Minister’s time and it has been a waste of my time in the last few hours."

    Well that answers it for me because your making a mountain out of nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "you seem so certain about things yet nobody outside of your blogging world in the States appears to be care"

    But you do.

    You cant stop reading VFC, SS and RS blogs. You read the blogs comment on the posting and then say that no one cares lol priceless.

    VFC Asked you this;

    Anonymous.

    Sorry but I did ask Could you give us examples of this?

    " its hearsay, erratic and in many cases totally illogical"

    And you gave us this:

    "I also hope that Rico is involved in the enquiry as he seems to know more about whats going on than the rest of the Planet."

    ROFL.:-)

    "It does come across that way sometimes Rico, you seem so certain about things yet nobody outside of your blogging world in the States appears to be care. Sen.Ozouf's blog has no mention of any of this."

    Why does it hurt you so much. What is it that really hurts you so much about the work we do. We are fighting this Government for some Truth, Honesty and Integrity over the whole Child Abuse Scandal and yet you just cant handle that. If VFC lets one more comment of yours through I want it to be the one where you explain exactly why you hate the work that we do.

    You never answer anything. So, Im asking VFC do not allow anymore of these comments through unless he starts giving a proper in depth opinion as to why he hates what we do so much.

    I have been very open with what I do

    Now lets here why you are the way you are

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  53. "The terms of reference as originally set out have been included in the report. There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’

    Now just look at this. I will be blogging on this very soon.

    The TOR's get passed in the States. Thats our Government agreeing a set of TOR's for Brian Napier they are debated voted on and passed but what happens. look carefully at the answer unlike the person who posted it;

    "There were some changes made. They are minor"

    That is incredible. The TOR's have been altered. The DCM has admitted it right there. Is that how our CM, DCM their Civil Servants should be operating.

    How small is Minor?

    Nothing should have been changed

    "They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s but more importantly, the issues that the Deputy continues to suggest were not covered in the terms of reference have been covered in the report"

    Brian Napier QC knows one thing and that is he cant alter the TOR's and nor is it professional to do so, is it even legal?

    Just look carefully at the answer given by the DCM who also now sounds stupid because he is trying to defend something he cant.

    Just crazy

    And the very best bit

    "Well that answers it for me because your making a mountain out of nothing."

    Bloody Priceless

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  54. "There were some changes made. They are minor"

    Rico, is the Treasury Minister telling us that Brian Napier QC altered the Terms of Reference that was democratically passed in the States of Jersey. I for one find this very hard to believe. Surly Brian Napier wouldn't do that. How many lies have their been now? If Brian Napier changed or altered his Terms of Reference he is finished for the simple reason who would trust him in any further reviews.

    "They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s"

    ReplyDelete
  55. Phillip Ozouf knows full well that Brian Napier QC DID NOT change his own Terms of Reference. He also knows full well who DID.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Furthermore the person who DID change the Napier TOR's (without reference to the States) is actually under investigation....something else that Phillip Ozouf knows full well.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Why does it hurt you so much. What is it that really hurts you so much about the work we do. We are fighting this Government for some Truth, Honesty and Integrity over the whole Child Abuse Scandal and yet you just cant handle that."

    Nothing you do hurts anybody but when challenged you are evidently the first people to start hurting!

    The terms of reference of the Napier report according to the very top of our Government are irrelevant. Now if that comes from the very top together with the former Magistrate then what the heck do you think you can do to change any of it now? I will put you out of your misery, nothing.

    We've had umpteen questions in the States and the answers have always been the same. Its now classed as time wasting and negative and thats because people are not hurting for it but they are simply bored of it.

    Thats what came out of Philip.O's speech loud and clear to me, but I don't what anybody else with an open mind thought?

    ReplyDelete
  58. This is just great.

    "The terms of reference of the Napier report according to the very top of our Government are irrelevant."

    The TOR's are irrelevant to a report and that's from the TOP of our government just bl--dy priceless!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Fair play because the VFC blog is busier than everywhere else at the moment and whats happened to Planet Jersey, has somebody died?

    ReplyDelete
  60. I just logged onto facebook and 37 people out of 132 friends are online right now. Thats where everybody is guys/gals/believers/non believers etc.

    The rest must be at Church or the boozer.:-0

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anon recently said - "Thats what came out of Philip.O's speech loud and clear to me, but I don't what anybody else with an open mind thought?"

    I have an open (not vacant) mind. I read many blogs and very rarely comment. I read them because I know from long personal experience that what the bloggers are calling the MSM traditionally present a one-sided view. This is a simple statement of fact.

    I also regularly listen to the States.

    As an impartial reader/listener, I can honestly say that I am not at all convinced by Philip Ozouf's intervention - any more than I am convinced by TLS or ILM.

    To my mind, they have so far successfully managed to evade answering direct questions and have also presented what appear to be contradictory answers on occasion. Despite this, and, unfortunately, with the help of the "MSM", people are indeed now generally disinterested in the whole abuse issue. To my mind, the COM's tactic was initially to deflect interest away from actual abuse and on to the investigation itself. This has clearly been a successful tactic. Next, they have dragged the issue on for so long that it is now very tired. Again, a successful tactic.

    The next move is the COI. But when? I suspect that there will soon be moves to defer this until after the "general election". Would such a move succeed? Well, that's up to our politicians.

    In the meantime, I will continue to read these blogs because, in amongst the many understandable "rants", there is sufficient information to make me feel that we, the public, deserve far more honest, straightforward information from our politicians. A utopian hope, I know, but there we are!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Les Grumphy says

    Never mind all this tittle-tattle. When is this blog going to start addressing what it says on Rico's banner viz "it's about abuse survivors."?

    I have read a great deal here about Rico and his rude political awakening and the failings of almost every being that moves in government or the judicial system -but what is to be said about the "abuse survivors."?

    They have surely suffered enough indignities already over many years. Why can nobody - so it seems - adequately analyse and express their current needs as a "group" or as individuals here?

    ReplyDelete
  63. "To my mind, the COM's tactic was initially to deflect interest away from actual abuse and on to the investigation itself. This has clearly been a successful tactic."

    Indeed the former Jersey Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, talked in-depth on this "tactic" in thisINTERVIEW

    ReplyDelete
  64. VFC

    You are being very generous with this Anonymous poster. He was asked a specific question by Rico and again he comes back with nothing.

    "Nothing you do hurts anybody but when challenged you are evidently the first people to start hurting!"

    When will we see this posters evidence? He has offered nothing. In the computer world this is referred to as a Troll. The Troll will keep posting and never ever offer anything in the way of facts because that is not his aim. The work you bloggers have been doing is courageous and History making for the simple reason that the entrenched Government has never been challenged like this before. I find the interview of Mr Sorda very revealing because here for the first time someone has shown the courage to identify himself on written and video format. I have no doubt that people who read these comment will understand the roll being played by the one who is blind and offers nothing. These are ground breaking times for you bloggers, keep up the fantastic work.

    Mr Anonymous you are yet to answer the questions asked by VFC and Rico Sorda

    Why is this? VFC if he doesn't explain himself then do the decent thing. The work you do is more important than his non contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  65. At 5.04 on part 2 rico tells us how it really is. I agree with what he says. Why did the politicians just sit back and let it happen? Can anyone explain why Senator Le Marquand was allowed to get away with this. These are very serious issues being raised.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Not ALL politicians have remained quiet. There are a number of politicians who have been very vocal, notably Deputies Hill, Pitman, Wimberley, Higgins, Tadier, Constable Crowcroft to name but a few.

    Deputy Hill has brought a number of propositions, without which the cover-up would have been much easier enabled.

    The relentless questioning by Deputy Hill and others has exposed the contradictions and non-sensical party-line churned out by the Powers that be for what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  67. It has to be Bill Ogley?

    The person responsible but not accountable, for getting rid of, destroying, mislaying, accidently ommitting the vital part d.

    But at the end of next month, Ogley goes and part d's disappearance can safely be blamed on him, (along with many other wrong doings that need to go).

    Because the huge Golden Hand Shake he will receive on leaving is the deal allowing himself to be the scape goat and making sure that he is nowhere to be found for the forseable future.

    Basically its: Take the money and run. No conscience required!

    ReplyDelete
  68. haha, what goes around will surely come around, and NO man escapes retribution :)

    ReplyDelete
  69. And....whilst we are at it, this stupid Jersey notion that "you cannot be prosecuted because you have left office" bullcrap, is pure fiction.

    Anyone can be hauled in front of a "legitimate" court, and at any time :)

    UNLUCKY BILLY BOY !!!

    OH, AWESOME Word V "hangsivi" but I think not :)

    ReplyDelete
  70. I thought I would clear up a little point that I made in the video. I said that it was crazy how our Government just sat back and let it happen. They sat back and let the Home Affairs Minister conduct the most brazen act of ( what word does it justice? ) with the Wiltshire Report that there should have been uproar and ending with his removal of office.

    Now, by saying that im not being disrespectful in any way to the good honest politicians that have stood up and thought the corner for Truth, Honesty and Justice but what must be remembered is that the ordinary person in the street is so fed up with their Government, are not politicized, so that you are all tarred with the same brush.

    The likes of Bob Hiil, Daniel Wimberly, The Pitmans, Monty have stood up and been counted.

    For me they did what good honest people should do. It really shows the level of Government we have when we praise people for asking decent honest questions and the they themselves get slagged off in the MSM for asking them.

    In my 20 minute Interview I sat down with no script or any idea what I was being asked. I was nervous as hell, I hadn't done anything like that before but did so for reasons I give at the beginning of part 1. If I wanted to say everything I needed to say it would have ended up being a 'Box Set' and a boring one at that.

    It is what it is and I did it for all the right reasons.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  71. "The likes of Bob Hiil, Daniel Wimberly, The Pitmans, Monty have stood up and been counted.

    For me they did what good honest people should do."

    You mean waste even more time and money on a suspension that was justified more than enough in the end by the Wiltshire findings no matter what counter arguments are tabled?

    If everybody was so 'honest' then why do they suffer from selective blindness?

    Personally I think the people you mention have wasted so much time on this subject, other much more important issues have been ignored. A one trick pony as they say.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Les Grumphy says

    So far there have been 160 comments in response to this two part interview.
    The first comment was from Deputy Tadier - there have been no subsequent responses from the other 52 members. What does this say about our elected reps - especially with regard to the "abuse survivors" issue?

    Of course it falls within the 17 issues identified in Rico's interview - but is political representation/accountability more or less peripheral than bullying police - so far as the "abuse survivors" are concerned?

    ReplyDelete
  73. "on a suspension that was justified more than enough in the end by the Wiltshire findings"

    There we have it "Jersey Justice" not a single word of the defence case and somebody found guilty on un-proven allegations from the prosecution. The Chief Minister has conceded that the former Police Chief is innocent.

    Ian Le Marquand has been allowed to spend over a million quid on something that has been described as nothing more than a personal vendetta.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "suffering from selective blindness?"

    You mean like giving full weight to the Wiltshire Report and completely ignoring the HMIC Reports, ACPO and the NPIA ?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Les Grumphy

    You are correct. Where are they indeed plus the vast majority all click on.

    It's the bigger picture with Senator ILM. I know where im coming from on this and so does he.

    Les Grumphy

    What is the law concerning TOR's passed in the states? Is it right that a QC alters his own TOR as alleged by Senator Ozouf? We all know that a minor alteration can have a huge impact.

    The Abuse Survivors have never been a concern to the vast majority of our Government. All the issues cross over. But lets not forget one very important point.

    No Bloggers

    This would have been buried years ago

    I live for being positive

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  76. "What does this say about our elected reps - especially with regard to the "abuse survivors" issue?"

    Yes but what relevance is Rico Sorda to States Members and be honest here? I do not want to sound harsh but do the JCLA write posts like his on their website or to the Media?

    VFC is respected by more people than most blogs, but thats simply down to the behaviour of their writers.

    VFC should do an up to date interview with the JCLA and stop interviewing people who are seemingly only using the abuse scandal to promote a handful of deputies, a number of whom that have amusingly been described as either thick or traitors elsewhere.

    Your mixture of comments say it all. Whenever the JCLA do release any statements they get much more attention in the Island than any of this, VFC should work more closely with them.

    ReplyDelete
  77. All the issues must be looked at concerning the Child Abuse Scandal. The Government must include themselfs in any Committee of Enquiry as their own conduct has been just awful

    ReplyDelete
  78. "seemingly only using the abuse scandal to promote a handful of deputies, a number of whom that have amusingly been described as either thick or traitors elsewhere"

    Now we know who writes T.Le Mains speeches lol. VFC you owe me I have spilt hot coffee down my front as I was laughing so much. I feel it in my water that its only a matter of time lol.

    VFC, a question.

    Do you think Anonymous will be at the wheel of the Le Main campaign Minibus in number 2 district this October. Loud speaker on the roof microphone in hand and delivering campaign speeches along the lines of

    " Come out and vote you traitors, we know where you live. If you don't vote for honest Terry your hoses will be all over facebook. People of number 2 your Terry needs you. He will walk out the states if the traitors try and bring in democracy. Please jump in the Minibus and pick up your free ride to Armageddon, your man of the people needs you, more than you need him. So, what do you get out of it I hear you ask, well let me tell you, oh you don't get it do you HAHAHAHAH, your time will come. Come join our campaign trail, more destruction than American precision bombing, the minibus is ready. So please vote for the Anonymous Terry le main or I will get the whole district sacked."

    ReplyDelete
  79. Yes but what relevance is Rico Sorda to States Members


    If he's correct in saying that ILM ran away from him when challenged I would say a big relevance. What I would say to Anonymous, for what it's worth, is that the pro-active stance of Rico Sorda is allowing you a voice. Who is the one doing the real work?

    Jersey has many problems. The issues raised in the interviews and highlighted by Tom Gruchy are very serious indeed. Only an ignoramus would turn their back on what is being discussed here. There lies the problem. More people are required to challenge the Government as the issues are so vast. How can Rico & VFC tackle so many of these problems without more help, the Blogs are a lifeline. I also include myself in the above.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I like the way Mr Anonymous addresses Mr Anonymous on here, very funny!

    Once again the posts resort to personal attacks and this time against Sen. T. Le Main who has nothing to do with the 'closed' abuse investigation, so its the same old story.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Once again the posts resort to personal attacks and this time against Sen. T. Le Main who has nothing to do with the 'closed' abuse investigation, so its the same old story."

    I would say his voting has contributed to the 'closed' abuse investigation, he is not alone in that fact. A certain vast majority of states member have voted against every debate concerning the child abuse investigation and suspension of Graham Power.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  82. Its the States of Jersey Police who closed the historic child abuse investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Well, to be a little more specific, it was the States of Jersey Police under the leadership of David Warcup that closed down Operation Rectangle. Which left ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN SUSPECTS NOT CHARGED a staggering NINETY THREE PER CENT of the them.

    ReplyDelete
  84. If the professional opinion of the Blogs is that David Warcup is the reason the Historic Abuse investigation was closed after all the run up publicity then I am gob smacked.

    But a Public inquiry should clear up all these knee jerk assumptions and accusations in due course.

    You also should address basic facts like people who have since died, the lack of forensic proof to back up statements in Court and possible bogus statements, or distorted versions of events over time.

    This isn't trolling, this is the law. If you make a claim then you have to prove it and with a 20 year minimum gap, that in itself is a massive problem.

    But I think the police have been pretty straight with these points and this is why previous Police officers were accused of not being realistic with the victims from the offset.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Look at who accused the previous officers of not being realistic with witnesses - those with an agenda and a vested interest in the abuse allegations being discredited and again covered up. None of those who made statements to the police team have ever said they were given false hope, on the contrary, they were treated with respect,in marked contrast to the way Warcup and Gradwell treated them.

    ReplyDelete
  86. You also should address basic facts like people who have since died, the lack of forensic proof to back up statements in Court and possible bogus statements, or distorted versions of events over time.

    Isn't that what the police do before sending the file off to the law office? You can't get away from the fact that the buck stops at the law office. No one in Jersey gets prosecuted in Jersey unless the law office say so.

    Things can disappear at the law office or just stop dead in their tracks.

    Lets take LAND RE-ZONING for a quick example

    In November 2008 Deputy Labey went to the police about serious allegations of corruption with the above.

    We are now coming into May 2011 - and what

    But this is an incredible story in itself and one that needs telling

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  87. "If the professional opinion of the Blogs is that David Warcup is the reason the Historic Abuse investigation was closed after all the run up publicity then I am gob smacked."

    Firstly I'm not sure what "professional opinion of the Blogs" is supposed to mean. Personally speaking I don't see my views on the Child Abuse cover-up as "professional" I do however see them as extremely well researched, factually and evidenced based.

    Secondly my "opinion" is that David Warcup was put in place to trash and close down the Abuse Investigation both of which he did. My opinion is based on documented evidence and facts.

    "But a Public inquiry should clear up all these knee jerk assumptions and accusations in due course."

    As already explained there is nothing "knee jerk" about any of this. We must hope then, that a Civil Servant will not be able to tamper with the Terms of Reference as is "evident" with the Napier Report.

    "You also should address basic facts like people who have since died,"

    I did, 30 suspects out of 151 have died that leaves 121. Out of those 121 eight were charged. That, as previously stated leaves a staggering 93% (113) not facing charges.

    "the lack of forensic proof to back up statements in Court."

    You clearly haven't clicked on the link above which I suggest you do as It is full of forensic evidence. Furthermore how can the proof of witnesses statements be tested in court when you have the likes of Mick Gradwell and David Warcup saying cellars at Haute de la Garenne don't exist, when they clearly do?

    ReplyDelete
  88. "In November 2008 Deputy Labey went to the police about serious allegations of corruption with the above."

    You are making this sound like the allegations are true and its just up to the law offices department to press charges.

    Now to me thats kangaroo court and incredibly dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Please explain just one thing.

    What is the point/objective of Warcup and Gradwell, with their wealth of experience and reputation on the line, solely coming over to Jersey specifically to trash this inquiry on behalf of Persons X?

    It doesn't make any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  90. What facts will Anonymous use to challenge your comment VFC

    Look forward to seeing it

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  91. 'You are making this sound like the allegations are true and its just up to the law offices department to press charges."

    UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

    "ALLEGATIONS"

    rs

    Operation Rose

    ReplyDelete
  92. Illegally suspending the Chief Police Officer on disputed managerial issues does make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  93. "What facts will Anonymous use to challenge your comment VFC

    Look forward to seeing it

    rs"

    Thats all it is though, a comment.

    Haven't Home Affairs or the Police already said why they cannot proceed with charges? I am sure they said it was down to a number of items mainly due to lack of evidence and time factors.

    If you do not believe this and would rather go with the cover-p theory then its stalemate and will remain so.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I have said it before and I will say it again

    Is there any record of Gradwell & Warcup ever stepping foot inside HdelaG? The building had been handed back when they came over.

    Before stating there were no cellars you would have expected them to have been up there

    But did they?

    ReplyDelete
  95. "UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

    "ALLEGATIONS"

    rs"

    Exactly and if proven to be unfounded a serious repercussion for the accuser.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Les Grumphy says - don't want to be tedious but I would like to try again to direct the discussion towards the "abuse survivors."
    This means people who have been abused (as children) and have survived.
    They are, or should be (it is claimed), the subject of the "discussion."
    They are not the only ones who can participate of course. Some people might have some more specific knowledge of the child care system or be related to people who were abused but have not survived. There are many and varied people who might claim a particular interest or knowledge but I do not think it helpful or necessary to extend this discussion so far as defects or corruption in the planning process.

    I have looked at the discussion here so far. Comments have been published from;
    1 States mamber, 12 named persons, 9 nom de plumes, 14 Ian Evans, 17 VfC, 32 Rico Sorda, 6 other blogs and 78 anonymous authors.

    This does not reveal much about who is motivated enough to make comments but it is significant that across the board, very few have much to say precisely about "abuse servivors."
    "Why should this be?

    Almost all the discussion is about "peripheral" issues - we are not learning much about the welfare of "abuse survivors" now, how many still want prosecutions to proceed, whether those who have appeared in court seek the same things now as those who have not etc. Also, what specific political actions would be acceptable to survivors now etc?
    There is no shortage of relevant questions to be asked.

    As previously referred to, Rico has highlighted at least 17 other issues in his interview. All these arise with or without child abuse and can be examined with or without child abuse considerations.

    Rico says that he has been politicised by the "abuse" cause and has participated in protest marches and so on and now devotoes many hours to his blog.

    The odd thing is that all the 17 issues only reveal everyday defects that exist in Jersey which anybody could have discovered, if only they had looked.

    In other words, Rico and presumably others, have only been made aware of Jersey's multitude of problems because of and in the context of, child abuse issues.

    So, whilst many other issues do have a relevance to the central abuse survivor one, I would make this final plea for the discussion here to be concentrated upon that. Assuming of course, that Graham Power and Rico and others are correct and this is the one main issue that is being ignored or suppressed or is otherwise kept hidden for some reason or other.

    There can surely be nothing to prevent this being discussed fully here on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  97. There are several aspects to this whole issue -
    1. There seem to be no realistic grounds for denial that abuse within the child protection system has taken place over the decades. What is still contentious is the extent of that abuse and what was or was not done over the decades to identify and prevent the abuse.
    2. The quality of the initial investigations carried out under Messrs Power and Harper.
    3. The true reasons why Mr Power was suspended in the first place.
    4. The true reasons for the continued suspension of Mr Power and the subsequent withdrawal of all charges against him just before he retired.
    5. The effectiveness of the roles of Messrs Warcup and Gradwell.
    6. The political environment in which all of the above was acted out.

    There will inevitably be difficulties in carrying out successful prosecutions of such historically based cases and there might well have been genuine legal reasons why some cases could not be pursued. But, especially following the announcement by the Police that the Inquiry was at an end, there was no political reason why our elected representatives could not have openly announced that the extent of the abuse was probably considerably greater than those few cases that have been successfully won. This would at least have been a more honest approach. Unless, of course, the reasons were financial. By this I mean that the burden of proof in criminal cases is heavy (beyond reasonable doubt) whilst any claims from abuse victims in civil court would be less weighty - on a balance of probabilities - and therefore any admission on the part of the government concerning the true extent of abuse could be costly.

    In the wider public interest, one can only hope that the proposed Committee of Inquiry is given adequate terms of reference (to be adhered to and not altered subsequent to approval by the States) and that its members are sufficiently able, honest and independent to investigate and report in a timely and effective manner. A wishful dream? Let's hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Exactly and if proven to be unfounded a serious repercussion for the accuser.

    Then why is it taking so long?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Im glad the interview got a reaction.

    When I started out on this road it was because of the victims of child abuse. I wasn't political, new nothing, and had no idea where this would lead me. But like must things it's when you start looking and investigating that it takes you down many different paths. I have never lost site of why I do this. I would say this; of the (17) points I raise how many of those points have the MSM tackled and cleared up with some good old investigative journalism?

    The reason you have been able to read about the obvious 17 points is simple the pleb bloggers noticed them and investigated them.

    Anonymous you said

    "The odd thing is that all the 17 issues only reveal everyday defects that exist in Jersey which anybody could have discovered, if only they had looked".

    Yes, that simple but nobody is looking or wanting to look.

    Im just a person a nobody but I have tried to do something. I have come through all types of Abuse and threats these past 3 years and why? why would someone be so scared about what we do.

    I will just carry on. I will make mistakes but carry on I will.

    To the person who came up to me on Saturday Night. Thank you so much for your kind words it's when I chat with people like your good self that it encourages me to carry on.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  100. With all due respect, carry on for whom? Yourself or the JCLA and if for the JCLA then why do they never mention you as one of their spokesman?

    Now let us have a reality check here, this investigation is closed, yet reading the comments on here you would think it is wide open and not 3 years + old but only just started.

    People do move on, like or hate it and until 'new' evidence comes to light neither you nor anybody else who has already stated they are 'not' a Historic Abuse Victim can change that or the Police's position on it.

    I have read every comment on here and elsewhere over the past 2 days (this being the busiest blog) and I would say this is a politically motivated subject as whenever a chance arises certain people in are always attacked.

    So perhaps when Anonymous asks where is the reading for the actual victims, he or she does have a point?

    ReplyDelete
  101. With all due respect, carry on for whom? Yourself or the JCLA and if for the JCLA then why do they never mention you as one of their spokesman?

    Victims, myself, Truth Honesty & Integrity, The JCLA.

    I have never been asked to stop what im doing. And obviously a lot more goes on behind the scenes than appears on the blog. So, onwards I go whistling my favorite tune.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  102. The reader who questions Rico's motives is quite entitled to his or her view. I happen to disagree.
    Rico does not have to represent anyone. It is his blog and he is entitled to his opinion.
    The historic abuse issue is not over - and it certainly should not be considered to be over. The States have agreed that a Committee of Inquiry will be formed to examine the matter.
    When it comes to the States debate on the terms of reference and the composition of the COI I sincerely hope that our politicians, who are supposed to represent us all, will ensure that there is a well-rounded debate. Whether this turns out to be the case remains to be seen. Past experience in such matters is not encouraging.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I think you will find a Public inquiry will just look back at it all, because lets face it, there cannot be anything new yet to be discovered away from what the Police do not know already.

    In relation to the comment from Rico saying "I have never been asked to stop what im doing." Indeed, but there is evidence on your blog and elsewhere that you have tried stopping others from what they are doing.

    In relation to the comment "the historic abuse issue is not over" I am sorry but it is.

    The Police have closed the files and you have to accept that sooner or later.

    Otherwise you are kidding yourself, the abuse victims and people who are none the wiser.

    People are entitled to do their own thing and pretend otherwise, but the blogs have been running with this story since it started and should really at least confirm whats happened. Having digs at Sates Members/Police Officers and others will not change what the Police have done. They need concrete proof of somethng to take such an action and open the files.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Indeed, but there is evidence on your blog and elsewhere that you have tried stopping others from what they are doing.

    Can you give examples

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  105. Can I just ask something?

    If it is true the Historic Abuse File has been closed by the Police then what can be done to hep abuse victims but give them professional help and advice?

    I am a bit lost as to what these Blogs or anybody else can do for them if their plight is no longer an ongoing Police issue?

    The claim that a blogger is only helping abuse victims get the truth is a bit sketchy and makes no sense if the Police have done all they can do already.

    But is the Bloggers know more than the Police say, then they should tell the Police what they know shouldn't they?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Some people are just stupid aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Re "Can you give examples"

    Looks like the answer, same as the answer to every question to the troll is No.

    Maybe a better question too which he could answer is, do you prefer Breda or Stella when sat at home trolling the blog sites and do you think Breda has gone downhill since brewed in guernsey. Simple questions to which I guess he is more than qualified to answer!!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Oh dear

    What about good old Carlsberg Special Brew or Bavaria 8.6

    The delusional thinking this clown does, he would have to be on something much stronger than Stella.

    ReplyDelete
  109. 1. The Troll is succesfully winding you lot up,so stop satisfying his needs.

    2.One of the 'Masters' at the jersey Home for Boys in the early fifties was removed by the police for 'fiddling' with one of the boys
    It seems to me,though I need it confirmed,that the majority of the abuse allegations are from the 60s
    onwards.

    3. Those 'cellars'.
    Why in the plural?
    The building is constructed on sloping land.The area in which the bath was located is at the lower end.When built,the floor at that end was a few feet higher and the room below was a workshop.Why the floor was eventually lowered I do not know,but it had the effect of turning what was a cellar, into what can be fairly described as a deep void.
    I cannot understand the ongoing dispute over the height of this area. Why should it have any bearing on the claims of abuse taking place down there?

    ex resident Jersey Home for Boys

    ReplyDelete